Nothing about this is a protest. (NSFW Racial Expletives)

[DJL 235]

On 7/29/2020 at 9:45 PM, turtlespeed said:

Until all murders are treated the same in the media - it will always be hypocrisy.

I realize I'm 5 pages back (Been on Vacation) but this is worth replying to.  The entire point is that cops should be able to do their work WITHOUT killing people who pose no threat to them.

[turtlespeed 220]

1 hour ago, Coreece said:

Fine, but I think you're diluting the issue that varying levels of hate speech and stereotyping are still bigoted whether directed at a minority population or not.  A bigot spewing hate against Jews is still a bigot even if he's in Israel, same thing for hate spewed at Muslims whether here in the U.S or in Iran.  And it all contributes to a hateful mindset that progressive liberals supposedly stand against, so if they're to be taken seriously, then they need to attack it in all it's forms and not just because they need to garner votes to win an election.

You can't reason with them.

Why bother trying?

They have a view that demands you be wrong because you cannot hate a think for what its core beliefs are without having to overlook that they are singling out and hating. 

Its ok though - its for the greater good.

[turtlespeed 220]

Just now, DJL said:

I realize I'm 5 pages back (Been on Vacation) but this is worth replying to.  The entire point is that cops should be able to do their work WITHOUT killing people who pose no threat to them.

I agree with that.  I have never disagreed with that.

 

[jakee 1,489]

44 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

They have a view that demands you be wrong because you cannot hate a think for what its core beliefs are without having to overlook that they are singling out and hating. 

Now that is impossible to argue with.

 

Because... what?

[yoink 321]

11 hours ago, DJL said:

I realize I'm 5 pages back (Been on Vacation) but this is worth replying to.  The entire point is that cops should be able to do their work WITHOUT killing people who pose no threat to them.

Stop there. Don't read any more.

[billvon 2,990]

11 hours ago, jakee said:

Now that is impossible to argue with.

 

Because... what?

You're just saying that because you are singling out and doubling hating the think that you demand to be not the core wrong.

[Phil1111 1,149]

21 hours ago, Coreece said:

Fine, but I think you're diluting the issue that varying levels of hate speech and stereotyping are still bigoted whether directed at a minority population or not.  A bigot spewing hate against Jews is still a bigot even if he's in Israel, same thing for hate spewed at Muslims whether here in the U.S or in Iran.  And it all contributes to a hateful mindset that progressive liberals supposedly stand against, so if they're to be taken seriously, then they need to attack it in all it's forms and not just because they need to garner votes to win an election.

Most religions don't focus on the political lobby. In most countries its not permitted by law and in the US Israel has a very strong lobby. I personally have no issue with that.

Equal to the Israel/ Jewish lobby or more powerful is the Christian lobby. Even though the constitution addresses the separation of religion and the state.

You've made it clear that putting the boots to non-believers is acceptable. As long as the political power of the christian church is preserved. No taxes for churches, their ability to receive buckets of cash from the government. The ability to conceal the sources of revenue but to lobby on behalf of their business using that money.

One US church has stood up against the perversions of the trump endorsement by evangelicals. The Mormon church. The " a hateful mindset that progressive liberals supposedly" well perhaps the political activism of yourself and your leaders is the cause of that. Islam, Buddhism and the other dozen or so religions in the US have chosen to ignore politics. Yet you don't seem to see any connection.

Yes there are Christians who follow a righteous path of god, unfortunately too few of them.

"Outside a US congressman’s office, Christians holding homemade protest signs and clergy dressed in their robes and collars attend a march to challenge the separation of families seeking asylum at the US–Mexico border. They join in impassioned chants of “Keep the kids, deport the racists!” and “Lock them up!” referring to those who work for the US Border Patrol. In protesting the dehumanizing ugliness of children being separated from their parents they dehumanize others in return, calling for their rights to be taken away and their freedoms restricted.

Inside the offices of a Christian nonprofit organization that provides legal assistance to immigrants, volunteers from a local church assist young immigrants with their DACA applications. These young men and women came to the US with their families when they were children and now find themselves undocumented, unable to live, work, or attend college in the US without the threat of deportation. The volunteers chat with the eager immigrants over donuts and coffee as they navigate the complex paperwork that will allow them to legally remain in their communities."

When churches re-establish values above politics. Read that as their support for trump and his ideologies without values. You may find a different response from "liberals".

[JoeWeber 2,720]

20 hours ago, jakee said:

Now that is impossible to argue with.

 

Because... what?

