Wednesday, October 20, 2004

Defeating George Soros -One Call at a Time!

I joined a handful of Anti-Bush 527s during the primaries. I used silly fake names like Miranda, Bellafora, Trishenka, Cassandra and Spirit. I had a feeling the memberships would come in handy one day...and indeed they have. I get all the 'member email' that has information they don't post for public viewing on the websites. Moveon.org, Act Up, ANSWER and People for the American Way to name a few...

Over the course of the past three weeks I have read that Moveon.org was being hosted by various churches in the Philadelphia area. I looked up the tax law on various exemptions churches are afforded and the regulations that status entailed. I soon learned that churches were prohibitted from renting space to group(s) that endorse one candidate -or- the defeat of a specific candidate. Interesting...

I printed out this information and faxed it to the first offender: First United Methodist Church of Germantown. I also faxed them the text from Moveon.org's home page --which USED to be filled with anti-Bush rhetoric...but isn't anymore...hmmmm.... I informed them that many churches lost their tax-exempt status in the aftermath of the 2000 election, and they were in jeopardy of the same fate if they kept their date with Moveon...whose mission statement was to oust Bush.

The second church (which held their rally yesterday @ 4:15) was The Old Pine Street Presbyterian Church. I called early yesterday morning and spoke with the church secretary (who was quite rude I might add). She demanded to know 'who I was with' (I hope this is indicative of the fact that she was inundated with calls)...'no one' I answered demurely -and truthfully.
"Do you have Moveon's number? I think you should give them a call", she snipped.
"Why? They are not the one that are going to lose tax-exempt status...you are."
"I don't have anything to do with this. We are just renting the space."
Much to her dismay, I rattle through the tax law that clearly states their conflict of interest in renting their facilities to an organization that is blatantly promoting the defeat of a specific candidate.
"Well, it's just a voter drive."
"Actually Miss, let me read you the exact quote that was in the email that I received from Moveon...it says, and I quote, 'Join Howard Dean tomorrow and get involved immediately in the effort to defeat President Bush' and 'Almost every neighborhood in Philadelphia can help turn out hundreds of additional votes to guarantee George Bush's defeat in Pennsylvania'....and I will be more than happy to fax you a copy of this."
Becoming more and more flustered, she finally blurted out, "You'll have to speak with the Pastor."
"That's fine, take down my information and I will be happy to speak with him."
"Her."
"Ohhhhhhh...."

I waited a few hours and after no call back from the Pastor...I called the IRS -again. The tax fraud hotline...my new best friend. I, once again, relayed all relevant information, faxed the email and was thanked for my help and vigilance.

It is bad enough that Kerry and Edwards are conducting political speeches in churches, but the House of the Lord hosting Moveon.org...the Pharisees? NO! Not on my watch. If Republicans did this we would be hung in the streets. It makes me sick that all the organizations that would remove any vestige of God from public life, now seeks to use Him to their advantage...

It may only be a few churches and Moveon.org events in Philly-- But I am working to defeat George Soros -the billionaire...one phone call at a time! The silent majority shall be silent NO MORE...

35 comments:

blue67ccm said...

BRAVO!!!!

Wish I had been as savvy to "sign up" earlier this year as well!!!

:)

Bigandmean said...

Ala,
You're absolutely amazing! I wish we had 10,000 more like you.

Frater Bovious said...

Well done. fb

McWizard said...

"Mama said, Stupid is as stupid does Ms secretary."
I devoted my young life to righting injustice.
You are now a hero to me.
Godspeed.

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...

Looks like you caught the Party of Hate with their hands armpit-deep into the cookie jar this time. I'd notify, not just the IRS for tax fraud but the FED for vote fraud. It's become obvious to me that the PoH has pulls out all the stops for dirty tricks this year. Count on them having disguises in the back alleys and fake IDs so they can "vote early, vote often".

And in other news, 2 Muslim girls have been expelled from a French school for wearing the Hijab. When (not if but when) they get their requisite terrorist attacks, my vote is that we not allow France to do anything in retaliation or even to prevent such attacks outside of the French borders. THEY have to pass a global test this time around, and we can make them see what it feels like. Give 'em some Karma.

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...

Fat-fingered. Make it FEC not FED.

Kat said...

