• Blog Entries

    • By JimmiJo in ES Coverage
         1

       
      Trapped
       
      Hello my friends. JimmiJo here. I am joined by my partner; Spaceman Spiff. Together we will bring you the sights and sounds of today's match between the Washington Redskins and San Francisco 49ers. 
       
      This game has all the markings of the classic 'trap' game. The Washington Redskins are hosted an 0-5 San Francisco 49ers; a squad desperate for a win.
       
      The Redskins don't fare well is such games, if history if any game. No, not actual history; but history according to Pappas. I remember witnessing an 0-5 Titans leave with a win. I recall Washington allowing Detroit, who were hosting 18-straight losses, to get well.
       
      Bingo!
       
      But we must consider this Redskins' team is a different deal. These guys are playing with an attitude.
       
      Having Josh Norman out hurts. But it looks like Trent Williams is active and we will see if he starts (betcha he does).
       
      Stand by...
       
      Inactives
       
      The Redskins declared the following players as inactive:
      o   No. 20 RB Rob Kelley
      o   No. 22 S Deshazor Everett
      o   No. 24 CB Josh Norman
      o   No. 40 LB Josh Harvey-Clemons
      o   No. 72 DL Anthony Lanier II
      o   No. 79 T Ty Nsekhe
      o   No. 87 TE Jeremy Sprinkle
       
      No. 25 Chris Thompson is expected to start in place of Kelley at running back.
      No. 35 Montae Nicholson is expected to start in place of Everett at safety.
      No. 47 Quinton Dunbar is expected to start in place of Norman at cornerback.
       
      The 49ers declared the following players as inactive:
      o   No. 10 WR Kendrick Bourne
      o   No. 20 CB Leon Hall
      o   No. 27 DB Dexter McCoil
      o   No. 44 FB Kyle Juszczyk
      o   No. 56 LB Reuben Foster
      o   No. 62 OL Erik Magnuson
      o   No. 97 LB Dekoda Watson
       
      Keys to the Game
       
      Punch them in the mouth early. Use the run to set up play-action. Disruptive pressure on defense. Win the turnover battle.
       
      Here's to a good game with no injuries. 
       
      Follow along in-game on Twitter @Skinscast. 
       
      Half
       
      Redskins are doing well, dominating all statistical categories. But the let down at the end of the game resulted in at least a 4-point giveaway. FOr the second straight game, individual players on the defense are finding ways to extend drive.
       
      Kirk Cousins finished the half 15-for-21 for 201-yards, 2 touchdowns and an interception and a 130.55 rating.
       
      For San Francisco, disarray is the word of the day. Brian Hoyer has been benched for C.J. Beathard, grandson to Bobby Beathard. Beathard just found a way to get 7 on the board.
       
      The 49ers get the ball to start the half. 
       
      JimmiJo
       
      They just had to make it interesting.
       
      After a fairly domination first 28-minutes of the game, things changed for the Washington Redskins. Washington was holding a comfortable 17-0 lead when the San Francisco 49ers sent rookie quarterback C.J. Beathard in the game.
       
      All he did was march the team down for a touchdown at the end of the half.
       
      He then led a field goal drive to start the second half, and then a touchdown following Vernon Davis’ fumble.
       
      That tied the game tied at 17. Redskins fans were dismayed, but hardly surprised.
       
      Washington woke up in the fourth quarter; adding a field goal to go up three, and then another six on a Kirk Cousins read-option scamper.
       
      It was a bad omen when kicker Dustin Hopkins missed the extra point.
       
      Cousins finished the day 25-of-37 for 330-yards, 2 touchdowns and 1 interception with a quarterback rating of 102.3.
       
      Concern turned to nightmare when Beathard hit a wide open (and former Redskins receiver) Aldrick Robinson for a touchdown. Robinson was the beneficiary of a blown coverage that left him running free to the end zone, pulling San Francisco within 2.
       
      The niners would get another chance with under 2-minutes to play. Lacking timeouts, they made a run for it; advancing the ball to midfield before a penalties and dropped balls started to catch up to them.
       
      On the final meaningful play of the game, Kendall Fuller reached up and grabbed the interception to put away the game.
       
      Head Coach Jay Gruden said after the game something to the effect that it is a good sign when a team is not too happy when they get a win. That guys would find stuff not to like about the game.
       
      One writer told me he thought this meant the team is maturing.  I thought it meant that knew the 49ers stink and it should never have been so close.
       
