|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: Santorum suspends campaign [Re: Crystal G]
#16079292 - 04/12/12 09:16 AM (11 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Crystal G said: A whole bunch of incorrect bullshit...
Copy and paste all you wish. You have been shown to be wrong, and shown to lack the stones to step up and admit it.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: Santorum suspends campaign [Re: Enlil] 1
#16079308 - 04/12/12 09:19 AM (11 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said: Your logic is:
a. A wall of separation between church and state would prohibit an official religion
b. An official religion is prohibited by the 1st amendment.
Therefore:
The 1st amendment creates a wall of separation between church and state...
This is flawed logic..here is another example of similar logic:
a. Every car has a steering wheel.
b. The arcade game "pole position" has a steering wheel
Therefore,
The arcade game "pole position" is a car.
Perfect... and priceless!
You ARE a master.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,800
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said:
Perfect... and priceless!
You ARE a master.
I was trying to think of a more modern video game, but I'm old...
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Crystal G



Registered: 06/05/07
Posts: 19,584
Loc: outer space
Last seen: 8 months, 23 days
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said: Combine it with what?
Combine church with state.
AFAIK I was almost certain those tax-breaks had more to do with the fact that they were non-profits and not organized religions. Because other secular non-profits reserve the right to those same tax breaks.
But, I still think that the texts are being read way too literally (which is natural, you are an attorney), whereas many US history scholars look at the context of the immense changes that were occurring in history (most notably the American Revolution) at the time that the Constitution was being created. Escape from state-mandated (and by state I mean country) religion was a huge determining factor in ascertaining the federal laws of this country.
This is one of things that highly depends on what your concentration of study was. It's like when you ask if a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound? A physicist would say yes, a biologist would say no. Or if you ask about the nature vs nurture debate. Psychologists say nurture, geneticists say nature.
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 30 days
|
Re: Santorum suspends campaign [Re: Crystal G]
#16079431 - 04/12/12 09:53 AM (11 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Crystal G said: Combine church with state.
Ahh, 'cause you said "combine separation of church and state".
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,800
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Santorum suspends campaign [Re: Crystal G]
#16079435 - 04/12/12 09:55 AM (11 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Crystal G said: AFAIK I was almost certain those tax-breaks had more to do with the fact that they were non-profits and not organized religions. Because other secular non-profits reserve the right to those same tax breaks.
Here is IRC 501(c)(3): "Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office"
Notice the word "religious" specifically mentioned...
Also, here is a link to IRC 501(d) which specifically deals with "apostolic associations"
http://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/irm_04-076-029.html
Now...if there were a wall of separation between church and state, why would there be special rules for churches?
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Crystal G



Registered: 06/05/07
Posts: 19,584
Loc: outer space
Last seen: 8 months, 23 days
|
Re: Santorum suspends campaign [Re: Enlil]
#16079474 - 04/12/12 10:03 AM (11 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said:
Quote:
Crystal G said: AFAIK I was almost certain those tax-breaks had more to do with the fact that they were non-profits and not organized religions. Because other secular non-profits reserve the right to those same tax breaks.
Here is IRC 501(c)(3): "Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office"
Notice the word "religious" specifically mentioned...
Also, here is a link to IRC 501(d) which specifically deals with "apostolic associations"
http://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/irm_04-076-029.html
Now...if there were a wall of separation between church and state, why would there be special rules for churches?
There isn't a special rule for "churches" specifically, there's a special provision in there covering all religions, irrespective of religious orientation. So even mosques and synagogues are also exempt to these very same taxes, not just churches. So are secular and non-deistic religious organizations such as Buddhist temples.
And reading the rest of that link, it seems that they aren't providing tax exemptions to such religions specifically because of whatever religion is attached to them, but because of the many other criteria that churches (and many other non-profits and corporations) happen to fall under.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,800
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Santorum suspends campaign [Re: Crystal G] 2
#16079492 - 04/12/12 10:07 AM (11 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Crystal G said: There isn't a special rule for "churches" specifically, there's a special provision in there covering all religions, irrespective of religious orientation. So even mosques and synagogues are also exempt to these very same taxes, not just churches. So are secular and non-deistic religious organizations such as Buddhist temples.
And reading the rest of that link, it seems that they aren't providing tax exemptions to such religions specifically because of whatever religion is attached to them, but because of the many other criteria that churches (and many other non-profits and corporations) happen to fall under.
Now you've just dug your heels in...suddenly, you are claiming that "church" means only one type of church...Please...it's getting pathetic...
Besides...the 1st amendment doesn't have the word "church"...it has the word "religion" if you really want to dance around an etymological difference between the two words...
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Crystal G



