LOL!
Posted on 08/21/2007 6:13:13 PM PDT by ForEternity
Did you read the article I just posted? It makes no difference who filed the FEC complaint, the complaints appears to be solid and Thompson will have to answer it.
So in short, the issue is the complaint itself and not who filed it.
Let’s discuss the complaint. Attacks on the poster and the partisan hack who filed the complaint are just deflection away from the issue.
For all the rampant promiscuity, extramarital affairs, and all going on in the world today, it is really bizarre to see people put so much emphasis on the practice of marrying multiple wives from over a century ago. Mote. Eye. Beam.
You owe me a new keyboard. Hot tea and electornics do not mix!
Tell that to the FEC:
“What’s gotten Mr. Thompson in trouble is that in order to be considered in the “testing the waters” phase of one’s campaign, one cannot make “written or oral statements” that refer to one’s self as “a candidate for a particular office.” However, in order to keep up interest from voters, Mr. Thompson has had to play a little peek-a-boo with statements such as: “You’re either running or not running. I think the steps we’re taking are pretty obvious.” But why should our election laws encourage candidates to engage in such charades? The “testing the waters” status allows candidates to delay disclosing who their donors are and how much they’ve raised, but this only muddies the waters as voters and donors consider a potential candidate. The only other thing the status accomplishes is to create uncertainty for potential campaigns as to what they can and cannot do as far as raising and spending money and communicating with voters. Having gotten it wrong could end up costing Mr. Thompson more than $1 million in fines.”
Which was heralded by the Reagan-favored Heritage Foundation.
He’s done exactly what he needs to do for disclosure. Furthermore, he’s shown just what a mockery the loophole ridden FEC and CFR (that’s campaign finance reform, not Council on Foreign Relations) laws are. Sounds like sour grapes from other candidates if they start complaining about this. Hillary could have been saving up her war chest all this time, but she decided to spend it. Ditto for Romney and Rudy. Their examples of piss-poor campaign planning do not “a crisis” for Thompson make.
The person becomes a candidate (in the eyes of the government once he exceeds $5k in contributions/expendatures. For me, the telling paragraph is: "For example, Mr. Jones is interested in running for Congress but is unsure whether he has enough support within his district to make a successful bid. He therefore accepts up to $2,300 from each of several friends to pay for an opinion poll. The results of the poll indicate good name recognition in the community, and Jones decides to run. On the first report Jones files after he becomes a candidate (i.e., after he either receives contributions or makes expenditures which exceed $5,000), his committee must report the donations from his friends as 'contributions' and the costs of the poll as 'expenditures.'"
Fred's filing (according to Lane Hudson was with the IRS: $3,400,000 for his campaign committee, and $72,000 earmarked for the campaign. But Fred has until October 1 to file with the Federal Election Commission. That's when the quarter ends and when he must file, as all candidates must. Thus, I think Hudson has the cart before the horse.
I'm no lawyer; certainly no one familiar with campaign finance laws. But this brochure is pretty clear and specific. And I can't see the problem. Anyone else out there who can add to this?
Moma died a year ago, so she’s not talking, anymore.
However, irrational and inconsistent thinking in such a basic tenant of Christianity - that Jesus Christ is God, that our God is One, and that His death and resurrection was for all of us, male and female and that we are reconciled to God, by God through this sacrifice - is relevant to the conversation about the character of a man who has thrust himself and his family into the public sphere.
Read my post #147.
Baloney, Spiff. This has been discussed here on FR in the past and it’s documented on the Web. The wives are given secret names at weddings in the Temple. The only way for them to move “through the veil” - which not exactly analogous, is the equivalent of getting out of hell in order to go to heaven - is for the husband to call them out using that secret name. In fact, while the men can become gods, there’s really no way for a woman to become a god in the doctrine of the Mormons, right?
Thankfully, there’s none of the infidelity and promiscuity that you mention in my marriage or Moma’s and Daddy’s. However, the difference is that infidelity and promiscuity are considered sin in Christianity, while the “eternal marriage” nonsense is current doctrine in Mormonism.
???? What is there to discuss? I could file some complaint against Hillary and it would mean as much as what this moonbat filed. The complainant may not like Fred and how Fred is running his campaign, but Fred played by the rules. Anybody whot tries to make hay out of this just being a mindless Fred opponent playing up to the moonbats. I would be ashamed if I was Romney and my supporters jumped on this.
I'm Mormon and I've been to the Temple many times. The only "baloney" here is the stuff you're saying about the beliefs of the LDS Church.
Small correction: the FEC filings are not due, unless something has changed very recently, until 30 days after the quarter ends. So the 3rd quarter FEC filings are due on October 31st.
Thanks!
You were speaking of polygamy, so keep to the topic. The century-past practice of polygamy is different topic from the eternal marriage topic that you bring up.
My point was that so many make so much of a practice that was ceased over a century ago while making little of the rampant extramarital relations going on all around us. And if you had an understanding of the actual details of the practice of polygamy as it existed in the early LDS Church, you would see even more the stark contrast between that and the way society now accepts multiple partners inside and outside of marriage.
A bit of social advice: Don’t join FreeRepublic and then immediately refer to anti-Thompson screw balls as “we”.
LOL!
Another loon is lose...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.