[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Trump - R_P - Sep 25, 2020 - 5:08pm
 
How's the weather? - Antigone - Sep 25, 2020 - 4:45pm
 
What Did You Do Today? - Antigone - Sep 25, 2020 - 4:45pm
 
KUDOS for BillG - KurtfromLaQuinta - Sep 25, 2020 - 3:36pm
 
Name My Band - Antigone - Sep 25, 2020 - 2:56pm
 
2020 Elections - kcar - Sep 25, 2020 - 2:09pm
 
COVID-19 - R_P - Sep 25, 2020 - 1:54pm
 
Looting & vandalism isn't protest - Red_Dragon - Sep 25, 2020 - 1:17pm
 
Counting with Pictures - pigtail - Sep 25, 2020 - 12:57pm
 
Integration of RP app with Apple Music playlists - BillG - Sep 25, 2020 - 12:14pm
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos - oldviolin - Sep 25, 2020 - 12:11pm
 
Canada - westslope - Sep 25, 2020 - 12:03pm
 
Supreme Court: Who's Next? - westslope - Sep 25, 2020 - 11:51am
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - Sep 25, 2020 - 10:58am
 
Radio Paradise NFL Pick'em Group - miamizsun - Sep 25, 2020 - 10:15am
 
This is Odd, Gross and a good excuse to be late for work - miamizsun - Sep 25, 2020 - 10:08am
 
Amazing animals! - rhahl - Sep 25, 2020 - 8:11am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - Coaxial - Sep 25, 2020 - 6:31am
 
Drop the Puck! NHL Lockout Ends! - sunybuny - Sep 25, 2020 - 5:35am
 
Baseball, anyone? - ScottFromWyoming - Sep 24, 2020 - 7:35pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - KurtfromLaQuinta - Sep 24, 2020 - 4:32pm
 
Animal Resistance - R_P - Sep 24, 2020 - 4:13pm
 
Bluesound Sound Dropouts - BillG - Sep 24, 2020 - 12:02pm
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - pigtail - Sep 24, 2020 - 10:28am
 
Language - Ohmsen - Sep 24, 2020 - 10:12am
 
• • • BRING OUT YOUR DEAD • • •  - miamizsun - Sep 24, 2020 - 5:59am
 
Film & Video Production - rgio - Sep 24, 2020 - 5:11am
 
Quotes: Your Favorite Comedians - Ohmsen - Sep 24, 2020 - 1:07am
 
Questions. - whatshisname - Sep 23, 2020 - 7:10pm
 
American Justice - Steely_D - Sep 23, 2020 - 6:09pm
 
Your favourite conspiracy theory? - R_P - Sep 23, 2020 - 4:56pm
 
*** PUNS *** ASTRONOMY - buddy - Sep 23, 2020 - 4:24pm
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - buddy - Sep 23, 2020 - 4:21pm
 
The Obituary Page - Ohmsen - Sep 23, 2020 - 10:56am
 
It's the economy stupid. - Red_Dragon - Sep 23, 2020 - 10:27am
 
how do you feel right now? - Steely_D - Sep 23, 2020 - 10:27am
 
WikiLeaks - Ohmsen - Sep 23, 2020 - 7:58am
 
Favorite Quotes - Coaxial - Sep 23, 2020 - 7:39am
 
Race in America - R_P - Sep 23, 2020 - 12:06am
 
The American Dream - kcar - Sep 22, 2020 - 11:49pm
 
Australia has Disappeared - haresfur - Sep 22, 2020 - 9:16pm
 
Strips, cartoons, illustrations - R_P - Sep 22, 2020 - 8:57pm
 
Evolution! - R_P - Sep 22, 2020 - 8:50pm
 
Trump Lies - R_P - Sep 22, 2020 - 2:45pm
 
Brazil - R_P - Sep 22, 2020 - 1:57pm
 
RP Daily Trivia Challenge - KurtfromLaQuinta - Sep 22, 2020 - 7:49am
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - Sep 21, 2020 - 9:29pm
 
Things I'd LIKE to find at my house. - Antigone - Sep 21, 2020 - 5:31pm
 
Lyrics that strike a chord today... - Steely_D - Sep 21, 2020 - 5:13pm
 
RP Main Mix on TuneIn unavailable? - DianaLipka - Sep 21, 2020 - 9:56am
 
Best Song Comments. - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Sep 21, 2020 - 5:37am
 