Jakee, are you some kind of strict textualist? The way this works is you take all of the words, mix them up into a different order. Eventually, it will make sense. For example: 

Demands that they have a view because you cannot think to hate, are core beliefs that you overlook. It's what they are/be, without having a wrong, for singling out and hating. 

Edited August 4, 2020 by JoeWeber

[kallend 2,026]

12 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Jakee, are you some kind of strict textualist? They way this works is you take all of the words, mix them up into a different order. Eventually, it will make sense. For example: 

Demands that they have a view because you cannot think to hate, are core beliefs that you overlook. It's what they are/be, without having a wrong, for singling out and hating. 

I just thought it was the tequila talking.

[gowlerk 2,190]

22 minutes ago, kallend said:

I just thought it was the tequila talking.

I have always found that Ethyl does not change who a person is, but rather reveals the true person.

[jakee 1,489]

53 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

 

Demands that they have a view because you cannot think to hate, are core beliefs that you overlook. It's what they are/be, without having a wrong, for singling out and hating. 

I think he demands Arby’s?

[wmw999 2,444]

8 minutes ago, jakee said:

I think he demands Arby’s?

Ooh -- Arby's jalapeno poppers...

Wendy P.

[turtlespeed 220]

20 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Ooh -- Arby's jalapeno poppers...

Wendy P.

Sweet potato waffle fries.

And . . . I was typing on my phone.   I'm not sure what the issue was, probably my getting older eyesight, but, when I get time, I might go back an clarify what I was typing.

[DJL 235]

12 hours ago, yoink said:

Stop there. Don't read any more.

Funny enough I didn't.  Just clicked through so the pages would show as read.

[Coreece 190]

5 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

You've made it clear that putting the boots to non-believers is acceptable. As long as the political power of the christian church is preserved. No taxes for churches, their ability to receive buckets of cash from the government. The ability to conceal the sources of revenue but to lobby on behalf of their business using that money.

Why is it so hard for you at some point to have a normal adult conversation and make your argument without continually lying about something I've said or positions I've never held, even after having been clarified?

 

5 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

the political activism of yourself

Again, what are you talking about?

 

6 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

Yes there are Christians who follow a righteous path of god, unfortunately too few of them.

Again, you only feel that way because of your continual stereotyping of religious folks and the inability to look beyond your own hateful bias.  You'd pigeonhole them just the same as every other christian you judge as "not following a righteous path of God"  the second they even remotely disagreed with you on some other subject, like abortion.

 

6 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

Inside the offices of a Christian nonprofit organization that provides legal assistance to immigrants, volunteers from a local church assist young immigrants with their DACA applications. These young men and women came to the US with their families when they were children and now find themselves undocumented, unable to live, work, or attend college in the US without the threat of deportation. The volunteers chat with the eager immigrants over donuts and coffee as they navigate the complex paperwork that will allow them to legally remain in their communities."

Ok, so you support christian organizations taking up political causes as long as you agree with them.  Would you also be OK if they could no longer provide assistance because they couldn't meet some burdensome tax obligation?  "The power to tax is the power to destroy."  

Would you also be ok if they were one of the 10,000 religious organizations that you were talking about that received corona virus funds to help them continue their work or provide relief to employees?  I mean do you even know which religious institutions received funds and why?

And another thing, do you really think that those 10,000 religious institutions that received those funds and other institutions under the suspicion of fraud really represent the other 450,000+ religious institutions?  And that's not even counting religious non-profits that have no specific church affiliation.

[gowlerk 2,190]

1 hour ago, Coreece said:

Would you also be OK if they could no longer provide assistance because they couldn't meet some burdensome tax obligation?  "The power to tax is the power to destroy."  

Taxation has not destroyed American industry and it would not destroy American churches. Again, progressive taxation. Charities get tax breaks and that is an accepted part of the system. The reason some of us would like to see some form of taxation on churches is just that some churches are profit driven and are abusers of the system. And not just the large nominally Christian ones, but how about the gigantic fraud of "Scientology"? But with that said it is probably impossible to separate the good from the bad in a fair and legally sustainable way.

[wmw999 2,444]

What Gowlerk said. I'd be all for having a higher no-taxes limit on churches (based on church profits -- i.e. money after passing on funds for direct good works). Minister salary is a toughie, but it is also in corporate America, and we're all reaping the rather doubtful benefits of high CEO salaries.

I've been the treasurer of a small church; yes, money we paid in taxes would have come out of money paid out to what we considered to be good works. Most people would have agreed they were good works, too.

Wendy P.

