America - The Official Thread

[xyloscissor]

I feel what you are saying. But I'm curious who/which side passed the no tax for churches clause.

All I know is tax exempt status is something that comes directly from the IRS and includes much more than just churches.
The credit goes to LBJ from his days in the senate if you are asking about the restrictions of exempt status which came later.

Here you go on the origin of exempt organizations, goes back quite a ways 👍
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/tehistory.pdf

The Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act of 1894 established a flat, 2-percent tax on corporate income, but excluded “. . . corporations, companies, or associations organized and conducted solely for charitable, religious, or educational purposes, including fraternal beneficiary associations.” The law was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1896

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Both the extreme left and the extreme right seem intent on obliterating the other side. You don't think it's outside the realms of possibility that one would hijack the other's protest and see it turn violent to try and turn the tide of public opinion against the other?

No I'm well aware of that possibility because it's happened but if that's your go to, then I simply see it as paranoid musings. Until proof is shown that Milo paid a group to go in and be the navy seals of protest uprisings at Berkley then it's just a paranoid thought. As you said they seem intent on destroying each other, so it's actually easy to accept the case that since this was what some would call the more extreme right (Milo), and the emotional tirades college students seem to go on in extremes when dealing with things they don't like. I feel it was a matter of time, a bad riot would break out at some university about Milo or someone else. Doesn't change the fact that this political dogma crap is intellectually destroying and not all that uplifting in many cases.

 

[Scaff]

Maybe he is finally trying to separate church and state.
I'm wondering if he might repeal the no tax clause for churches.
I personally feel he should. The church is nothing but a money racket.

I think its quite the opposite, currently Churches that hold tax exempt status can't 'be political'; this change would allow them to remain tax exempt but be actively political. That's not a separation, quite the opposite its allow churc and state to become aligned.

In other news, Kelly Anne has made up a new massacre.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ke-bowling-green-massacre-story-a7560526.html

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I think its quite the opposite, currently Churches that hold tax exempt status can't 'be political'; this change would allow them to remain tax exempt but be actively political. That's not a separation, quite the opposite its allow churc and state to become aligned.

In other news, Kelly Anne has made up a new massacre.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ke-bowling-green-massacre-story-a7560526.html

More disturbing is that Matthews on the biggest pro-left media didn't correct her, if any group would be more than aware (not morning joe, that's a joke), it'd be him and others on that network. I find it strange that he had a prime oppurtuninty to actually say "I've never heard of this could you give more details?" and then go for there. However, he didn't. I also am not surprised by this and find this type of outright lying something people should fear. It's the same reasons I heard for Clinton not being liked (which I agree with) and why people hated her made up Sniper fire story.

So how about holding Trump group to the fire, we all know that the media loves a terrorist attack so it is very silly to claim it'd be hidden. Like some Alex Jones conspiracy.

You can't have it both ways Trump admin. You can't say the media does the job of sensationalizing terror attacks and then say they also hide them from time to time...

Oh for those of you curious on the side of Trump who think the media is covering their tracks on this, here is a 2011 article (the 5 years Kelly Anne even notes) on what actually happened from a local media outlet.
http://www.wave3.com/story/14756911/2-iraqi-nationalist-indicted-on-terrorism-charges-in-kentucky

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Until proof is shown that Milo paid a group to go in and be the navy seals of protest uprisings at Berkley then it's just a paranoid thought.

Who said anything about paying them?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Who said anything about paying them?

Wow so he didn't even have to pay them, it was just pure hate from the dark side...didn't realize I stepped into the conspiracy thread. Or better yet started talking to one of the massively pro "trump can do no wrong" members in this thread. Good thing their is enough paranoia from both sides that helps balance out to an overall thread to just crazy.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Wow so he didn't even have to pay them, it was just pure hate from the dark side

Like I said, they seem intent on destroying one another. Isn't there a pledge (I am not sure if it is the pledge of allegiance) that calls for whoever is making the pledge to defend the nation from all enemies, both foreign and domestic? The political right, from the centrists to the radicals, pride themselves on defending the nation. I don't think that it stretches the bounds of the imagination to think that some of the radical right might view left-leaning protesters as a threat to the nation and feel compelled to defend it from them. Since they can't physically confront them, inciting a riot at a peaceful protest to turn public opinion against the left seems like the way to go.