Trolls at RP - Steely_D - Sep 20, 2020 - 4:41pm
 
Facebook Tips - Ohmsen - Sep 20, 2020 - 2:37pm
 
Climate Change - R_P - Sep 20, 2020 - 12:34pm
 
Environment - R_P - Sep 20, 2020 - 9:56am
 
Lyrics That Remind You of Someone - oldviolin - Sep 20, 2020 - 9:15am
 
Is there any DOG news out there? - sirdroseph - Sep 20, 2020 - 7:29am
 
All Dogs Go To Heaven - Dog Pix - miamizsun - Sep 20, 2020 - 6:46am
 
Republican Party - sirdroseph - Sep 20, 2020 - 6:14am
 
FLAC Streaming - gsbaronnier - Sep 20, 2020 - 3:24am
 
Anti-War - R_P - Sep 19, 2020 - 4:57pm
 
Immigration - R_P - Sep 19, 2020 - 2:17pm
 
TV shows you watch - KurtfromLaQuinta - Sep 19, 2020 - 12:57pm
 
China - R_P - Sep 19, 2020 - 11:07am
 
Thank you, Bug. - miamizsun - Sep 19, 2020 - 6:53am
 
Things You Thought Today - Antigone - Sep 19, 2020 - 6:04am
 
Tech & Science - R_P - Sep 18, 2020 - 6:20pm
 
Gotta Get Your Drink On - miamizsun - Sep 18, 2020 - 1:59pm
 
Bad Poetry - oldviolin - Sep 18, 2020 - 11:05am
 
Private messages in a public forum - oldviolin - Sep 18, 2020 - 10:21am
 
honk if you think manbird and OV are one and the same ent... - oldviolin - Sep 18, 2020 - 10:14am
 
Buddy's Haven - oldviolin - Sep 18, 2020 - 9:14am
 
What The Hell Buddy? - oldviolin - Sep 18, 2020 - 8:10am
 
Today in History - Ohmsen - Sep 18, 2020 - 5:26am
 
Cryptic Posts - Leave Them Guessing - oldviolin - Sep 17, 2020 - 9:04pm
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » The Conservative War on Christmas Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Post to this Topic
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 10, 2011 - 12:49pm

 aflanigan wrote:
Fine, you think checkoff programs are incompatible with your free-market principles.  So are subsidies and many other things the government does.  That's not why conservatives are protesting this, is it?

Couldn't care less why conservatives are protesting it, I'm concerned that you think it's worth defending.

aflanigan

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 10, 2011 - 12:04pm

 kurtster wrote:

The ACLU was founded by card carrying communists.

That is reason evough to curse them and be suspicious of everything they do.
 

The USA was founded by slave owners.

That is reason enough to curse the USA and be suspicious of everything it does (right?)
aflanigan

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 10, 2011 - 11:57am

 Lazy8 wrote:

 

Fine, you think checkoff programs are incompatible with your free-market principles.  So are subsidies and many other things the government does.  That's not why conservatives are protesting this, is it?
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 10, 2011 - 10:12am

 aflanigan wrote:
I don't think characterizing the fee as "self imposed" is misleading at all.  The idea did not originate with Obama or the USDA but with the trade association representing Xmas tree growers (NCTA).  There was a months long comment period for input from growers, and most seemed to favor it.  And how does a "checkoff" fee imposed only on sales of natural trees force artificial tree makers to pay for it?  Your comment doesn't make sense.

You may feel that such checkoff programs, which have been popular with other produce, are not effective, and that's OK.  Maybe you could lobby for allowing small growers to opt out.  But the bloviators such as Sen. Jim DeMint who are howling and cursing Obama aren't arguing the merits of its effectiveness.  They are using (to borrow your words) "cheap rhetorical tricks" to slam Obama, and potentially harming Christmas Tree farmers just to score cheap political points.

Imagine an industry you're part of had some players active in a trade association (that you may not be a member of, may not agree with, may not even like) and decided they wanted to impose a fee on everybody in the industry to promote a product. If you aren't a member, would you even know about it? Would your first notification be a visit from a USDA enforcement officer three years later handing you a summons for the back taxes you didn't know you were supposed to be paying, plus a fine for non-compliance?

Being given an opportunity to object isn't the same thing as being allowed to opt out, or even vote on it. Or on the people that make the rules—this is an administratively-imposed tax, established by bureaucrats. Smaller players, again, will probably never hear about the hearings until they're over. If the magnanimous concession is made to let people opt out why involve the federal government in the first place? Make the industry fund its own promotion.