Ala..you are mean and I love that about you! Rock that vote baby! yeah! LOL

I actually thought of doing that as well. particularly when Al Sharpie and Jessie the terrorist Jackson were hosting Kerry down south in that church and the pastor was urging people to "vote against" the current administration or some such euphamism. But it was already well published in the papers so I figured only a dunder head in the bureacracy would not catch that one and look into it.

What am I saying? We are talking bout the the government after all. LOL

~Jen~ said...

Go get 'em tiger.

free0352 said...

Genius, pure genius. Democrats screwed by taxes, who'd of thought?

leftyjones said...

It's a heart warming story...and has all the exciting elements that we Americans love, including the wrestling style "pile driver" applied to the nasty church secretary. Yeah....she got what she deserved!!

On the other hand, you've got a better chance of having God knock on your back door this afternoon to share some tea with you than you do of stripping Old Pine Street Church of it's tax status. One of the oldest churches in America, several constitutional signers and noted soldiers buried there, no one.....including the IRS is going to attempt to take down that church.

However, I admire your moxie.....so I'd like to see if you are willing to go "ALL THE WAY" with this....and lash out at churches who violate these standards.
Why, years ago, you and I sat side by side in a church that recruited members for Operation Rescue rallies and was not quiet in the least about recommending candidates for President or other offices based on their beliefs. There were even voter guides in the church lobbies to instruct the congregation who to vote for and who to defeat.
Will we go after these churches with equal abandon ???because if so, I can line up by later this afternoon a whole slew of churches that we can join up and call to threaten their tax status as well.

Now, I am in firm agreement about churches not being allowed to hide behind their exemption status while working in politics but I also know that the Democratic party is also NOT the party that benefits most from these illegal activities.

Will we take a stand together and turn in some " Republican" churches later today or is this really just about being mad at Soros and having an interesting article?

Matt A said...

interesting how subversive many of these "non-specific candidate endorsing" organizations can be about supporting an agenda. Take for example, the ACLU. What a ripoff they've had going for so long now....

leftyjones said...

In fact.....maybe you'd like to start with this well known minister and head of a black church in Philadelphia. I figure, it would show that we're serious going after both white liberal churches and black conservative ones. Notice, by the way in the article, how after the pulpit endorsement occurs.....$1 million dollars flows shortly after from the Office of Faith based Initiatives. Hmmmm....what will we do about this??? Gather all of our Republican friends to the square with pitchforks and torches....the SILENT MAJORITY wil be silent NO MORE!!!

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/bushchurch.htm

Faith-based initiative has political slant, says advocacy group

A Philadelphia church appears to be reaping a windfall of government funds following its pastor's endorsement of presidential candidate George W. Bush, claims Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
During the Republican Party's 2000 national convention, the Rev. Herbert H. Lusk II, heartily endorsed Bush for president in a satellite television uplink from his church. Since that time, Lusk has repeatedly advocated for Bush's "faith-based" initiative that seeks to fund church-run social service programs.
As the president was preparing to speak at Lusk's Greater Exodus Baptist Church on combating AIDS at home and abroad, the Associated Press reported that the church's charitable operation, People For People, has been awarded a nearly $1-million "faith-based" grant.
The article also noted that Lusk hopes President Bush's "faith-based" agenda will help garner more black votes for the president's re-election bid. Lusk told the AP that Bush "is worthy of the African-American vote."
The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director, called the grant of money "a clear and sad example of how government grants can lure supposedly nonpartisan churches into partisan politics."
"The Rev. Lusk endorsed candidate Bush, and wound up getting a $1-million faith-based grant from the Bush administration," Lynn said. "Now there's a heavenly payoff."
Lynn noted that Americans United filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service against Lusk's church in 2000, noting that religious and other tax-exempt charitable organizations are forbidden from endorsing political candidates.
Lynn noted that Lusk's "faith-based" grant was not the first one to appear with a political taint.
In 2002, The Washington Post reported that Jim Towey, head of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, had made repeated public appearances with Republican candidates in hotly contested races for Congress and other offices to discuss or award grants. In a recent interview with the evangelical magazine World, Towey warned that if Democrat John Kerry were elected, he probably would "stick the faith-based initiative in the Smithsonian."
In addition, televangelist Pat Robertson, a Bush ally, was converted from being a harsh critic of the faith-based initiative to being a supporter by a well-timed government grant. In early 2001, Robertson warned his "700 Club" viewers that the initiative "could be a real Pandora's box" because religious monitories might wind up receiving faith-based grants.
In fall 2002, Robertson's Operation Blessing received a half-million-dollar faith-based grant from the Department of Health and Human Resources. Since then, the TV preacher has not criticized the initiative.

folkgirl said...