      There was plenty not to like about this game. Surrendering a 17-point lead. Stupid personal fouls to give up first downs. Horrendous officiating.
       
      And once again, injuries.
       
      Bashaud Breelend is going to an MRI tomorrow to discover the extent of his knee problems.
       
      Gruden said Breeland will have an MRI Monday. Defensive Lineman Jonathan Allen suffered a foot-sprain. Montae Nicholson has a shoulder injury. Stefan McClure a knee sprain and Fabian Moreau hamstring tightness.
       
      But a win is a win and Washington will take it as they get ready to travel to Philadelphia for a rematch with the Eagles.
       
      Washington amassed 419 total yards of offense this game. They had 325-net yards passing and 94-yards rushing, with 6-different rushers used. Chris Thompson led all backs with 33 yards.
       
      Thompson finished the day as the leading receiver for the Redskins, totaling 105 yards on 4-receptions. He led a field of 9 different receivers.
      Washington’s defense finished the day with 3 sacks and 1 interception.
       
      Next week Washington faces division-leading Philadelphia Eagles at their place. This is a rematch of the Week 1 loss suffered at FedEx Field. They play Monday night.
       
      We will see you for the next home game.
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

footballhenry

Should the Mormon LDS Church lose its tax exempt status?

Recommended Posts

539w.jpg

I bring this question to light because it is now known that the LDS Church funded over 20 million dollars to get Prop 8 passed this past election in California. Now it is to my understanding that churches are NOT supposed to be involved in political matters and this would constitute a breach of that rule. Therefore, quite simply shouldn't the LDS church lose its tax exempt status since it has directly injected itself into state issues??

In my estimation there is no question that they should. What's more though is I think it is sad that so much energy, and money is put towards a divisive agenda when it could go for much more humane, ethical causes. :2cents:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's Prop 8 got to do with Bigamy?

:movefast:

But seriously? I don't think it's possible to draw a line whereby churches can be prohibited from taking a stand on what they consider morality, without restricting their freedom of religion.

Face it, one purpose of religion is to discriminate. (I'm not using that in a negative context. Just pointing out that one person's evil discrimination is another person's moral stand.) If they can't discriminate, then they aren't churches any more.

Maybe there needs to be a big penalty for taking certain, specific, actions. Like sending a check to a PAC. But that would be, to me, a tough law to write.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my estimation there is no question that they should. What's more though is I think it is sad that so much energy, and money is put towards a divisive agenda when it could go for much more humane, ethical causes. :2cents:

Dang liberals always wanting to spend others money...Get a job and spend your own:silly::moon:

I think there should be NO tax exempt organizations,religious or otherwise,maybe then we could get real tax reform.

There are other tax exempt organizations that fund and support political goals as well....funny that Libs only care about the religious ones that oppose pet issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are other tax exempt organizations that fund and support political goals as well....funny that Libs only care about the religious ones that oppose pet issues.

Could you mention some? I'm aware that there are a lot of organizations like the ACLU and NRA, who have PACs associated with them. But is that really illegal? If all the PAC isn't exempt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, they shouldn't lose their status. They cannot be involved directly in political advocacy, trying to elect one person or another. That is politics. Advocating for societal issues is not forbidden, as it is not the same type of politics.

Think about it for a minute and you'll see how stupid it is. They're a church, right? They talk about a wide variety of issues. How are you going to say that they can't advocate for their beliefs, or publicize what they feel is the right stand on an issue?

So whatever issues people disagree on, the church should have to shut up about? Remember, any area where people disagree is fertile ground for some kind of legislation, so it's ALL political.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The IRS would probably take away it's tax-exempt status for a year and then give it back like it has done with others in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nonprofits can take stands on issues what they can't do is take a political side (IE dem versus repub... they need to serve everyone) At least that's my understanding.

That's why the American Cancer Society can campaign against cigarettes for example, but technically they shouldn't be endorsing a political party. There's obviously some gray because clearly groups like the NRA are pro-repub or greenpeace is pro-Dem. Although I guess they're not "officially" a repub or dem group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, they shouldn't lose their status. They cannot be involved directly in political advocacy, trying to elect one person or another. That is politics. Advocating for societal issues is not forbidden, as it is not the same type of politics.

Think about it for a minute and you'll see how stupid it is. They're a church, right? They talk about a wide variety of issues. How are you going to say that they can't advocate for their beliefs, or publicize what they feel is the right stand on an issue?