[turtlespeed 220]

2 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

What Gowlerk said. I'd be all for having a higher no-taxes limit on churches (based on church profits -- i.e. money after passing on funds for direct good works). Minister salary is a toughie, but it is also in corporate America, and we're all reaping the rather doubtful benefits of high CEO salaries.

I've been the treasurer of a small church; yes, money we paid in taxes would have come out of money paid out to what we considered to be good works. Most people would have agreed they were good works, too.

Wendy P.

I would be in favor of all facets of the church being taxed over a certain amount.

 

[wmw999 2,444]

Well, everyone is taxed only on after-taxes earnings.

Wendy P.

[turtlespeed 220]

Just now, wmw999 said:

Well, everyone is taxed only on after-taxes earnings.

Wendy P.

So, are you saying the church is running on money that is already taxed, because it was income in some certain way?

If that is the argument, then sales tax shouldn't exist.

Otherwise, the church is run as a business, and should be taxed like one. Revenue is revenue and churches should be taxed on it.

Granted, there are no dividends paid, I don't think, but small businesses don't pay out dividends either.

People like Joel Olsteen should be forced to offer IPO and go public. (Only Half Jesting at this one)

 

[wmw999 2,444]

We're probably in agreement. I think that businesses are taxed on net revenues, not gross revenues, and houses of religion should be the same.

Wendy P.

[turtlespeed 220]

16 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

We're probably in agreement. I think that businesses are taxed on net revenues, not gross revenues, and houses of religion should be the same.

Wendy P.

Income taxes are based on the gross profit that your business earns after subtracting operating expenses from gross revenue. You must pay federal income tax on the profit that your business earns by April 15 of the year following the year in which you earned the income. (Thanks Google)

Churches should follow that just like everyone else.

Of course that presents its own issues - Like it would in places like Connecticut, where there are about 5 families that could move out and pretty much ruin the revenue for the state.

[Coreece 190]

2 hours ago, Coreece said:

9 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

Inside the offices of a Christian nonprofit organization that provides legal assistance to immigrants, volunteers from a local church assist young immigrants with their DACA applications. These young men and women came to the US with their families when they were children and now find themselves undocumented, unable to live, work, or attend college in the US without the threat of deportation. The volunteers chat with the eager immigrants over donuts and coffee as they navigate the complex paperwork that will allow them to legally remain in their communities."

Ok, so you support christian organizations taking up political causes as long as you agree with them.  Would you also be OK if they could no longer provide assistance because they couldn't meet some burdensome tax obligation?  "The power to tax is the power to destroy." 

32 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

I've been the treasurer of a small church; yes, money we paid in taxes would have come out of money paid out to what we considered to be good works. Most people would have agreed they were good works, too.

Ok, so what you're saying is no more coffee and donuts.

Ya, I don't think that's something I'm willing to support.

[Phil1111 1,149]

51 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Well, everyone is taxed only on after-taxes earnings.

Wendy P.

The concept that a non-profit would have tax deductible expenses for items like:

-food for the needy

-assistance in providing council for lawful immigration representation

-medical care for needy

-shelter for needy

-etc. That would all come off gross income, i.e. taxable income.

That legitimate expenses as aforementioned would not allow Gulfstream jets, pilot salaries, yachts and yacht rentals, luxury homes,

"In interviews over the past eight months, they depicted how Falwell and his wife, Becki, consolidated power at Liberty University and how Falwell presides over a culture of self-dealing, directing university resources into projects and real estate deals in which his friends and family have stood to make personal financial gains. Among the previously unreported revelations are Falwell’s decision to hire his son Trey’s company to manage a shopping center owned by the university, Falwell’s advocacy for loans given by the university to his friends, and Falwell’s awarding university contracts to businesses owned by his friends.

“We’re not a school; we’re a real estate hedge fund,” said a senior university official with inside knowledge of Liberty’s finances. “We’re not educating; we’re buying real estate every year and taking students’ money to do it.”

All escapes those who support evangelical fraud of US taxpayers.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

So another unarmed black man is murdered by US police.

During the following peaceful protest, a white 17 year old right wing militia police supporters murders at least 1 person. While being pointed out by bystanders police just go right by him and let him go. They do nothing. Next day he is arrested without getting shot.

The police was vocally supporting the presence of these right wing militias while supplying them with water. Telling them how much they appreciated them being there.

The 17 year old crossed State lines to be part of this violence. He was carrying his gun illegally.

There is just so much broken in America.

https://apnews.com/97a0700564fb52d7f664d8de22066f88?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP&utm_campaign=SocialFlow