What are we going to talk about when the election is over?????

The Oracle said...

Nothing more dangerous than smart, motivated people with time on their hands. Absolutely brilliant! Keep it up!

cheeky monkey said...

Mega dittoes Lefty!!! You are so smart. I wish I could write like you. Keep it up!!
Ahem.

Yes. I love how Ala is an equal opportunity tax exempt status hound. Oh wait, she's not. Let's go the heartland, or hell, the Northeast, and listen to ringing endorsements (complete with fiery threats of hellfire) if the flock doesn't vote Bush/God.

Hey Lefty, wanna go Church hopping this Sunday? We can start with the one you and Ala used to go to!

ALa said...

woohoo folks, lefty's gettin' some tonight!

cheeky monkey said...

Ala, does that mean you are shagging all your ditto Ala followers. Not sure the Man would approve. They're NOT on your lamenated 5 person celebrity sex card are they? Please say you didn't turn in Viggo for John or the others who slobber over you!

Kat said...

Cheekster and left of left...if you're so annoyed, why don't you go after them yourselves? Nobody said Ala wasn't a partisan.

Viva la resistance!

ALa said...

Well, I'm definately shagging one reader that slobbers all over me...but the Man is quite happy about that...
Though he would be more turned on if I wrote about playing guitar...not how far right I can manage to go in a post...

Snave said...

Firstly, while I disagree with most of the opinions you express in your weblog, I must let you know that I enjoy reading your posts! Part of being "fair and balanced" is having a willingness to not just pay lip service to the other side's point of view, but to actually try and consider where the right wing is coming from. I like to read what "the other guys" are saying, as it helps me to build talking points for my discussions with folks of the GOP persuasion. You are very dedicated to your causes, you write well, and you have set a good example for the rest of us: get busy and support your candidate! Thanks for spurring me to get away from the computer and go out to campaign for John Kerry!

While I do agree that Houses of the Lord shouldn't be hosting moveon.org, I have to wonder about other folks who get lots of airtime in America's churches... like some of the pastors. A fellow Democrat and co-worker of mine is what I would call true rarity these days. He is a left-winger who attends a foursquare fundamentalist church, and he participates in a men's group there. He told me they were all celebrating and praying because one of the congregation's youngsters had registered to vote Republican... at the pastor's urging. Hallelujah... So much for the "separation of church and state", eh? The issue seems to cut both ways, i.e left AND right.

If we are to pick on the more moderate or progressive churches (i.e. Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopal) why not call many of the Christian fundamentalist churches on the amount of right-wing political bias present in their houses of worship? I have yet to understand how some people can use the words of hope found in the Bible to instill such fear in so many people. I guess if certain types want to stay in power, fear is a great tool for accomplishing that goal, as it appeals not to reason but to the most basic emotions.

Would Jesus want to be affiliated with any particular political party in today's America? I would have to think "No", that he would above that. If the conservatives really want to follow His example, maybe the GOP could adopt more of the principles brought forth in the Beatitudes for the party platform. Before you jump to criticize me, read the Beatitudes again. The Gospel can truly be enlightening! Jesus wasn't into urging people to be afraid; at least I don't believe He was when He told us to "Consider the lilies of the field. They neither sweat nor toil nor spin." I do not pretend to be a Biblical know-it-all, but if He was telling us to not worry because God is in control, then why do so many people today who claim to know Him urge so many others they know to be afraid of John Kerry and the Democrats? This seems to be nothing more than crass politicization of the Good Book.

As for George Soros, I don't mind that he is there to be a Sugar Daddy for the Democrats. The Demos don't have very many Sugar Daddies, after all. The GOP has so many of the very rich providing financial backing that I don't see why Democrats can't have at least a few well-to-do types giving assistance. I like to see a level playing field, and I think the presence of George Soros has helped matters this year. Those who would like to see a one-party political system in America will likely do anything they can to get Soros out of the picture, but I believe having him there gives hope for the future of bipartisan politics in our country... It helps many of us realize that yes, this is America, and we shouldn't have to feel afraid when it comes to expressing our beliefs and opinions, particularly when it comes to George W. Bush.

