Barack Obama 2012 Containment Thread - Page 60 - Politics and Economics

FYI I learned today that churches do get their own special tax rules, they aren't merely subjected to the same rules as any other non-profit.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

Could there be a clearer violation of the first amendment?

Man, you just linked to some big ass tax document. You expect me to do some sort of comparative analysis or you gonna point out the differences and the (lol) violations of the first amendment?

02-17-2012 , 02:06 AM

#1477

ikestoys

banned

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 94,424

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klinker

More like three fiddy.

Good school until Koch jizzed all over it.

lol considering your ******ed views on GG and tim thomas I'm going to go with it hasn't changed, you just hate anyone who doesn't fellate obama's left ball... pleasuring the right one would be too conservative.

02-17-2012 , 02:11 AM

#1478

Brainwalter

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 5,652

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverman

yeah basically the 'problem' with GG is that his analysis is bulletproof and he offends everyone on the inside. of course the result is weak attempts at character assassination.

Reminds me of someone else.

02-17-2012 , 02:19 AM

#1479

Brainwalter

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 5,652

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klinker

Seems to be a pretty smart thing to do, AFTER GG supported a war that it turns out was waged on bull**** intel, lies, and distortion.

What was Glenn gonna do, write a book about how great Bush's neo-con tactics were and how right Glenn was to support him?

Your quote sounded to me like he said he was fooled into supporting iraq at first like lots of other people, then later when his message is don't get fooled again, you point to the earlier, ill considered position he now rejects, as evidence of ... what?

02-17-2012 , 02:37 AM

#1480

sterlinguini

adept

Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 1,173

Klinker Containment thread IMO

02-17-2012 , 02:49 AM

#1481

Klinker

adept

Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 1,115

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brainwalter

Consistency.

Consistency is impeachable, as are character and truthfulness: Impeachment categories

Quote:

Inconsistent statement

Admissibility for impeachment

The F.R.E. provide that a declarant-witness who is currently giving testimony that is inconsistent with statements s/he made previously may be impeached by attorneys for either party, including the party that called the declarant-witness

Quote:

Character

A majority of U.S. jurisdictions permit parties to impeach witnesses by demonstrating their "bad" character regarding truthfulness. Under the Federal Rules a party may demonstrate a witness' "bad" character through reputation or opinion testimony

All of the above has been demonstrated, but I will make it clearer in the future. Funny that people itt want to hand-wave Federal Rules of Evidence tho.

Really tho, I don't want to derail anymore. Start a new GG thread if you want. I'm too tired to start a thread and make an organized and coherent post tonight.

02-17-2012 , 02:56 AM

#1482

Brainwalter

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 5,652

"at first I thought x, then as I learned more I realized that y" is not an inconsistent statement, and greenwald is not a witness stating facts but a commentator making analyses. I hope your alleged future coherent post pertains to greenwald's arguments and not his personal history. Cheers!

02-17-2012 , 03:02 AM

#1483

goofball

Beat Nate Silver

Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 20,424

Quote:

Originally Posted by krmont22

What would Jesus do?

I'll take not build the Vatican for $100 alex

02-17-2012 , 03:05 AM

#1484

ikestoys

banned

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 94,424

Quote:

Originally Posted by goofball

lol if by 'churches', you mean 'religious organizations', so obviously not ffs.

02-17-2012 , 03:05 AM

#1485

goofball

Beat Nate Silver

Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 20,424

Quote:

Originally Posted by seattlelou

Man, you just linked to some big ass tax document. You expect me to do some sort of comparative analysis or you gonna point out the differences and the (lol) violations of the first amendment?

From the first page:

Quote:

Churches and religious
organizations are generally exempt from income
tax and receive other favorable treatment under the tax
law; however, certain income of a church or
religious organization may be subject to tax, such as
income from an unrelated business.

02-17-2012 , 03:05 AM

#1486

goofball

Beat Nate Silver

Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 20,424

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikestoys

lol if by 'churches', you mean 'religious organizations', so obviously not ffs.

wait, what?

