New Page 1
On Facebook | Twitter: @blairsville_com | Online Forums | About The Site | Contact Us | What's New! | Keyword:  
We Support Our Troops
Home   Happenings   Drop By...   Stay Awhile...   About Blairsville

Username:
Password:
 
Save Password
Please review our Usage Policies.

No members are currently in the forums and 10 visitors.
BoeBro Ventures, Inc. and Blairsville.com does not provide legal advice or services. The information here is provided by Blairsville.com members and is not verified for truthfulness or accuracy. You should consult a legal professional regarding any legal issues.
 All Forums
 Local Politics and related issues
 Alcohol by the drink
 New Topic  Topic Locked
Page: 
of 29
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Alanaah

USA
258 Posts

Posted - 06/20/2006 :  3:51:24 PM  Show Profile
You see alot of vote No signs But I've only seen one Vote Yes????Wonder why that is....possibly this issue is so heated the Yes people are scared?

Go to Top of Page

mad4martinis

USA
13730 Posts

Posted - 06/20/2006 :  3:56:09 PM  Show Profile
I don't think it's being scared. I priced signs and may still have them made, but I'd personally rather give it to a local charity or family in need of assistance. Seems like these "citizens for an alcohol free county" don't feel that way.

**There is no truth except the truth that exists within you. Everything else is what someone is telling you**Go to Top of Page

mad4martinis

USA
13730 Posts

Posted - 06/20/2006 :  4:30:36 PM  Show Profile
If it's true, that the evil empire is coming here, then this vote will probably pass. They make a majority of their revenue off beer/wine sales.
I'm so pissed at Lamar right now.

**There is no truth except the truth that exists within you. Everything else is what someone is telling you**Go to Top of Page

coosa creek

USA
39313 Posts

Posted - 06/20/2006 :  4:44:36 PM  Show Profile
I don't think anyone is scared, we just don't want to waste money on signs, like Maddy said!

Go to Top of Page

Wildflower

USA
4528 Posts

Posted - 06/20/2006 :  5:01:30 PM  Show Profile
Why,

I meant to comment yesterday . . .

You mentioned voting "No" in hopes it would keep the town smaller.

There was a realtor who posted early in this thread. She said that when she tells prospective buyers about the alcohol laws, they just roll their eyes . . . and then they buy the property anyway.

Alcohol or no, I don't think anyone can stop the forces that are contributing to newcomers. The first baby boomers are retiring and we've got about 20 more years of boomer retirements coming. That's a demographic trend that can't be stopped.

The only places nearby that I know of that are like Blairsville used to be, are Robbinsville or Bryson City, NC.

Oh, and don't ride that train in Blue Ridge. I've heard it's a disappointment. Ride the Smokey Mountain Railway out of Dillsboro instead. It's supposed to be a destination in itself.

WildflowerGo to Top of Page

ShadowMan

USA
4158 Posts

Posted - 06/20/2006 :  7:10:35 PM  Show Profile  Visit ShadowMan's Homepage
I found out why the CASI Reports links aren't working. I'll post some working links here in a bit after I get the horses done.


Shadow

This is my kirttimukhaGo to Top of Page

ShadowMan

USA
4158 Posts

Posted - 06/20/2006 :  8:25:36 PM  Show Profile  Visit ShadowMan's Homepage
Working CASI Report Links (do not use the main web site I linked to earlier)

Alcohol and/or Drug: Drivers in Crashes

Alcohol and/or Drug: Drivers in Injury Crashes

Alcohol and/or Drug: Drivers in Fatal Crashes

Georgia Licensed Drivers

Georgia Licensed Drivers by Age

Unsafe or Illegal Speed: Drivers in Injury Crashes

Unsafe or Illegal Speed: Drivers in Fatal Crashes

Deer Related Crashes

Also, these are overviews and analysis of the other detail data:
Overview - Section I
Drivers - Section II
Lives - Section III


Shadow

This is my kirttimukha

Edited by - ShadowMan on 06/20/2006 9:00:10 PMGo to Top of Page

Jeepbuddy

USA
44 Posts

Posted - 06/20/2006 :  10:22:28 PM  Show Profile
I'm really impressed with the research that others do, and present, on here. Some really good work. I wonder why the newspaper doesn't print some of this stuff.

Anyway, what's on my mind tonight is seeing the number of churches around here with vote no signs in front. It seems to be that tax-free organizations like churches are not allowed by law to politic. Shouldn't the IRS be notified of the offenders? I suppose I should go take pictures and send them in to the authorities.