ALa said...

Snave: Hello & Welcome...I enjoyed reading your comment--and I have no problem with inspiring you to campaign for Kerry. I have said often that I respect a die-hard liberal that reads and votes way more than an 'undecided' (could there really be such an animal) or someone that doesn't give a shit & has never voted. So get out there and campaign...it's always fun and you do meet great like-minded people.
Ok, as for the church thing (and I say this seriously) I have gone to 'Born-again' churches (not sure if that is what people mean by evangelical) my entire life. I have been to Baptist, Presbyterian and non-Denominational churches. I can HONESTLY say that I have never heard politics discussed in the church. (Now, I haven't been to church in over 7 years -so I am not sure what happens now --that story is for another post) I have heard people talk about issues (pro-life being #1). But what non-church goers may not realize is these churches are not cheerleading sessions for GOP candidiates. NOTHING is ever good enough for the far religious right. NOTHING. You'll ask..."Do you think all the Christians will turn out for Bush this year since they didn't in 200?"
"Well he really hasn't done enough about abortion..."
"What? He got partial birth abortion out-lawed and signed into law Lacie & Conner's law...he is the first President to ever put a restriction on Roe V. Wade!"
"Well, Roe V. Wade is still legal isn't it?"

This is the reality...I know those on the left think that the Evangelicals love GWB --but they don't. He's a Methodist and not quite Conservative enough for them....trust me, i have had many a fight about this. Until a President is Jerry Falwellesque that contingency won't be happy... I went to a very strict Christian school -where you could get expelled for SMELLING LIKE SMOKE (not even actually caught smoking!) and my Adv. Bio teacher had a 'Clinton' sign in his classroom.

As for no sugar daddies on the left...Pleeeeease. THK -billionaire. Oprah -billionaire. Bill Gates -billionaire. Georgey Soros -billionaire. Every Celebrity in Hollywood...Every Musician...
I think the 527s have really evened the playing field for the left (which is ironic since they were the ones always screaming for campaign finance reform...)

Anyway, thanks for the feedback...and may the best man win! :)

"Does anyone know where I can get me a huntin' license?" John F. Kerry

....what did that goose ever do to anyone?....

ALa said...

Snave: I just saw that you are an SLP...that's so great. An occupation I have come to respect GREATLY over the past two years...as I wade through unfamiliar waters of having a soon-to-be-four-year-old loosely diagnosed with apraxia...Our SLP has seen us through the denial, the tears and the road to success with an open heart and an always ready shoulder! I love that you guys have the gift of enabling children to feel whole again and to have a chance to 'fit in'..thank you!

Snave said...

Oops! I did forget Hollywood... how convenient of me! 8-)>

Thanks for the nice comments... I do enjoy your blog!

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...

SLP... Semi-Lefty Preacher?

Snave said...

Hey Smart Guy (!),

It stands for "Speech-Language Pathologist", but I prefer "Speech Therapist" because when I think of the word "pathologist", I think of the old TV show "Quincy" (are you young enough to remember that one?)

Anyway, it's just a matter of semantics, like nearly all political argument seems to be nowadays... all form, no content... sigh... dissecting what the other person says until we're hollerin' about what they meant when they used the word "the" in a particular context.

Thanks for only calling me a "semi-Lefty". That's so much nicer than some of the other names tend to be. And yes, I do like to preach, as we all seem to.

Snave said...

While I did conveniently forget Hollywood in my earlier preaching, I have been wondering: while 90% of "Hollywood" may be "liberal", and while the people of Hollywood may be very visible and therefore influential... what total percentage of America's top 3% to 4% of income earners would be made up by Hollywood, and of all that wealth, how much would actually be controlled by Hollywood? I believe when it comes down to brass tacks the percentage wouldn't be that high. While I believe the NRA and UPS gave over half a million dollars each to Bush-Cheney in 2000, I'm not sure any stars, studios or performers gave that much to Democrats ... is there some data somewhere that shows this? I would be interested in knowing just how many Sugar Daddies the Democrats have in the entertainment industry as opposed to the number of corporate GOP Sugar Daddies.

