ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

Yes, as long as the drone is under police rather than military control. Like any other type of weapon or surveillance equipment, it could be wrongfully used. But if used by the police within Constitutional limits, I have no problem with it. The potential problem is that like some other forms of new technology, it allows the police to easily break constitutional limits on their actions if they yield to the temptation to do that. If some scumbag is holding a member of my family hostage and threatening to kill him/her, and the police can take the scumbag out with a drone so that that they don't endanger their own lives, I'm all for it. Does that surprise you? BTW, I'm still waiting for your answer here: http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/156135-taxpayers-contribute-millions-of-dollars-to-democrats-convention/page__st__20?do=findComment&comment=2742962

That's funny, but the fact of the matter is, I have frequently posted that I have three brothers named Darryl. Kind of cuts against GG's argument that I claim to be an "expert" on every topic that I choose to start a thread about.

Angle of impact, nothing more. But If you choose to kill a US citizen on US soil rather than arrest him (when the suspect poses no imminent danger to anyone), there's a rather large problem regardless of where the bullet comes from. As for me supposedly claiming to be "the expert on all topics" I start, if that's true, it should be pretty easy to find one where I've asked somebody to believe me because of my education, experience or expertise. I can't recall ever doing that (as opposed to providing links to news stories or articles written by others, supplemented by my own thoughts unrelated to my education, experience or expertise), but I suppose it's possible. Good luck finding one. Have I mentioned that I have three brothers named Darryl?

http://www.rosebowlstadium.com/RoseBowl_ITN_080912.php

Not that there's anything wrong with that - - wonder what Bernie Frank thought of him?

http://www.cnn.com/2...-cia/index.html http://www.theatlant...-us-soil/62800/ Update: Video of attorney general of the US going to great lengths to try to avoid answering Congressional question about constitutionality of drone strikes against US citizens on US soil: http://www.cbsnews.c...h/?id=50142293n Sen. Rand Paul will discuss this issue on CNN at 7 pm ET tonight (3/6).

Why not honor WNY's heritage? I'd go with: No Goal, Wide Right or the less common McKinley Shotdead. Or you could mix 'n match (especially if it's twins) - - something like: Love Steel Bethlehem Canal Albright Way Sky Knox Peace Falls Niagara Bridge I actually kind of like Sky Knox, but I have issues.

Thanks. That made your position clear about why you believe that Duke Energy can now deduct the host committee's owed but unpaid debt on Duke Energy's corporate income tax returns - - the only part I disagree with is the legitimacy of Duke Energy's income tax deduction. I'm still not sure why I should believe that you know what you're talking about. You didn't claim to be a bigshot tax lawyer when prompted, but see a legal issue here. Most hammers see nails (and most surgeons cure everything by cutting), so maybe you're a "smallshot" business lawyer that knows a thing or two about tax issues?"

Setting aside the "drivel" and "crap" remarks for the moment, I want to make sure I understand why you believe that Duke Energy can deduct its financial loss as a worthless bad debt. We probably agree that when the host committee failed to repay the loan made by the banks, Duke Energy was required to repay the loan because of its guarantee. Are you suggesting that after Duke Energy repaid the bank loan, that the host committee somehow owed a debt to Duke Energy? The host committee never borrowed any money from Duke Energy, so why do you believe that Duke Energy is owed a debt by the host committee? And unless you're some bigshot tax lawyer, why should I believe that you know what you're talking about?

I was talking about the legality of Duke Energy's decision to claim a business deduction in my most recent post, not the legality of the transaction itself. I don't think the Democratic Party host committee or anyone else did anything illegal when the loan and guarantee were first made, but I think it's debatable whether Duke Energy's decision to deduct its financial loss as a business expense is legitimate. I'll explain more about why I feel that way in my next post - - but that's gonna need to wait a bit. Edit: Let's change "in my next post" to "soon." I have some other business to attend to first.

It's not as simple as you claim: http://www.irs.gov/publications/p535/ch10.html Loans made directly to political parties clearly have additional requirements that must be met before failure to repay can be written off as a bad business debt. Here, the loan was made to the "host committee" of a political party. Even if that technically isn't the same thing as a loan made to the political party itself, the host committee seems to fall within the definition of "other organization that accepts contributions or spends money to influence elections" So can Duke Energy avoid those extra requirements by structuring things as a guarantee rather than an outright loan, because there is no specific language imposing the extra requirements on guarantees made in favor of political parties? Seems pretty slimey to me. And even if Duke Energy surmounts that hurdle, Duke Energy can still only deduct the $ if it "made the guarantee in accord with normal business practice or for a good faith business purpose." Duke Energy's statements that it made the guarantee to help promote the local economy may be an attempt to demonstrate a "good faith business purpose." Given the extra requirements for deducting unrepaid loans to political parties as bad business debts, it's not clear to me that the transaction is "perfectly legal as written," just because they structured it as a guarantee (even assuming that Duke Energy initially had an honest expectation that the host committee would repay the loan in full).