Before you dismiss it outright, remember that Yiannopolis is already a political radical. He decries anyone who disagrees with him as someone who hates free speech, which is in itself a way of stifling free speech. He's trying to intimidate opponents into silence, and the idea that people might hate what he stands for has clearly never occurred to him. So unless he's the personification of free speech - which he's not - he's a radical. And judging by the public image that he has crafted for himself, he's got the makings of a Messiah complex.

 

[xyloscissor]

I think its quite the opposite, currently Churches that hold tax exempt status can't 'be political'; this change would allow them to remain tax exempt but be actively political. That's not a separation, quite the opposite its allow churc and state to become aligned.

Separation of church and state is not a law, first off. The first amendment makes it clear that the government cannot force religion but the religious have a right to practice whatever they wish without fear of reprisal.

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Thomas Jefferson.

first amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

wiki but oh well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

[Scaff]

Separation of church and state is not a law, first off. The first amendment makes it clear that the government cannot force religion but the religious have a right to practice whatever they wish without fear of reprisal.

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Thomas Jefferson.

first amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

wiki but oh well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Great, but I never said it was a law.

 

[xyloscissor]

Great, but I never said it was a law.

I noticed that, there are many people who think it is however so I figured I'd take the opportunity.

Campaign finance in general is a larger issue to me than non profits partaking in politics.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Like I said, they seem intent on destroying one another. Isn't there a pledge (I am not sure if it is the pledge of allegiance) that calls for whoever is making the pledge to defend the nation from all enemies, both foreign and domestic? The political right, from the centrists to the radicals, pride themselves on defending the nation. I don't think that it stretches the bounds of the imagination to think that some of the radical right might view left-leaning protesters as a threat to the nation and feel compelled to defend it from them. Since they can't physically confront them, inciting a riot at a peaceful protest to turn public opinion against the left seems like the way to go.

Works both ways, right of left, creating a fictitious enemy only spells one of two things, crazy, as I've already said. And the second being horrible destruction that we are all too familiar with, because of being crazy and disillusioned with ones thoughts. Point is when anyone points a myopic finger the problem repeats and I've already called and said my point to it. No need to put it on rewind.

Before you dismiss it outright, remember that Yiannopolis is already a political radical.

Just said that in my post, once again no need for rewind

He decries anyone who disagrees with him as someone who hates free speech, which is in itself a way of stifling free speech. He's trying to intimidate opponents into silence, and the idea that people might hate what he stands for has clearly never occurred to him. So unless he's the personification of free speech - which he's not - he's a radical. And judging by the public image that he has crafted for himself, he's got the makings of a Messiah complex.

You just said all that in another post to another user...like it's almost copy and paste. None of this really detracts from the fact you've spouted a conspiracy theory based on your own confirmed bias. Two wrongs don't make a right as the old saying goes. Until proof is about, all it shows is one crazy side hating another crazy side of opposing view and causing destruction and unnecessary violence for those in the middle who are just actual students and not agitators.

 

[xyloscissor]

Isn't there a pledge (I am not sure if it is the pledge of allegiance) that calls for whoever is making the pledge to defend the nation from all enemies, both foreign and domestic?

That would be the oath of allegiance, you really need to look some of this stuff up before posting because suggesting that text is in the pledge blows the rest of what you say right out of the water.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Substitute my use of "pledge" with "oath", and the point I raise is still valid - that the far right might view the political left as a threat to the country and feel compelled to destroy them.

 

[xyloscissor]

Substitute my use of "pledge" with "oath", and the point I raise is still valid - that the far right might view the political left as a threat to the country and feel compelled to destroy them.

Do you even know what the oath is and who says it? It seems not so I'll explain to you why it is so different. The oath is said by immigrants and that is the reason all the enemy stuff is included. I think you should read both of them because you obviously have not.

 

[BobK]

Substitute my use of "pledge" with "oath", and the point I raise is still valid - that the far right might view the political left as a threat to the country and feel compelled to destroy them.

It works both ways of course -- the far left might view the political right as a threat to the country and feel compelled to destroy them.

 

[Dotini]

It works both ways of course -- the far left might view the political right as a threat to the country and feel compelled to destroy them.

One might hope that people would be smart enough to avoid a mutually destructive war to the death. Politics is war by other means. The left will stage a comeback based on economic populism. Should they win, the result will technically be big government populism - a worse form of fascism than what Trump represents. Republicans are somewhat held in check by small-government and libertarian factions.