While Hollywood personalities would certainly tend to be more influential to the public than corporate CEOs due to high visibility, how much influence do these movie stars and singers have on our foreign policy? On our environmental policies? On education? People enjoy the personality, so they listen to what that personality has to say. Sure, sntertainers can show up on television (or screenwriters can insert left-leaning messages into films) and say "liberal" things to try and sway the public to their point of view... but I would tend to view entertainers such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly in a similar way. They may not reach quite as many viewers/listeners as someone like Oprah Winfrey, but they do connect with a lot of people who like their style and purported authority.

While I wouldn't say the argument that "liberal Hollywood" has a big influence is hole-ridden (because there is certainly some truth in it), I would have to say any argument that entertainers would contribute even as much to left-wing political causes as major corporations do to the GOP... might actually have more merit. Again, let's see some numbers on it.

Snave said...

Quick addendum: I don't want to conveniently ignore the fact that the large corporate donors also donate vast sums of money to Democrats as well as to Republicans. (I'm not sure why the large corporations would want to dontate to Democratic candidates, because it seems like the GOP looks out more for their interests than the Democrats do...)

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...

Snave, "what total percentage of America's top 3% to 4% of income earners would be made up by Hollywood, and of all that wealth, how much would actually be controlled by Hollywood?"

The premise you take as gospel here is the notion that ONLY HOLLYWOOD liberals can be millionaires or billionaires. Theresa Heinz (not even hyphenated to -Kerry on her 1040) is no actress. She is a gold-digger who managed to be gold-dug. If she kicks the gold-plated bucket, it may as well continue the cycle with someone new coming along to gold-dig John Kerry and complete the cycle. And maybe that woman will run for President, or just occupy her time telling reporters to "shot it"? One wonders.

George Soros is quite the ridiculous creature as a billionaire socialIST rather than billionaire socialITE.

Warren Buffett used to be Republican, but has since switched allegiences, apparently because he found out how the Che Jaguara Democrats shelter their money to the point that Ms. Heinz, for example, only pays 12.5% on an income of $5 million, which expects us all to believe that of all her investments she's only capital-gaining 0.5% profit on all of them put together. So do you buy into THAT, too, or just the myth that only Hollywood type liberals are the type of liberals who can get rich?

"I would be interested in knowing just how many Sugar Daddies the Democrats have in the entertainment industry as opposed to the number of corporate GOP Sugar Daddies."

In the 527 world, where it's reported in relative detail, the Democrats have a distant lead over Republicans this particular election season. In the other side, of traditional campaign contributions, the Republicans fill the void and bring it back to "even money".

Each party is, overall, of a similar level of funding, with a similar distribution of large donors, to small.

Soros just threw in another $5 million, like it was Halloween candy.

http://www.politicalmoneyline.com/

"how much influence do these movie stars and singers have on our foreign policy?"

In a Democrat administration such as Bill Clinton's, they had enormous influence. One would wonder whether Barbra Streisand was Clinton's shrink, psychic, matchmaker, National Security Advisor, or all of the above, at any given time.

"I would tend to view entertainers such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly in a similar way."

I would agree with that. In terms of media influence, there is a similar balance as one finds in the monetary influence, although the type of media favors conservatives on the radio, and liberals on the TV and in print and at college campuses and in music. It takes an army of millions of Democrat propagandists to match a single talk radio host, and dozens of left-leaning TV networks to match Fox, which to me only pats the conservative media people on the back for how much intellectual muscle they flex when the microphone is on.

"I'm not sure why the large corporations would want to dontate to Democratic candidates, because it seems like the GOP looks out more for their interests than the Democrats do..."

When you're a business that can benefit from big contracts, a party of big government can always butter your bread. Halliburton didn't just magically appear into existence with a "poof" during the Bush administration, y'know. It's SMALL business that tends to get ravaged by the oppressive depradations of the liberals when they wield governmental power.

Snave said...

You make some good points in your response. Of course, as you might expect, there are some with which I don't agree, mainly the first one:

"The premise you take as gospel..."

