Member since Nov 18, 2008



  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Recent Comments

Re: “New editor Mitch Pugh brings aggressive online approach to Post and Courier

We'll see if he's got it right based on what happens at/to the paper and the effects of his initiatives on the readership, consumers, and advertisers.

Posted by itsme on February 27, 2013 at 8:06 AM

Re: “The clamor for gun control is about emotion and ideology, not reason

Jerry, at least the "essay" has some substance. With a characterization such as yours, you should offer something besides baseless opinion. At least that way it might not be a worthless opinion.

52 of 62 people like this.
Posted by itsme on December 26, 2012 at 8:34 AM

Re: “SCE&G wants to raise your power bill to pay for Zumba classes, bonuses, and private clubs

I'll cover Red Label. Not Blue Label.

4 of 4 people like this.
Posted by itsme on November 21, 2012 at 8:45 AM

Re: “Should churches be prohibited from political speech?

@Jason Usry:
Regarding the question: "[s]hould government have the authority to threaten churches with taxation for speaking out against politicians?" The answer is no. And that is not the concern. Nor should individuals in a church be proscribed from political speech (and, they aren't!). What these organizations cannot do is actively endorse candidates and encourage their adherents to do the same. Plenty of gray area in here to deliver a message and retain tax-exempt status.

@Ned Hill:
Regarding the statement that "NPR is nonprofit and gets taxpayer funds, but is ultra liberal, where it should be nonpartisan": what's your point? As far as I'm aware, there is no Liberal party. You didn't say that NPR is ultra-Democrat or ultra-Republican or note that NPR endorses one party or another. By your description, NPR is non-partisan. I wish like hell that NPR did not receive taxpayer funds, as I believe that their listeners would fill the gap, and it would put an end to a fairly minor budgetary distraction.

Regarding your point about the punditry of black churches, well, they are wrong too and always have been. As I said, any non-profit org engaged in politics should not be tax exempt according to current law - laws which can be changed if appropriate. If you would be a bit less prickish with your language perhaps you'd get people to listen to your arguments - which have some substance - rather than writing you off as an obnoxious Intertwit.

3 of 5 people like this.
Posted by itsme on October 18, 2012 at 3:32 PM

Re: “Should churches be prohibited from political speech?

I continue to shudder at the spectacle of community leaders (which clergy often are for their congregants) who stupidly or deceitfully conflate the tax-exempt status of their organization with their (or their organization's) rights to free speech.

So, clergy, to put it simply: no one is saying that you cannot lay claim to one political candidate or party, however, you cannot use your pulpit to do this and retain tax-exempt status. Those are the rules under which tax exemptions are granted. If you want to change those rules, work with your legislators.

10 of 13 people like this.
Posted by itsme on October 17, 2012 at 12:30 PM

All Comments »

Classified Listings

Powered by Foundation   © Copyright 2017, Charleston City Paper   RSS