 

[novcze]

... Before you dismiss it outright, remember that Yiannopolis is already a political radical. ..

The term political radicalism (or simply, in political science, radicalism) denotes political principles focused on altering social structures through revolutionary means and changing value systems in fundamental ways.


You probably don't know much about him, but he is conservative. I'm glad that someone like him or Ben Shapiro is talking about things from a sane perspective.

 

[Dotini]

Yiannopolis is already a political radical.

With many of the qualities of a gay stand-up comedian, Milo likely won't get too far as a political activist.

 

[novcze]

Hey guys, what's the position of Trey Gowdy in USA politics, is he considered as presidential material or not?


edit:

nice wrap up on UC Berkley riots and more

 

[mister dog]

Let's listen to the hateful white supremacist himself:

 

[DK]

Trump has ordered a review of the Dodd-Frank Act - he had labelled it a "disaster" earlier this week.

And I thought "Crooked Hillary" was supposed to be the pro-Wall St. candidate...

 

[Danoff]

Regarding the trump immigration EO, I'm seeing news headlines saying 100,000 visas revoked. I wonder how many of those were work visas. Trump promised jobs to the US economy, he may have delivered 10s of thousands of jobs just by banning immigration from targeted nations.

Not that I'm in favor of any of that - I just haven't seen that angle reported on.

 

[xyloscissor]

Trump has ordered a review of the Dodd-Frank Act - he had labelled it a "disaster" earlier this week.

And I thought "Crooked Hillary" was supposed to be the pro-Wall St. candidate...

Trump campaigned on deregulation and specifically his opposition to the act, it should have been known.

Have you read it? it is 850 pages and while some of it makes sense much of it is just bureaucratic garbage. It would not surprise me if there was strong input from wall st. executives or past ones just as what happened with the insurance companies writing the obamacare bill.

The regulations are intended to protect the consumer but end up squashing competition and still protecting the big banks.

Here it is if you care to read it.

https://www.congress.gov/111/plaws/publ203/PLAW-111publ203.pdf

Who can possibly understand that other than a bunch of high dollar lawyers hired by big banks to work around it and continue protecting their own interests.

Corruption Supreme.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Let's listen to the hateful white supremacist himself:

That's the one thing about all this that I do agree with, I find it hard to see how he's a white supremacist. However, like I said in my posts in regards to this and other things yet again the common factor is media's play and responsibility they must take when deciding how to frame things.

CNN has to take blame, MSNBC has to take blame and so does Fox. Because Fox has sparked such things as making it okay to vilify abortion doctors and certain other people that would be considered in their eyes, on the left to the point that nut jobs act on what is said. If it weren't for freedom of the press, I'd say pass around more access to liable but I doubt it would fix the problem and just send it the opposite end of the spectrum.

 

[huskeR32]

you really need to look some of this stuff up before posting

A little ironic coming from the guy who couldn't be bothered to back up his claims that Trump's EOs so far are only being done in the spirit of undoing the evil of Obama.

 

[Danoff]

I find it hard to see how he's a white supremacist.

There are only a handful of these labels to choose from. You've got homophobe, sexist, racist (white supremacist), xenophobe, islamophobe... I think that's about it. I guess they felt that white supremacist was the one that fit the best and ran with it.

 

[Northstar]

I find it hard to see how he's a white supremacist.

He's a white male, what more proof do you need?

 

[Com Fox]

I really don't get Milo being a Nazi or White Supremacist? He's a gay jew who has a thing for black men.

This sort of violence that happened is not OK in anyway over a man speaking. I don't mind protesting in general but destroying property, pepper spraying, beating people with shovels and condoning these violent acts (including the media and celebrity) is absolutely awful. This over someone who wants to speak their mind and they're response is to pull stunts like this without any sort of logic and reason.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

You probably don't know much about him, but he is conservative.

Conservatives can be radical. He wants society to go in the opposite direction to the way that it is heading. And I know enough about him to know that he's dangerous. Anybody who claims that people who disagree with them hates free speech as a means of pre-emptively silencing them has the potential to do untold damage. Give that person a Messiah complex - Yiannopolous is clearly trying to position himself as the lone voice of reason trying to save society from itself - and anyone with an ounce of common sense should be able to see just how dangerous he is.

 

[Joey D]

I don't really know who that Milo guy is, but my god does he just have the most punch-able looking face.