The check-off fee may cover the cost of the promotion, but does it cover the cost of collecting the fees, enforcement actions against those who don't cough it up, and administrative overhead? I seriously doubt it. Competitors are funding the USDA thru their taxes. Is the USDA going to create a check-off program to promote artificial christmas trees, or are they paying taxes to support an agency that's trying to put them at a competitive disadvantage?

The federal government is favoring one industry over others, tilting the playing field. This is not what governments are for.

I don't care what Jim DeMint thinks about it. His partisan theatrics don't justify anybody else's.

Proclivities

Proclivities Avatar

Location: Paris of the Piedmont
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 10, 2011 - 9:24am

 aflanigan wrote:


...to the extent that the title of this topic and the wording of my original post contained some hyperbole, chalk it up to my lame attempt at satire.

{#Wink}

 
band name

aflanigan

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 10, 2011 - 9:17am

 Lazy8 wrote:
Your article is quite misleading. This isn't an industry "imposing a fee on itself", which they don't need the USDA taxing tree farmers to do. Industry groups fund this kind of promotional effort themselves all the time. This is an example of crony capitalism.

Every grower, member of the trade group or not, pays this tax and deals with the overhead of accounting for it. The tax is supposed to cover the costs of the program, but I seriously doubt that every penny of administration and overhead at USDA would be. Taxpayers (including manufacturers of competing products) are chipping in to boost sales for one industry.

This program is a triumph of industry lobbying over the common good. Why aren't you outraged by its very existence? And why are you using the kind of cheap rhetorical tricks that you object to elsewhere?
 

I don't think characterizing the fee as "self imposed" is misleading at all.  The idea did not originate with Obama or the USDA but with the trade association representing Xmas tree growers (NCTA).  There was a months long comment period for input from growers, and most seemed to favor it.  And how does a "checkoff" fee imposed only on sales of natural trees force artificial tree makers to pay for it?  Your comment doesn't make sense.

You may feel that such checkoff programs, which have been popular with other produce, are not effective, and that's OK.  Maybe you could lobby for allowing small growers to opt out.  But the bloviators such as Sen. Jim DeMint who are howling and cursing Obama aren't arguing the merits of its effectiveness.  They are using (to borrow your words) "cheap rhetorical tricks" to slam Obama, and potentially harming Christmas Tree farmers just to score cheap political points.

As to your last question, to the extent that the title of this topic and the wording of my original post contained some hyperbole, chalk it up to my lame attempt at satire.

{#Wink}
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 10, 2011 - 8:49am

 aflanigan wrote:
Why does the Heritage Foundation hate genuine Christmas Trees so much?

Obama Administration to Delay New 15-Cent Christmas Tree Tax

Bill O'Reilly should be all over this story, any day now . . .

Your article is quite misleading. This isn't an industry "imposing a fee on itself", which they don't need the USDA taxing tree farmers to do. Industry groups fund this kind of promotional effort themselves all the time. This is an example of crony capitalism.

Every grower, member of the trade group or not, pays this tax and deals with the overhead of accounting for it. The tax is supposed to cover the costs of the program, but I seriously doubt that every penny of administration and overhead at USDA would be. Taxpayers (including manufacturers of competing products) are chipping in to boost sales for one industry.

This program is a triumph of industry lobbying over the common good. Why aren't you outraged by its very existence? And why are you using the kind of cheap rhetorical tricks that you object to elsewhere?

hippiechick

hippiechick Avatar

Location: topsy turvy land
Gender: Female


Posted: Nov 10, 2011 - 8:38am

 aflanigan wrote:


Yes, but my question was for Bill, not you.

 
I'm sorry...Didn't you see my hand up?

Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Nov 10, 2011 - 8:38am

ah, today's screaming match... buh bye, now.


aflanigan

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 10, 2011 - 8:36am

 hippiechick wrote:

Yes! Every citizen is entitled to legal representation. (Every person, citizen or not?)
 

Yes, but my question was for Bill, not you.
aflanigan

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 10, 2011 - 8:36am

 kurtster wrote:

Santa Claus on the government payroll violates the seperation between church and state doesn't it ?

 

So if conservatives suddenly believe in the separation clause, why do they accuse others who object to creches on government property for the same reason of making "war on Christmas"?  Why aren't they leading the war?

This is all too deliciously hypocritical!
hippiechick

hippiechick Avatar

Location: topsy turvy land
Gender: Female


Posted: Nov 10, 2011 - 8:34am

 aflanigan wrote:


Should Ted Bundy be entitled to legal representation?  Should Fred Phelps?