I'm not sure you have an idea as to what I take or don't take as gospel. By saying that, you're putting words into my mouth! Go ahead if you want to, but please don't. I'll try not to do the same to you or others. I am only asking questions based on what I see, hear and read from a variety of sources, and not just those sources which are left-wing. Like all of us do (or at least as I hope all of us do), I piece information together the best I can in order to arrive at my opinions. Obviously there wasn't enough information there for you to assert that I take any particular view as gospel.

You are right, any liberal can get rich in America, not just the ones from Hollywood. It's a great country, and if people want to pursue wealth, they can do so regardless of their political persuasion. I do believe (though not necessarily as gospel) that once someone gains wealth, they will tend to support the political party which best helps them to preserve that wealth, and today that party seems to be the Republicans... although I do find it interesting that Warren Buffett has changed sides. Wasn't he advising Arnold on matters financial recently during the California "goobernatorial" fiasco when Schwarzenegger was learning what to say when asked about economic matters? Heck, I need financial advice (I believe that as gospel)! I'll have to check into some of Buffett's materials. If he's good enough for Arnold, he's good enough for me.

"Ms. Heinz, for example, only pays 12.5% on an income of..."
"Theresa Heinz (not even hyphenated to -Kerry on her 1040..."

One thing of which I always love to remind my conservative friends: I didn't vote for Kerry's wife, I voted for Kerry himself, and I don't view his wife as a liability should she become First Lady. I doubt that when many Republicans vote for George W. Bush, they will find Laura to be a negative sticking point, or that she would provide such a point in his favor that it swings their vote his way.

I say "voted" because I live in Oregon where we can only vote by mail, and I already completed and returned my ballot. So, try as some of you may... I can't be swayed to vote GOP at this point. I won't say "or at any point anytime ever", because I like to think "anything can happen". Just no vote for the Republican this time around... Maybe next time, if GOP can show more compassion and fiscal restraint here at home, and greater respect for the rest of the world.

"..Fox, which to me only pats the conservative media people on the back for how much intellectual muscle they flex when the microphone is on.."

"Intellectual muscle" is a strictly relative term, in this case. I will agree that they display a considerable amount of intellectual muscle, but I don't believe it's in the content of their speaking as much as it's in their quick-on-the-feet ability to use argumental fallacies in helping listeners bypass critical thinking skills in coming over to their point of view... But then that gets into the argument of "form versus content", which is another matter altogether.

"When you're a business that can benefit from big contracts, a party of big government can always butter your bread."

Is the current administration making government bigger or smaller? I suppose there are numbers one could cook to argue either case. Seems to me our government keeps getting bigger... and Halliburton is certainly benefitting from the Bush administration's adventures abroad...

"Halliburton didn't just magically appear into existence with a "poof" during the Bush administration, y'know."

I believe that's right. Wasn't it dealing with sworn enemies of the United States for years prior to Bush becoming President? Maybe even before Clinton? I'll need to do some research on that one.

"It's SMALL business that tends to get ravaged by the oppressive depradations of the liberals when they wield governmental power."

Again, show me some numbers... and let me know what your definition of "small business" is. After Cheney threw out a number (in the VP debate) for small businesses that would be hurt by Kerry (didn't he say 900,000?) and then I heard somewhere that only 4% of those would actually be hurt, I wasn't sure what to think. My first thought was that 4% of 900,000 is 36,000 small businesses, and that is still quite a few, probably still too many... although nothing like 900,000. So was Cheney actually stating a POTENTIAL problem as being 25 times worse than it MIGHT eventually be? He is ever the merchant of fear, it seems to me.

Speaking of numbers, lots of thanks for the link to http://www.politicalmoneyline.com/ ! There is good info there.

ALa said...

...Let me just add that Hollywood has mass appeal -INTERnational and national. Rush, Sean & O'Reilly are preaching to the choir. Most people that aren't into politics have NO idea who they are (or they have heard of Rush from Howard Stern making fun of him). BUT, wow, MATT DAMON wants Kerry --and BENNIFER wants Kerry --and Cameron Diaz says on Oprah that if we vote for Bush RAPE will be legal -and it must be true because Oprah didn't say anything in response!.... See...the punditocracy will have no sway over the uninformed, but Hollywood can... (sad considering most of them dropped out of school in the 9th grade...)
I also saw on CNN about a month ago a Bush/Kerry comparison on where money was coming from --and they said most Americans would be shocked to hear that Kerry had gotten a higher percentage from Oil companies than Bush/Cheney did. Sorry I can't cite that...I think it was on Lou Dobbs.