Registered: 06/05/07
Posts: 19,584
Loc: outer space
Last seen: 8 months, 23 days
|
Re: Santorum suspends campaign [Re: Enlil]
#16079505 - 04/12/12 10:10 AM (11 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said: Now you've just dug your heels in...suddenly, you are claiming that "church" means only one type of church...Please...it's getting pathetic...
Besides...the 1st amendment doesn't have the word "church"...it has the word "religion" if you really want to dance around an etymological difference between the two words...
No, but we just did the exact same thing with "state" and "government" now didn't we
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,800
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Santorum suspends campaign [Re: Crystal G]
#16079513 - 04/12/12 10:13 AM (11 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
If by "we" you mean you...sure...I never did that at all...
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 1 month
|
Re: Santorum suspends campaign [Re: Enlil]
#16079769 - 04/12/12 11:03 AM (11 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Crystal G, it wasn't me who said, "I also support Ron Paul for many of his stances, such as the common sense he displays", it was 46 and 2. Please be more careful with your attributions in future.
Speaking of 46 and 2 --
Quote:
Wow... and yet he was still the oldest president elected to office... Ron Paul would only be breaking his record. You should be more open minded. I could care less if Ron Paul was old, young, black, white, female, male, Muslim, Jewish, or crippled. What matters is the message he spreads. You're condemning him based on his age??? "Single issue voters are fundamentally unserious people..."
Why are there so many people in this thread with reading comprehension issues? I am not condemning Ron Paul, I am merely pointing out the obvious: he won't be on the ballot this year. My feelings about him - positive or negative - are utterly irrelevant to that fact. And yes, it is a fact.
Further - apart from the fact that he's retiring from politics anyway - my being open-minded or not has nothing to do with the fact that Americans will never elect an 81 year old man to be their president. That's just not going to happen. I realize you are too young to remember Reagan's second campaign, but surely you must remember McCain's. Just as it was with Reagan, one of the most serious arrows in the quiver of the Dems seeking to show him in a negative light was his advanced age. McCain in 2008 was just a year younger than Reagan was in 1984. Reagan was nearly a decade younger in 1984 than Ron Paul would be in 2016.
I'm not "condemning" Ron Paul on a single issue, I am pointing out reality - Paul is judged by the American voter as having too many negatives to be nominated, much less elected. Ron Paul will never be president. Not in 2009, not in 2013, not in 2017. And yes, that is a fact.
Given that fact (and yes, it is a fact) what should those who share Paul's values do in the upcoming election? You say they should make a futile gesture and write in Paul's name anyway, because if you can't have Ron Paul, then it doesn't matter if the most anti-Paul president in history is re-elected. I say that if you do in fact share Paul's values, then clearly it is insanity to not make even the small effort required to cast your vote against the most anti-Paul president in history.
Now, as for this whole endless digression about separation of church and state -- enough. Either the discussion returns to the remaining Republican field of candidates or it'll be locked. The next post any of you make better have some clear connection to that topic.
Phred
--------------------
|
46 and 2
Zen Masta



Registered: 03/02/12
Posts: 255
Loc: Texas
Last seen: 10 years, 9 months
|
Re: Santorum suspends campaign [Re: Phred]
#16079877 - 04/12/12 11:29 AM (11 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Its a political discussion thread... why would you lock a thread where people are discussing... politics...?
-------------------- Even if it seems certain that you will lose, retaliate. Neither wisdom or technique has a place in this. A real man does not think of victory or defeat. He plunges recklessly towards an irrational death. By doing this, you will awaken from your dreams. - Tsunetomo Yamamoto
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,800
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Santorum suspends campaign [Re: Phred] 1
#16080022 - 04/12/12 12:06 PM (11 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Phred said: Now, as for this whole endless digression about separation of church and state -- enough. Either the discussion returns to the remaining Republican field of candidates or it'll be locked. The next post any of you make better have some clear connection to that topic.
That's some pretty fucking hypocritical shit right there...You've spent the whole thread talking about Romney, Obama, and Paul...If you really want to get back on topic..you should be focusing on Santorum...
Your digressions and derailments are acceptable while others are not...I submit that the only reason this is true is because you have an "M" next to your name...
Have a nice power trip, kiddo.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 1 month
|
Re: Santorum suspends campaign [Re: Enlil]
#16080133 - 04/12/12 12:34 PM (11 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Sigh.
Who was Santorum? What was his significance? Why does anyone care that he has suspended his campaign? Why, Santorum was one of the five remaining candidates left for president, the other four being Obama, Paul, Romney and Gingrich.
With Santorum's exit, we are now down to four candidates: Obama, Paul, Romney and Gingrich. That is the significance of Santorum's exit - the only remaining serious challenger to Romney has dropped out. Romney will be the Republican candidate.
How is talking about the remaining field of Republican candidates not on topic? Especially in the sense of "Santorum just dropped out, when will the other two bow to reality?" My point was always about the consequences of Santorum's announcement: with Santorum's withdrawal there is no longer any doubt (despite the wishes of the Paul supporters) as to which two names will appear on the ballot this fall.
Contrast this with the pages and pages of off-topic minutiae about a phrase that isn't even in the Constitution. What does that have to do with how many candidates remain? Or with which names will appear on the ballot? Enough. It's done. All of you are now just repeating yourselves and it is plain as day who is on the wrong side of the issue here. There's no need to belabour your victory.
If you really want to continue beating this dead horse, start a new thread titled something like "Separation of Church and State", and in your opening post provide a link to the post in this thread where the whole thing got started, as a courtesy to people who haven't read this whole thread. They can then review the arguments made here and provide their own reasoned response in a thread dedicated to the topic. If you think that's too much work, tell me, and I'll do it.
What the hell... I'll do it myself to keep peace in the family. Gimme a minute.
***edit*** New thread started here. Go nuts.
Phred
--------------------
Edited by Phred (04/12/12 01:59 PM)
|
|