 
Yes! Every citizen is entitled to legal representation. (Every person, citizen or not?)

aflanigan

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 10, 2011 - 8:31am

 Monkeysdad wrote:


Should NAMBLA have ANY rights? The ACLU has gone to bat for them.

 

Should Ted Bundy be entitled to legal representation?  Should Fred Phelps?


aflanigan

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 10, 2011 - 8:30am

 Monkeysdad wrote:


Well I know the original post for topic had nothing to do with "conservatives" so I had to ask the question.

 

Actually, it did.  Read the story.  Pressure from the Heritage Foundation and other conservative pundits has derailed an industry-initiated promotional campaign aimed at boosting lagging natural Christmas tree sales.


Proclivities

Proclivities Avatar

Location: Paris of the Piedmont
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 10, 2011 - 6:17am

 bokey wrote:

I figure they just learned to keep their agenda quiet.
 
Perhaps, but it's an odd contradiction.  They're an organization which upholds and defends rights granted by the American Constitution - well, in theory.

bokey

bokey Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 10, 2011 - 6:08am

 Proclivities wrote:

Maybe it's enough for you, but that's a statement from the late 1920's, written by a man who left the ACLU over 60 years ago and died 30 years ago.
 
I figure they just learned to keep their agenda quiet.

sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 10, 2011 - 6:06am

 Proclivities wrote:
 kurtster wrote:

The ACLU was founded by card carrying communists.

That is reason evough to curse them and be suspicious of everything they do.

 
I like nostalgia as much as the next guy, but it's 2011, not 1950; "Tail-gunner Joe" is long dead, as is Kruschev.  The ACLU barred communist members in 1940.

 

{#Lol}I was going to say somethng similar, but that is funny!
Proclivities

Proclivities Avatar

Location: Paris of the Piedmont
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 10, 2011 - 5:58am

 bokey wrote:

   I think the statement  "Communism is the goal"  is more than enough.
 
Maybe it's enough for you, but that's a statement from the late 1920's, written by a man who left the ACLU over 60 years ago and died 30 years ago.

hippiechick

hippiechick Avatar

Location: topsy turvy land
Gender: Female


Posted: Nov 10, 2011 - 5:56am

 kurtster wrote:

Why ?  It is the truth.
 
For one thing, in 1940, the ACLU formally barred communists from leadership or staff positions, and would take the position that it did not want communists as members either.

Second, people as important as Ruth Bade Ginsburg have been involved with the ACLU. And the ACLU does a very important service of protecting everyone's Constitutional rights, no matter how controversial, because that is the purpose of the Constitution.

Third, they are an independent org, receiving almost all their funding from public donations and fees, so they are owned by no one. In fact, they rejected money from certain orgs because they had adopted language from the USA PATRIOT Act in their donation agreements, including a clause stipulating that none of the money would go to "underwriting terrorism or other unacceptable activities." The ACLU views this clause, both in Federal law and in the donors' agreements, as a threat to civil liberties, saying it is overly broad and ambiguous.

I am a card carrying member, btw.
Proclivities

Proclivities Avatar

Location: Paris of the Piedmont
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 10, 2011 - 5:56am

 kurtster wrote:

The ACLU was founded by card carrying communists.

That is reason evough to curse them and be suspicious of everything they do.

 
I like nostalgia as much as the next guy, but it's 2011, not 1950; "Tail-gunner Joe" is long dead, as is Kruschev.  The ACLU barred communist members in 1940.

"Communist Party attacks on a Socialist Party rally in Madison Square Garden in 1934 led Norman Thomas and John Haynes Holmes to call for banning Communists from ACLU leadership. In this same decade, the Dies Committee (the House Committee on Un-American Activities, popularly known as HUAC) concluded after its first hearings that one could not say with certainty whether or not the ACLU was a Communist organization. The ACLU responded by leading efforts to abolish the Dies Committee, assigning Abraham Isserman to write the first systematic analysis of the rights of witnesses before investigative committees (a report which Baldwin suppressed, perhaps in an agreement with HUAC) and working to clear the ACLU name. HUAC raids beginning in 1939, passage of the Smith Act in 1940 and state laws banning the Communist Party from the ballot served to increase concern about totalitarian organizations. In response to these growing concerns, the ACLU in 1940 adopted a policy barring Communist Party members from official positions in the organization, leading to the ouster of Elizabeth Gurley Flynn from the board and to the resignations of several others, including Harry Ward."

Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next