"We must scrupulously guard the civil rights and civil liberties of all citizens, whatever their background. We must remember that any oppression, any injustice, any hatred is a wedge designed to attack our civilization." FDRGo to Top of Page

daughterofconfederate

USA
29728 Posts

Posted - 06/20/2006 :  10:40:12 PM  Show Profile
I had no idear about that but Pawpaw always said ya dont talk about politics and religion with some folk.. and I do know what he meant by that now that I am older..

I didnt know it was against the law to politic if you were a church..


We make a living by what we get, we make a life by what we give.
Sir Winston Churchill


Go to Top of Page

nativelady

USA
11126 Posts

Posted - 06/21/2006 :  12:37:42 AM  Show Profile  Visit nativelady's Homepage
JB, Dig alittle deeper...

If this is true, then the Christian is violating the founding principles of our country when he or she calls for Christianity to be voiced in the public square. But is it true?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Nowhere does the First Amendment suggest that Christianity cannot be heard in the public square.


"Christianity is not a religion; it is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ."Go to Top of Page

Chris

USA
179 Posts

Posted - 06/21/2006 :  01:29:54 AM  Show Profile
quote:

JB, Dig alittle deeper...

If this is true, then the Christian is violating the founding principles of our country when he or she calls for Christianity to be voiced in the public square. But is it true?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Nowhere does the First Amendment suggest that Christianity cannot be heard in the public square.


"Christianity is not a religion; it is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ."


I think he may be referring to the institutions themselves, not to the individual Christian...maybe a church has to stay neutral, but its members can voice their own opinions and assemble as separate political groups to advance their moral and religious causes.

Go to Top of Page

why

USA
2072 Posts

Posted - 06/21/2006 :  08:58:39 AM  Show Profile
I have heard several people on here and out in public talking about the churchs talking about politics. I can't find a reason to think of the question of Alcohol by the Drink as having to do with politics unless you are talking about wheither it will help or hurt Lamar in the future races.

There is nothing political about ones position on this issue. No one is running for office, no change in the form of government is on the ballot, we are not voting on wheither to tax ourselves, our constitution isn't being amended nor is any political party represented. You may say that it is pertaining to the government or the afaires of the government but the right to sell the licenses is already on the books I believe (I may be wrong on that). By the way, someone mentioned that voting on this is being part of a democracy, sorry to report the United States is not a democracy its a republic. Majority does not always rule in the US, if it did we would all be under the rule of New York and California or the other most populice states. We have a democratic form of government in that we are allowed to vote, but our representives actually make the laws we have to live by.

The churchs have a position, the restaurants have a position (not all are on the same side), the drinkers have a position, madd has a position and I have a position, but it isn't politicl.

Off my soap box, got to go. Good day to all and be safe.

whyGo to Top of Page

CaseyDoodleBug

USA
287 Posts

Posted - 06/21/2006 :  10:15:43 AM  Show Profile
Federal tax laws prohibit all tax-exempt institutions, which includes churchs, from endorsing or opposing candidates for public office or using their resources in partisan campaigns. It is generally held that this prohibition concerns only races for public office, not issues.

DoodleBugGo to Top of Page

coosa creek

USA
39313 Posts

Posted - 06/21/2006 :  5:05:54 PM  Show Profile
I saw some vote yes people had a big ad in this week's paper!

Go to Top of Page

Jeepbuddy

USA
44 Posts

Posted - 06/21/2006 :  5:44:03 PM  Show Profile
IRS Reminds Charities to Avoid Election Activities During Election Season

This election season the Internal Revenue Service reminds charities to avoid becoming involved in political campaign activities. In a news release, the IRS highlighted new procedures, including educational efforts, to address situations in which it is alleged that a section 501(c)(3) organization has violated the ban on such activities. The new procedures were developed as a result of a recent compliance initiative addressing campaign intervention by section 501(c)(3) organizations.

IR-2006-87, June 1, 2006

WASHINGTON — This election season the Internal Revenue Service reminds charities to avoid becoming involved in political campaign activities.

In the 2004 elections, the IRS noticed an upturn in politicking on the part of 501(c)(3) organizations. The agency responded by increasing its educational efforts and launching an enforcement program, the Political Activity Compliance Initiative (PACI), to investigate specific, credible allegations of wrongdoing.

“While the vast majority of charities and churches do not engage in politicking, an increasing number did take part in prohibited activities in the 2004 election cycle,” IRS Commissioner Mark W. Everson said. “The rule against political campaign intervention by charities and churches is long established. We are stepping up our efforts to enforce it.“

The IRS has put procedures into place for the 2006 election season to more quickly address instances of potential prohibited activity on the part of charities, churches and other tax-exempt organizations. The procedures are meant to ensure that public referrals as well as activities the IRS itself uncovers are reviewed expeditiously and treated in a consistent, fair and nonpartisan manner.