So whatever issues people disagree on, the church should have to shut up about? Remember, any area where people disagree is fertile ground for some kind of legislation, so it's ALL political.

I wouldn't be surprised if you've hit on what the law is. (That they can endorse positions, but not individual candidates.)

OTOH, I also could say that there's a difference between encouraging church members to vote for Prop 8, and donating milions of dollars to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
539w.jpg

I bring this question to light because it is now known that the LDS Church funded over 20 million dollars to get Prop 8 passed this past election in California. Now it is to my understanding that churches are NOT supposed to be involved in political matters and this would constitute a breach of that rule. Therefore, quite simply shouldn't the LDS church lose its tax exempt status since it has directly injected itself into state issues??

In my estimation there is no question that they should. What's more though is I think it is sad that so much energy, and money is put towards a divisive agenda when it could go for much more humane, ethical causes. :2cents:

It's called lobbying. If that was illegal then there would be no tax exempt organizations in this country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

501©(3) does mention the influencing of legislation. But is a proposition only a loophole for what is all intents and purposes identical to legislation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nonprofits can take stands on issues what they can't do is take a political side (IE dem versus repub... they need to serve everyone) At least that's my understanding.

That's why the American Cancer Society can campaign against cigarettes for example, but technically they shouldn't be endorsing a political party. There's obviously some gray because clearly groups like the NRA are pro-repub or greenpeace is pro-Dem. Although I guess they're not "officially" a repub or dem group.

As an interest group they can lobby for a position correct. Now your point regarding specific party identification, I don't believe there is a specific law against that (correct me if I'm wrong) but I do know that endorsing a specific candidate is not allowed.

Through their PAC they can give money to whom they want though, effectively endorsing whomever they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
501©(3) does mention the influencing of legislation. But is a proposition only a loophole for what is all intents and purposes identical to legislation?

They could also be tagged as just lobbying for an issue not for a piece of legislation (I'm sure their lawyers have found every loop hole there is).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They could also be tagged as just lobbying for an issue not for a piece of legislation (I'm sure their lawyers have found every loop hole there is).

That's what I was thinking earlier. They wouldn't commit that amount of money without checking the full circle with their lawyers first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's what I was thinking earlier. They wouldn't commit that amount of money without checking the full circle with their lawyers first.

Well for a group that holds as much weight as the LDS I'm sure that they can easily make that money "disappear". ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think they even had to do any fancy footwork with the money. They can advocate for legislation that fits their beliefs. If churches couldn't spend money in support or opposition to legislation, they could not pay the pastor, hold leadership conferences, conduct community outreach, or anything that might happen to indicate support or opposition to whatever random proposed laws or bills are out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Could you mention some? I'm aware that there are a lot of organizations like the ACLU and NRA, who have PACs associated with them. But is that really illegal? If all the PAC isn't exempt?

If the PAC is exempt, yet they use the other parts resources it is tax evasion.

Moveon is a large example,but there are many others.

teachers unions

http://www.topix.com/news/gay/2008/10/california-teachers-union-donates-to-no-on-8-campaign

http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1790

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mormonism is pretty much a cult, no matter how industrious they are... but I digress

Why do you say that? (honest question, no strings attached, lol)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I bring this question to light because it is now known that the LDS Church funded over 20 million dollars to get Prop 8 passed this past election in California. Now it is to my understanding that churches are NOT supposed to be involved in political matters and this would constitute a breach of that rule.

That's a misunderstanding of the current tax law, as a pastor I can openly support, and endorse or oppose particular legislation; much like I did with the expanded gaming legislation here in Kentucky.

http://www.gcfa.org/PDFs/politicspulpit.pdf (see page 5, questions 5 and 6)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OTOH, I also could say that there's a difference between encouraging church members to vote for Prop 8, and donating milions of dollars to it.

Well with campaign finance reform they've already established that money is free speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The irony is a bunch of former polygamists worrying about 'protecting marriage'.

I dunno. IMO, blacks voting 2 to 1 in favor of "separate but equal" has it beat by a long shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/cults.htm

For the record, the folks that run the Utah Lighthouse Ministry are former Mormons that have done extensive research into the LDS church and completely blown them out of the water as a viable religion IMHO.

Yeah, but you get your own planet when you become a god.

Its kind of like Dungeons & Dragons when you became an immortal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.