# Stupid liberal idea of the day **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 20, 2011, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086 "2011-04-20T15:35:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 80
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2014, 7:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1581 "2014-02-11T07:08:23Z")
This could go in either thread, since it’s a Democrat and a Republican, but this threads seems so lonely. [NFL Told to Rename Redskins or Risk Losing Tax Exempt Status](http://news.kron4.com/news/nfl-told-to-rename-redskins-or-risk-losing-tax-exempt-status/) I’m sure there’s a list somewhere of what an organization has to do to qualify for tax-exempt status. The NFL either qualifies, or it doesn’t. It shouldn’t be held out as a bargaining chip. The defiinition in 501(c)(6) appears to include a specific exemption for professional football leagues. Thanks, Congress. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2014, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1582 "2014-02-11T07:17:02Z")
How did the NFL get tax exempt status and what does that mean, exactly? ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2014, 7:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1583 "2014-02-11T07:23:29Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > How did the NFL get tax exempt status and what does that mean, exactly? I couldn’t answer either of those with enough detail to be useful, but I don’t see any good reason for “professional football leagues” to be singled out for exemption. And whether that exemption continues should be based on stronger economic and policy goals than the name of one of the franchises. ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Kitchen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rick_kitchen/32/522_2.png) [@Rick\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Kitchen)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2014, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1584 "2014-02-11T07:26:52Z")
The official reasoning for the NFL being tax exempt is because each team is a unique entity. The NFL itself is non-profit, it’s the teams that make money. The league is a trade association, apparently. Not saying I agree with any of that. ---
**Author:** ![Askthepizzaguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askthepizzaguy/32/9405_2.png) [@Askthepizzaguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askthepizzaguy)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2014, 7:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1585 "2014-02-11T07:27:41Z")
Ok. Do the teams themselves pay taxes? ---
**Author:** ![CaptMurdock](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/captmurdock/32/11736_2.png) [@CaptMurdock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CaptMurdock)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2014, 7:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1586 "2014-02-11T07:44:36Z")
> [@Rick\_Kitchen](#): > > The official reasoning for the NFL being tax exempt is because each team is a unique entity. The NFL itself is non-profit, it’s the teams that make money. The league is a trade association, apparently. > > Not saying I agree with any of that. It’s not the NFL that’s being told to change its name or start paying taxes, it’s the Redskins. If the teams aren’t exempt, then threatening to take away their tax-exempt status isn’t much of a threat. And if they are exempt, WHO WAS SMOKING WHAT THAT DAY?? Bad enough that grown men play childish games while the rest of the world pays to applaud – who decided they shouldn’t contribute to American society?? :smack: (Yeah, I’m gonna get flack for that…) ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2014, 7:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1587 "2014-02-11T07:58:05Z")
I could buy that the main functions of the NFL are the non-revenue-generating tasks of organizing, administering and mediating the interactions of the teams (who individually pay corporate taxes) but the NFL itself must generate income from licensing various NFL-logo products and if they’re not paying taxes on this income, well… that’s a whole what-the-fuck right there. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2014, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1588 "2014-02-11T14:03:33Z")
> [@Askthepizzaguy](#): > > Ok. > > Do the teams themselves pay taxes? Yes. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2014, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1589 "2014-02-11T14:13:15Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > This could go in either thread, since it’s a Democrat and a Republican, but this threads seems so lonely. > > [NFL Told to Rename Redskins or Risk Losing Tax Exempt Status](http://news.kron4.com/news/nfl-told-to-rename-redskins-or-risk-losing-tax-exempt-status/) > > I’m sure there’s a list somewhere of what an organization has to do to qualify for tax-exempt status. The NFL either qualifies, or it doesn’t. It shouldn’t be held out as a bargaining chip. Tom Cole is a pro-life, pro-business, pro-gun Republican, so I’m not sure this qualifies as a “liberal” idea. > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I could buy that the main functions of the NFL are the non-revenue-generating tasks of organizing, administering and mediating the interactions of the teams (who individually pay corporate taxes) but the NFL itself must generate income from licensing various NFL-logo products and if they’re not paying taxes on this income, well… that’s a whole what-the-fuck right there. Teams pay taxes on all shared revenues. The only real benefit of the league’s tax exemption (versus not creating a jointly owned corporation to run things) is that the teams get to pay for “joint” things - the commissioner’s salary, league marketing, referee salaries, and so on - with pretax dollars. ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2014, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1590 "2014-02-11T15:23:51Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Teams pay taxes on all shared revenues. The only real benefit of the league’s tax exemption (versus not creating a jointly owned corporation to run things) is that the teams get to pay for “joint” things - the commissioner’s salary, league marketing, referee salaries, and so on - with pretax dollars. So it’s an accounting thing that would net no difference if it was pulled? Our accountant has us write off all those expenses (employee salaries, marketing, etc.) as it is. Or is the stick the threat that if they pull the exemption, the NFL itself won’t be able to carry on collecting revenue without paying taxes on it, and the creation of the joint corporation or other entity to serve the same functions will be a huge disruption time, agreement, etc.-wise? ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2014, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1591 "2014-02-12T16:35:47Z")
This is the hyper-sensitivity liberal bullshit that makes me want to punch a minority and ban gay marriage. > **[Air New Zealand’s new swimsuit safety video: Fun or offensive? | CNN](https://www.cnn.com/2014/02/12/travel/air-new-zealand-safety-video/)** > > Air New Zealand’s latest in-flight safety video is already another viral hit but is some turbulence over its use of several Sports Illustrated models. > [@](#): > > The “Safety in Paradise” video, which rolls out on Air New Zealand flights at the end of February, is beautifully shot and certainly cheerful and fun. It was filmed in the Cook Islands – home to several stunning beaches – and coincides with the 50th anniversary of Sports Illustrated’s Swimsuit franchise. > Earlier videos have been witty, clever and quirky but the paradise video combines a far less subtle use of eye-catching material – using four of the planet’s most beautiful, and scantily clad women, to deliver information to passengers. > The models include Ariel Meredith, Chrissy Teigen, Hannah Davis and Jessica Gomes. Christie Brinkley makes a cameo. > “It seems that suddenly they are saying that my sexuality is all that matters about me,” one critic, Massey University lecturer and feminist commentator Deborah Russell told the Sydney Morning Herald. Is there any justification for this “they are saying that my sexuality is all that matters about me” non-sequitur, beyond it likely being her in her job description to find offense? If it had female comedians delivering the same info but with jokes, would it be saying that a sense of humor is all that matters about women? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2014, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1592 "2014-02-12T16:48:35Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > So it’s an accounting thing that would net no difference if it was pulled? Our accountant has us write off all those expenses (employee salaries, marketing, etc.) as it is. > > Or is the stick the threat that if they pull the exemption, the NFL itself won’t be able to carry on collecting revenue without paying taxes on it, and the creation of the joint corporation or other entity to serve the same functions will be a huge disruption time, agreement, etc.-wise? The NFL _is_ the jointly held corporation. I’m saying that if they pulled the NFL’s tax exemption the teams would have to administer league matters directly, and I’m not sure that would be possible. Or they could pay the additional taxes, of course. It wouldn’t net “no difference”, but I don’t think it would make a _significant_ difference. Maybe a few million a year? > [@Revtim](#): > > Is there any justification for this “they are saying that my sexuality is all that matters about me” non-sequitur, beyond it likely being her in her job description to find offense? > > If it had female comedians delivering the same info but with jokes, would it be saying that a sense of humor is all that matters about women? Meh. She would probably be okay with it if there were also scantily clad men in the video, but there aren’t. Maybe the message is that Air New Zealand doesn’t care if its female passengers put on their seat belts. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2014, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1593 "2014-02-12T16:49:15Z")