As a rule, charities, religious organizations such as churches, educational organizations and other groups that are tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the tax code may not participate or intervene in any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office.

This prohibition means 501(c)(3) organizations may not endorse candidates, distribute statements for or against candidates, raise funds for or donate to candidates or become involved in any activity that would be either supportive or opposed to any candidate.

Whether an organization is engaging in prohibited political campaign activity depends upon all the facts and circumstances in each case. For example, organizations may sponsor debates or forums to educate voters. But if the debate or forum shows a preference for or against a certain candidate, it becomes a prohibited activity.

Federal courts have ruled that it is not unconstitutional for the tax law to impose conditions, such as the political campaign prohibition, upon exemption from federal income tax. This position was most recently upheld in Branch Ministries v. Rossotti, 211 F.3d 137 (D.C. Cir. 2000).

Links:

IRS Fact Sheet 2006-17, Election Year Activities and the Prohibition on Political Campaign Intervention for Section 501(c)(3) Organizations

IRS Reports on Political Activity Compliance Initiative

Procedures for the 2006 Election Season

IRS Publication 1828, Tax Guide for Churches and Religious Organizations

Key factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
• Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office;
• Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval for one or more candidates’ positions and/or actions;
• Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election;
• Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election;
• Whether the issue addressed in the communication has been raised as an issue distinguishing candidates for a given office;
• Whether the communication is part of an ongoing series of communications by the organization on the same issue that are made independent of the timing of any election; and
• Whether the timing of the communication and identification of the candidate are related to a non-electoral event such as a scheduled vote on specific legislation by an officeholder who also happens to be a candidate for public office.

A communication is particularly at risk of political campaign intervention when it makes reference to candidates or voting in a specific upcoming election. Nevertheless, the communication must still be considered in context before arriving at any conclusions

Maybe I won't take those pictures after all!



"We must scrupulously guard the civil rights and civil liberties of all citizens, whatever their background. We must remember that any oppression, any injustice, any hatred is a wedge designed to attack our civilization." FDRGo to Top of Page

Wildflower

USA
4528 Posts

Posted - 06/21/2006 :  11:06:44 PM  Show Profile
How utterly ironic that the IRS is now admonishing churches, considering that Karl Rove ASKED FOR CHURCH DIRECTORIES TO BE HANDED OVER for campaign purposes.

He was seeking the 4 million evangelical votes that did not occur in the 2000 election. He was determined to get them for the 2004 election. Gee. There were only a million stories on this in 2004.

They have no shame.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/comment/story/0,,1348262,00.html

Of course, maybe now they are afraid because some churches are speaking out against the Iraq war. Probably decided it was time to shut them up.

I think the church is within the law to preach about their particular "values", but when they stoop to advising their members on exactly how to vote, they've crossed the line between separation of church and state.

Too bad the IRS didn't get so concerned during the last election.

WildflowerGo to Top of Page

ShadowMan

USA
4158 Posts

Posted - 06/22/2006 :  12:01:13 AM  Show Profile  Visit ShadowMan's Homepage
Karl Rove and the IRS are not the same thing. One is a partisan politician, the other a government agency that is supposed to be blind to age, race, sex, creed, or religion(!).

We should always expect our government bodies to be irritatingly blind to those differences, and shake our heads at the all too common abuse of power that comes with those who scrabbled so hard to get it.

Shadow

This is my kirttimukhaGo to Top of Page

Wildflower

USA
4528 Posts

Posted - 06/22/2006 :  12:09:42 AM  Show Profile
I am no longer surprised at the lack of impartiality in government anymore.

If the administration can use the FDA and Customs to do their dirty work for them, then I guess they can use the IRS.

WildflowerGo to Top of Page

nativelady

USA
11126 Posts

Posted - 06/22/2006 :  07:29:23 AM  Show Profile  Visit nativelady's Homepage
Shadow, I always trust your facts and often times your opinion, CAN the IRS, do anything or even TRY to do anything when church members put up signs that says "Vote No"...? Sounds like the IRS has bigger fish to fry than to "play with the minnows"...but I was just wondering and you are "Da Man" on ACTUAL facts and truth in any given subject, so I am pretty much leaning towards your knowledge on this. Not that I am worried but just "curious" I guess.

"Christianity is not a religion; it is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ."Go to Top of Page

daughterofconfederate

USA
29728 Posts

Posted - 06/22/2006 :  07:44:34 AM  Show Profile
THE IRS WANTS ILLEGAL IMMAGRANTS.. THEY WANT PEOPLE WHO ARE TAX AVATIONERS AND THO I DO THINK IT IS A FACT LADY, UNLESS THE NEWS COMES BACK TO BVILLE, AND SOME STINK IS MADE.. WELL.. I JUST DONT THINK THEY HAVE THE TIME BUT COULD BE SURPRISED. If its what God meant to be done.. then I wouldnt worry about it at all. If I were doing what God told my heart to do.. Id go to jail for God..
Them signs dont bother me a bit. Good or bad.. Freedom of speech as people use to say all the time is just that.. wether ya got a non exempt stamp or tax id!


