Thread: Taxpayer Money Used In Same-Sex Marriage Fight

Originally Posted by Think for myself

Awesome. I think you are now the third person throwing out the straw man argument here.

you do understand the term "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" don't you?

My take-away from your post is that if conservatives want to denounce the use of taxpayer funds for liberal causes then they should do the same for conservative causes.

There is no straw-man there. Where you may be confused is that your history of your posts has demonstrated that it's OK to use taxpayer funds for liberal causes. I don't think anyone who replied to your thread even for a second misunderstands where you stand.

We have never insulted each other TFM. We may disagree on almost everything but we at least know where each other stands. If you want insults, just start picking on my beloved SEC football conference

Originally Posted by Serfin' USA

I don't agree with you on the scorebox assumption,

but I agree with the principle of what you and Tex are saying.

It's really just a matter of being consistent.

Either blast all use of government money for political agendas, or blast none of it.

Only two?

I was the first to say it on this thread.

And I was speaking for practically all conservatives.

It's libs who are addicted to government grants.

Originally Posted by sec

y

My take-away from your post is that if conservatives want to denounce the use of taxpayer funds for liberal causes then they should do the same for conservative causes.

There is no straw-man there. Where you may be confused is that your history of your posts has demonstrated that it's OK to use taxpayer funds for liberal causes. I don't think anyone who replied to your thread even for a second misunderstands where you stand.

We have never insulted each other TFM. We may disagree on almost everything but we at least know where each other stands. If you want insults, just start picking on my beloved SEC football conference

Cool. Post one where I said that. Just one. Prove your case. I would love to see it.

Otherwise, I am going to say your preconceived notion regarding me is incorrect.

Originally Posted by Think for myself

Cool. Post one where I said that. Just one. Prove your case. I would love to see it.

Otherwise, I am going to say your preconceived notion regarding me is incorrect.

I look forward to being proven wrong. One more liberal converting to conservatism would be a good thing for the world.

Originally Posted by Think for myself

Cool. Post one where I said that. Just one. Prove your case. I would love to see it.

Otherwise, I am going to say your preconceived notion regarding me is incorrect.

All too easy FM

An article attacking planned parenthood on the numbers of abortions they do using taxpayer money.

You defended it

http://www.politicalforum.com/curren...abortions.html

Another thread this one started by you to defend Planned Paranthood taking government money

http://www.politicalforum.com/aborti...ml#post3726731

Here you are defending the ACLU who also uses public funding in a criminal case:

http://www.politicalforum.com/curren...ml#post2496510

As proven you have no problem standing behind liberal groups like these who use taxpayer money to fight for causes you believe in but you attack any conservative group who also uses public money to fund their political beliefs.


Once again you have been owned by your own words. You would think by now not to be so foolish to throw down challenges where your own words choke you but then again you wouldn't be our beloved FM if you didn't would you?

Originally Posted by texmaster

So only pro homosexual marriage groups can use tax payer funding.

Typical FM. Hypocrisy on parade.

No. The OP refers to lobbying on behalf of political causes, using taxpayer money, which is illegal.

It's not illegal to obtain grants for certain activities merely because those activities happen to be politically controversial.

The group in the OP used taxpayer funds to lobby for (or against) certain laws. That's illegal.

If you have proof of another group doing the same, please point it out.

The state must support only straight families, therefore it is ok if the tax money are used against same-sex marriages.

Originally Posted by BullsLawDan

No. The OP refers to lobbying on behalf of political causes, using taxpayer money, which is illegal.


It's not illegal to obtain grants for certain activities merely because those activities happen to be politically controversial.

The group in the OP used taxpayer funds to lobby for (or against) certain laws. That's illegal.

If you have proof of another group doing the same, please point it out.

Easily.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ded-lobbyists/

Nothing has changed from my original statement. He has no problem using taxpayer money for political causes he supports but goes after those who use it to fund groups who don't support his causes.



Now what?

Originally Posted by texmaster

Easily.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ded-lobbyists/

That's an Editorial. I was looking for actual facts. I would point out the editorial says that NPR hired a lobbying firm, but it doesn't say how NPR paid for the lobbying firm.

The problem in the OP was that the organization did not segregate funds.

Nothing has changed from my original statement. He has no problem using taxpayer money for political causes he supports but goes after those who use it to fund groups who don't support his causes.

Do you have proof "he has no problem using taxpayer money for political causes he supports"?

Originally Posted by BullsLawDan

That's an Editorial. I was looking for actual facts. I would point out the editorial says that NPR hired a lobbying firm, but it doesn't say how NPR paid for the lobbying firm.

The problem in the OP was that the organization did not segregate funds.

Do you have any proof NPR does or is this just blind hope on your part?

Do you have proof "he has no problem using taxpayer money for political causes he supports"?

Already posted with links. How could you have possibly missed it?


More:

State governments, local governments, public universities, transportation authorities, and public water utilities spent an astonishing $132.7 million on federal lobbying in 2006, up 148 percent from an already sizable $53.6 million in 1998. Across this entire period, taxpayer-funded lobbying of Congress totaled at least $875.9 million.

The largest spending increases for lobbying were made by local governments and public universities. Local-government lobbying of the federal government jumped 193 percent (from $20.3 million to $59.5 million) between 1998 and 2006. Public universities increased their spending on federal lobbying efforts by 213 percent (from $10.1 million to $31.7 million) in that period.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...t/phil-kerpen#[/i]

It was so out of hand a republican actually passed a law to stop it.

In what could be a first, a measure designed to put an end to the dubious practice of state entities using taxpayer dollars to lobby the General Assembly has become law.

Rep. Eric Bedingfield, R-Greenville, sponsored the crackdown on taxpayer-funded lobbying as a proviso in the state budget for the current 2011-12 fiscal year.

“The way I look at it is if they’re an agency of the state they should come speak to the representatives directly,” Bedingfield says. “There shouldn’t be a (lobbyist) middleman.”

Saving South Carolina taxpayers a little more than $600,000, the proviso targets both contract lobbying and influence peddling at the State House by employees of state entities.

The proviso (90.20) might be the first of its kind.

A search of state budgets archived on the Legislature’s website dating back to the 1996-97 fiscal year shows that nothing like the proviso has passed in at least 15 years. It is unclear whether something akin to it was on the books previously.

Bedingfield says numerous efforts to ban state-funded lobbying in Columbia were made in recent years, but to no avail. “I think this is the first time it’s ever made it through both bodies,” he says of the proviso clearing the House and the Senate.

http://scthenerve.wordpress.com/2011...bbying-passes/


Are you now getting the point this case isn't isolated to conservative groups? Can you be honest enough to admit that?