One the one hand, **Revtim** , i understand your point. On the other, though, i get annoyed at the constant use of attractive, scantily-clad women to try to get me to buy things or pay attention to some message or other. I say this not as a prude. I’m a straight guy, and there are times when i’m happy to look at attractive women. I’ve watched my share of porn over the years. But i really get sick of the lack of imagination shown by marketers and advertisers. “Well, our product isn’t that great, and i don’t have any new and smart ideas about how to promote it. I know! Let’s add hot babes in bikinis! Genius!” These people can fuck right off. Not only is their obsession with almost-naked women stupid, it does demean women by suggesting that they’re primarily useful as visual objects, and it also insults my intelligence by assuming that i’ll fall over myself to pay attention to anything some hot babe tells me. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2014, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1594 "2014-02-12T16:52:16Z")
Dr. Russell teaches “taxation, political theory and ethics” at Massey, according to her professional profile. I don’t know her work as a feminist commentator but I hope this isn’t a case of offense for the sake of raising one’s profile. But then I haven’t seen the video either. I did like ANZ’s Bear Grylls safety video though. And I suppose Mr. Grylls could be considered eye candy for at least some of the ladies, although he wasn’t scantily clad. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2014, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1595 "2014-02-12T18:14:00Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Meh. She would probably be okay with it if there were also scantily clad men in the video, but there aren’t. Maybe the message is that Air New Zealand doesn’t care if its female passengers put on their seat belts. If she had made that particular complaint, she might have had a point. But her complaint was completely different, and as far as I can tell, completely unsupported beyond a knee-jerk attempt to find offense. ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2014, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1596 "2014-02-13T06:04:35Z")
[Ray Nagin convicted of corruption](http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/0212/Conviction-of-ex-mayor-Ray-Nagin-Does-it-signal-new-era-for-New-Orleans) > [@](#): > > According to the federal government, Mr. Nagin, who left office in 2010, accepted thousands of dollars in bribery money, among other gifts, from contractors and vendors that swarmed New Orleans after Katrina, hoping to take part in the huge recovery effort. Some of the > corruption charges, however, deal with issues predating the 2005 catastrophe. > > … > > The trial ultimately revealed the contrast between “the black hole of the mayor’s desk in getting anything done for the city and how hard he worked for contractors who were paying him at the side,” she says. The man \*was \*the face of the Bush administration’s post-Katrina failures. The man _is_ a disgrace. Given the magnitude of despicableness, this should be a bigger story. It’s mildly prominent on CSM, a small also-ran on the NYT and the Washington Post. It’s also a tiny-run on Fox News’ site. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2014, 10:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1597 "2014-02-13T10:28:29Z")
Convicted on 20 federal charges. You have to work to get that kind or reputation. ---
**Author:** ![Sandwich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/22d042/32.png) [@Sandwich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sandwich)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2014, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1598 "2014-02-13T12:50:42Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > If she had made that particular complaint, she might have had a point. But her complaint was completely different, and as far as I can tell, completely unsupported beyond a knee-jerk attempt to find offense. I’m going to give her the benefit of the doubt and assume that she was complaining about sexism in the video because she thought the video was sexist. Based solely on what has been written in this thread, I’m also going to work on the assumption that she was right. Isn’t it terrible that honest, hard-working corporations can get a reputation for sexism just for producing a safety video starring a bunch of hot babes frolicking on a beach, when careful analysis of the video and studied debate under rigorous masculine norms of procedure would surely show that no such sexism was intended? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2014, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1599 "2014-02-13T14:08:06Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > Given the magnitude of despicableness, this should be a bigger story. It’s mildly prominent on CSM, a small also-ran on the NYT and the Washington Post. It’s also a tiny-run on Fox News’ site. It’ll probably grow a bit once he’s sentenced. But really, mayors just aren’t that interesting. Between Bud Dwyer and Marion Barry and Kwame Kilpatrick you have to do something really special to make the news now - like Rob Ford. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2014, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1600 "2014-02-13T14:20:42Z")
> [@Sandwich](#): > > I’m going to give her the benefit of the doubt and assume that she was complaining about sexism in the video because she thought the video was sexist. Based solely on what has been written in this thread, I’m also going to work on the assumption that she was right. You do whatever you want, but my complaint is only about what she actually said, not what others assumed she meant. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086.md?page=79) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086.md?page=81)