We make a living by what we get, we make a life by what we give.
Sir Winston Churchill


Go to Top of Page

why

USA
2072 Posts

Posted - 06/22/2006 :  09:16:01 AM  Show Profile
Unless I read Jeepbuddy's post wrong, the IRS has no reason to act against the churchs for stating their beliefs. They are neither promoting or opposing a canidate nor are they activly expressing opposition to anyone on this issue. They are oposing the issue itself, they are simply asking those that will to vote no. Has no one voiced a belief or opinion that it should be passed.

Has no member of the chamber of commerce or the development authority told anyone that they support the issue?? The church (I am talking about all the churches that join in the opposition) has its beliefs just as those who are for alcohol have theirs. Are their no hypocrites in Church, of course there are, just as there are hypocrites in the approval side. How many of those who say that they just want people to be able to enjoy a drink with their meal are really just looking for how much more profit they can make?? The politicans are looking for more money to fund the projects that are proposed by those who have their ear. It will be interesting to see who gets the licenses if this passes.

Have you ever seen anyone with cirossis of the Liver, it's not very pretty. Have you met someone who had to rest their hand on a counter in front of a mirror and move their face around to shave because of the shakes?? Not so pretty either. Have you ever worked with someone who you could not depend on to come back from lunch because of drinking? I've seen these people, I've worked around them, and I felt sorry for them.

As I have said before, to those who can sit down and have a drink with their meal, fine, there are too many who can't and shouldn't have the opertunity and temptation.

There has been a lot of opposition to the church on the forum lately because they voice their beliefs, are not you doing the same thing in a different way? You may not have signs in your yard (I don't) but you are yourself a sign and you have influence with everyone to whom you talk. (Reworded that so as not to end the sentence with to, thanks teachers) I have stated before that I am not strong church person and probably wouldn't attend regulary if it weren't for my wife. I feel just as close to God in the woods and mountains as I do a lot of times in church, but I can't put them down for being strong in their beliefs.

Just what I think

whyGo to Top of Page

ShadowMan

USA
4158 Posts

Posted - 06/22/2006 :  09:44:16 AM  Show Profile  Visit ShadowMan's Homepage
Lady, CaseyDoodleBug was spot on with this when she posted "Federal tax laws prohibit all tax-exempt institutions, which includes churchs, from endorsing or opposing candidates for public office or using their resources in partisan campaigns. It is generally held that this prohibition concerns only races for public office, not issues."

The text that Jeepbuddy posted corroborated that, which I believe is why he was putting away his camera.

I wasn't sure myself initially, but that's the beauty of this forum. We get to learn things that otherwise we've have just wondered about in passing, I think.

Shadow

This is my kirttimukha

Edited by - ShadowMan on 06/22/2006 09:44:54 AMGo to Top of Page

topaz

USA
3621 Posts

Posted - 06/22/2006 :  09:52:28 AM  Show Profile
quote:
Pawpaw always said ya dont talk about politics and religion with some folk.. and I do know what he meant by that now that I am older..

I too heard this growing up and yep, now that I'm old(er), I know what my elders were talkin' about.


~*Topaz*~Go to Top of Page

coosa creek

USA
39313 Posts

Posted - 06/22/2006 :  10:30:03 AM  Show Profile
When I moved here 22 years ago, one of the first people I met was the local moonshiner. Everyone knew he was a moonshiner. (also a deputy sherrif) My worker, Raymond, bought moonshine from him just last year, and it was expensive, about $80 a botttle,
I am just mentioning this because this is the way the man made his living all his life and I saw in the paper, that he died last week.
I wonder what he thought about the vote coming up next month!
There has been liquor in this area forever!!

Go to Top of Page

Wildflower

USA
4528 Posts

Posted - 06/22/2006 :  1:40:12 PM  Show Profile
I don't think anyone is saying a church should not be able to talk about their beliefs. I think they can and should.

But law, or no law, I would personally be ticked off if my church told me how to vote.

There is a big difference in promoting beliefs versus actually telling members how to vote.

WildflowerGo to Top of Page

Topic is 29 Pages Long:
  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10
 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
 
 New Topic  Topic Locked
Jump To:

Blairsville, Georgia - home in the North GA Mountains

© 2002-2007 BoeBro Ventures, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000

© 2002-2009 BoeBro Ventures, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Usage Policy