02-17-2012 , 03:12 AM

#1487

ikestoys

banned

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 94,424

Quote:

Originally Posted by goofball

wait, what?

What do you mean wait what? The first amendment establishment clause says:

Quote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

And they don't. If they only granted status to one particular religion or sets of religions then they'd be establishing something. Since they absolutely do not, your argument fails.

02-17-2012 , 03:15 AM

#1488

seattlelou

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 31,584

Quote:

Originally Posted by goofball

From the first page:

I thought you already understood that religious organizations were tax exempt? I am confused. I thought you would point out differences between religious organizations tax treatment versus other charitable organizations. Something that violated the first amendment.
Is your interpretation of the first amendment that religious organizations are banned from existing?

Last edited by seattlelou; 02-17-2012 at 03:20 AM.

02-17-2012 , 03:20 AM

#1489

goofball

Beat Nate Silver

Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 20,424

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikestoys

What do you mean wait what? The first amendment establishment clause says:

And they don't. If they only granted status to one particular religion or sets of religions then they'd be establishing something. Since they absolutely do not, your argument fails.

Outside of tax law they do favor specific subsets of religions over others. In god we trust, god save the honorable court, one nation under god, all grant status to monotheistic religions over polytheistic religions.

But that is a fairly meaningless diversion because granting special status to religion over non violates the wall of separation between church and state just the same as granting preference for mormonism over hinduism or whatever.

02-17-2012 , 03:22 AM

#1490

ikestoys

banned

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 94,424

Quote:

Originally Posted by goofball

And it's almost like other non profit organizations get tax exempt status as well.

Good grief.

02-17-2012 , 03:25 AM

#1491

goofball

Beat Nate Silver

Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 20,424

Quote:

Originally Posted by seattlelou

Charitable organizations give food to starving kids. This isn't the same thing as churches building monuments to themselves.

But seriously folks, the document is about special treatment of churches, not special treatment of churches and charitable organizations.

But just rolling through, on page 5 I find:

Quote:

Automatic Exemption for Churches
Churches that meet the requirements of IRC section
501(c)(3) are automatically considered tax exempt and
are not required to apply for and obtain recognition of
tax-exempt status from the IRS.

02-17-2012 , 03:26 AM

#1492

goofball

Beat Nate Silver

Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 20,424

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikestoys

And it's almost like other non profit organizations get tax exempt status as well.

Good grief.

If only churches were bound to the same rules as a non-profit organization (and churches were truly non profit, lol go visit the vatican or a mormon temple) you might have a point.

02-17-2012 , 03:27 AM

#1493

seattlelou

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 31,584

Quote:

Originally Posted by goofball

I think the document is a guide for churches on how to fill out their taxes.

And maybe you will find this link interesting, the 20 worst charitable organizations.

http://www.mainstreet.com/article/mo...rities-america

02-17-2012 , 03:28 AM

#1494

ikestoys

banned

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 94,424

Quote:

Originally Posted by goofball

If only churches were bound to the same rules as a non-profit organization (and churches were truly non profit, lol go visit the vatican or a mormon temple) you might have a point.

Alrighty then, you're clearly completely ignorant. There's a few differences, but overall, the laws governing non profits and religious organizations are very similar.

If you disagree, feel free to explain exactly how these organizations are treated so differently instead of just linking to a pamphlet designed to be given out to religious organizations.

02-17-2012 , 03:30 AM

#1495

ikestoys

banned

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 94,424

Btw, in this pamphlet you link to, it basically says that in order to qualify you have to be a 501c3 organization.

Guess what that is:

Spoiler:

02-17-2012 , 03:40 AM

#1496

goofball

Beat Nate Silver

Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 20,424

Well, we've established that 1) churches automatically qualify without needing to apply and 2) they're more difficult to audit.

But again, charities feed starving children in africa. Churches

have