Pay attention to the progression - - one more to go.

If the landlord really did take advantage of you, grow some balls. 1. If the house is in VA, this may be useful: http://www.vlas.org/documents/489281Security%20Deposit.pdf Note, however, that the Virginia Residential Landlord Tenant Act (referred to as the "VRLTA" in the link) only applies to single family house rentals (as opposed to apartment complex rentals), if the landlord "rents more than ten houses in a county or more than four houses in a city." The link also states: "If your rental is not covered by the VRLTA, there may be other state laws that apply to your situation." 2. You also might want to look at the link below. I've never heard of this outfit, so use it at your own risk, but if the info published in their link is accurate it sounds like it might be useful - - make sure you read and understand anything they ask you to sign: http://securitydepositrefund.org/virginia-renters-rights-law.html

I

A few questions that I don't know the answers: 1. Since the borrowed funds were originally supplied to the democratic host committee by 2 local Charlotte banks, and only guaranteed by Duke Energy, does that still qualify as a deductible bad debt expense for Duke Energy? 2. Is it a deductible bad debt expense only if Duke Energy makes some effort to actually recover the money? Because if Duke Energy makes no such effort, couldn't the IRS say that a gift was the true intent, which would not fall under the same tax deduction rules as a true loan? 3. If some effort to recover the money is required for Duke Energy to legitimately claim a bad debt expense deduction, is it enough if Duke Energy simply asks for repayment and gets ignored? 4. Is there any scenario in which the IRS can look past the structure of the funding arrangement and claim that Duke Energy and the host committee always intended that the money never be repaid to Duke Energy, thereby negating treatment as a "bad debt expense?" If an outright contribution by Duke Energy to the host committee is not tax deductible, I'd be concerned that the guarantee arrangement was an artifact to get more favorable tax treatment than an outright gift by Duke Energy. I'm pretty sure that where loans by individuals are concerned, there are some situations where the IRS can look past the structure of a loan and treat it as a gift if there was never any intention for the loan to be repaid. Why should it be different for Duke Energy? But again, I just have questions here, not answers. Because a bad debt expense only creates a deduction, not a dollar-for-dollar credit. So "writing it off" DOES involve additional expense (as compared to getting full repayment of the funds).

Unexpected? How about an athletic but slightly undersized former SEC power forward with good hands who never quite cut it in the NBA to be the next Antonio Gates at TE - - don't have a name, just the type.

T

Incorrectly, as it turns out. I have heard of "Common Cause" - - here's what they say about the legality of large corporate contributions to "host committees" for national political conventions: http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7Bfb3c17e2-cdd1-4df6-92be-bd4429893665%7D/CC%20CONVENTIONS%20LINGERING%20LOOPHOLES.PDF As the Common Cause link points out, you can make a strong argument that such contributions should be illegal, but under current law, they ARE legal, and "host committees" for both parties' national conventions accept them. As for Duke Energy, I'm not a shareholder, nor am I a customer whose rates are determined in part by what the company spends. As far as I'm concerned, they can spend their money any way they want. Did the Democratic party deceitfully try to hide the fact that the host committee used large corporate $ after publishing propaganda that they wouldn't do that? Sure. Was it deceptive optics? Sure. But was it illegal to accept the corporate $, no. The only thing Duke Energy did that I consider potentially illegal was treating the amount of the unrepaid loan as a tax deductible business expense. I don't know much about corporate tax accounting. If a corporation pays a lobbyist to try to persuade Congress to pass laws that will make the company more profitable, I would expect that to be a legitimate business expense deduction. But this expense (even if it had been made as an outright contribution to a host committee rather than disguised as a loan) - - I just don't know. Smells different, though. But that's a separate issue from whether the accepting of a large corporate contribution was illegal in the first place, and responsibility for the tax treatment lies with Duke Energy, not the political party.

Not familiar with the source, and I don't have a dog in the fight, but FWIW: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/10/18/dem-convention-found-to-have-used-corporate-donations-despite-pledges-not-to/

If that's true, why didn't the Democratic sequester bill pass the Senate?

Let's give this Texas cop a drone to play with: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57572126/texas-police-officer-terminated-after-shooting-at-suspect-41-times/ http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57569565/u.s-a-step-closer-to-wide-domestic-use-of-drones/ September 2011 photo provided by Vanguard Defense Industries shows ShadowHawk drone with Montgomery County, Texas, SWAT team members. / AP

Maybe he told the dog to put his head inside the truck window one too many times: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXAniU7wvJg

http://www2.highland...-say-ar-643226/ Not sure who's dumber, the idiot who owned the gun or the cops whose investigation found the shooting "accidental." The guy lived in Frostproof - - guess he should have lived in "Bulletproof."

We could of been talking to you, but I don't think so. You might be smarter then me, though.