ALa said...

...another good site is www.fundrace.org where you can even look up who (and how much) your neighbors and friends gave! LOL

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...

Snave,
"I'm not sure you have an idea as to what I take or don't take as gospel. By saying that, you're putting words into my mouth!"

I have no access to your mouth, but I do have access to the words you wrote. Those words happened to be:

"while 90% of 'Hollywood' may be 'liberal', and while the people of Hollywood may be very visible and therefore influential... what total percentage of America's top 3% to 4% of income earners would be made up by Hollywood, and of all that wealth, how much would actually be controlled by Hollywood?"

Now, just in case you're not aware what you wrote or how or why, I will tell you what you SAID. What you said was a syllogism, albeit poorly constructed:

1) Wealth determines influence (Premise)
2) Hollywood controls little wealth compared to Republicans (Supporting Premise)
3) Therefore Hollywood is less influencial than Republicans (Conclusion)

Now, in order for a syllogism to work, a premise has to be something one believes to be true, and for it to be a meaningful syllogism in an argument, it has to be sufficiently true and self-evident that the opposing arguer would also have to consider it to be true. "Christina Aguilera is fat," for example, is not sufficiently self-evident or widely-accepted enough to be a premise.

And now here you are saying that the premise you've used is something you yourself don't even believe. I take this to mean that you are simply playing around, and not really even attempting to make sense. So, for the remainder of this comment I will simply drool and make funny face:

345uwpewdj;dlktwsrtiueroigsdoigjeartnregnsdksetoieutoie

wre;tkiewsdlk

09turigjfdvkftgrturei

cdsoprepozc';c .

And then,

q0934orijsfkjtrt 0495439

3495oekmfdks
65yt;lfsotrlfdtrld3ewapodf

Snave said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Snave said...

From reading your comments on this blog, the last seven or so lines of your last response could well be what you do best... that is, make funny faces, drool, and interject "and then" when appropriate. An example might be "Blah blah blah, hahaha, and then blah blah blah. Hahaha." If you were to write things like that on a consistent basis, I for one would find your writing much more entertaining. As it is, I find that it tends to be a bit on the dark side for my tastes.

May I assume the reason you didn't address any of the rest of my last post is that due to my ineffective syllogism, you didn't bother to read the rest of it because you automatically knew there would be nothing valid or of interest? That kinda looks like an argumental fallacy to me. You did seem to only address the syllogism, based on what might have been assumptions generated by the way you filled in the missing pieces. Come to think of it, let's scratch my earlier questions about "may I assume". I had better not make assumptions anymore, because we all know what happens when we ASSUME... LOL!

Analysis is fun! I think one difference between us is that you appear to look at details and I tend to look at a bigger picture.... although it looks like I certainly could stand to write more concisely and not set myself up so easily for punishment by making what are apparently sweeping generalizations; by the same token, I believe you could stand to be less harsh. I write stuff emotionally and if I use fallacies, they tend to be unintentional. I don't plan them, anyway. You seem to be a very logical thinker... so are your fallacies written on purpose? My favorite question in presidential debates was "Have you ever made any mistakes?" I make plenty, I'll be the first to admit it... I've made too many to count during the course of my lifetime. How about you?

And yeah, I am basically just here to have fun! If you want to respond to what I say with more gibberish, like last time, that's good, I liked it! You provided me with some LOL entertainment after putting me in my place. Thanks much for going from punishing to funny, as you proved to me that you really are a multi-dimensional guy! (Although I have to say you showed better spelling skills in the first half of your post than in the last section... but that's why I liked the last section the best, because it was FUNNER!)

So take my comments with a grain of salt. I will certainly do the same for yours. We won't change each other's minds, so there isn't any real point in saying anything to each other now except things like

wkndiuibuije873ubinv

oejf ihvfdisjo!

Hahaha!

And then,

soijv /k0iiojejfj9ue9u7yuhnkw!

Although you said it first, and said it best!

Snave said...

MY APOLOGIES for hitting the "publish" button twice on that last post. You should not have been subjected to it more than once!