Down goes NPR

[Durango 95]

Euphemistic we Durango - but you knew that as you avoid the rational offerings of others who disagree with you.  Here's a simpler one - I already pay taxes - if money the Church I support is again taxed on the charitable contribution you risk creating an adverse affect on the tax status of all charitable organizations.  Now if that is your goal you are clearly in a minority.  Personally, I would prefer the Government get out of the business of redistribution - and let private individuals provide charitable donations to organizations that help those in need.

Actually I am not ignoring others rational opinions. I have simply called out Illuminator on his self involved silly gamesmanship and got sidetracked doing it.  But bak to the point..in your last sentence you effectively said that you want government out of the redistribution business. Now, that, I am interested in hearing about and as I asked W/T how would that work? I think an argument could be made that providing tax relief to one (Churches) is not equitable to all. Again, though how does one make that work? Beats me.

[Chief Joseph]

I think an argument could be made that providing tax relief to one (Churches) is not equitable to all.

I agree. That argument, however, can not be made by linking it to funding for NPR. (nice deflection on the "we" bit. Grade schoolers must find you a formidable debate opponent.)

[Durango 95]

I think an argument could be made that providing tax relief to one (Churches) is not equitable to all.

I agree. That argument, however, can not be made by linking it to funding for NPR. (nice deflection on the "we" bit. Grade schoolers must find you a formidable debate opponent.)

No it is the grade schoolers that use We when they feel they can't stand up for themselves. You own it.
Back for the debate now?
How refreshing!

Okay (in the interest of moving the discussion along) i stand corrected on the NPR thing.
I am interested in equity and feel the exemption to Churches flies in the face of that.

[dbucfan]

Euphemistic we Durango - but you knew that as you avoid the rational offerings of others who disagree with you.  Here's a simpler one - I already pay taxes - if money the Church I support is again taxed on the charitable contribution you risk creating an adverse affect on the tax status of all charitable organizations.  Now if that is your goal you are clearly in a minority.  Personally, I would prefer the Government get out of the business of redistribution - and let private individuals provide charitable donations to organizations that help those in need.

Actually I am not ignoring others rational opinions. I have simply called out Illuminator on his self involved silly gamesmanship and got sidetracked doing it.  But bak to the point..in your last sentence you effectively said that you want government out of the redistribution business. Now, that, I am interested in hearing about and as I asked W/T how would that work? I think an argument could be made that providing tax relief to one (Churches) is not equitable to all. Again, though how does one make that work? Beats me.

I should have inserted Federal in front of Government to add clarity.  The Fed should get out of social programs - that belongs to the States or Municipalities IF THEY wish to provide such charity/services/benefits.  It works by getting money out of DC - reducing what the Feds have to play Royalty with - causing lobbyists to follow the money - to 50+ other locations. Got to either a flat or consumption tax.  All items that are discussed - and need to be moved forward.  COncepts are simply, implementation difficult - but over the last 25 years the Federal Government has proven, flat PROVEN, they don't have the ability, willingness or intention of cleaning up their mess. 

Oh yea, good idea moving away from that Church issue - you were getting your arse handed to you... just sayin' - that was a loser

[Chief Joseph]

No it is the grade schoolers that use We when they feel they can't stand up for themselves. You own it.

I used the term "we" because I had no reason to believe that your original comment was specifically aimed at me, and multiple people disagreed with your statement. If you still have questions, you may want to look up the meaning of the word.

Back for the debate now?
How refreshing!

I'm sure that my unattended keyboard would make a more suitable opponent for you, but I never actually left.

Okay (in the interest of moving the discussion along) i stand corrected on the NPR thing.

Surrender noted. No reason for you to continue taking a beating.

I am interested in equity and feel the exemption to Churches flies in the face of that.

Perhaps you should start a thread to that effect? This one is about National Public Radio.

[Durango 95]

Euphemistic we Durango - but you knew that as you avoid the rational offerings of others who disagree with you.  Here's a simpler one - I already pay taxes - if money the Church I support is again taxed on the charitable contribution you risk creating an adverse affect on the tax status of all charitable organizations.  Now if that is your goal you are clearly in a minority.  Personally, I would prefer the Government get out of the business of redistribution - and let private individuals provide charitable donations to organizations that help those in need.

Actually I am not ignoring others rational opinions. I have simply called out Illuminator on his self involved silly gamesmanship and got sidetracked doing it.  But bak to the point..in your last sentence you effectively said that you want government out of the redistribution business. Now, that, I am interested in hearing about and as I asked W/T how would that work? I think an argument could be made that providing tax relief to one (Churches) is not equitable to all. Again, though how does one make that work? Beats me.

I should have inserted Federal in front of Government to add clarity.  The Fed should get out of social programs - that belongs to the States or Municipalities IF THEY wish to provide such charity/services/benefits.  It works by getting money out of DC - reducing what the Feds have to play Royalty with - causing lobbyists to follow the money - to 50+ other locations. Got to either a flat or consumption tax.  All items that are discussed - and need to be moved forward.  COncepts are simply, implementation difficult - but over the last 25 years the Federal Government has proven, flat PROVEN, they don't have the ability, willingness or intention of cleaning up their mess. 

Oh yea, good idea moving away from that Church issue - you were getting your arse handed to you... just sayin' - that was a loser

Not moved an inch from the church thing why would I do that? I say remove that exemption. If you want to control tax distribution to NPR then why shouldn't others be able to do the same w/ churches?
I

[Durango 95]

No it is the grade schoolers that use We when they feel they can't stand up for themselves. You own it.

I used the term "we" because I had no reason to believe that your original comment was specifically aimed at me, and multiple people disagreed with your statement. If you still have questions, you may want to look up the meaning of the word.

Back for the debate now?
How refreshing!

I'm sure that my unattended keyboard would make a more suitable opponent for you, but I never actually left.

Okay (in the interest of moving the discussion along) i stand corrected on the NPR thing.

Surrender noted. No reason for you to continue taking a beating.

I am interested in equity and feel the exemption to Churches flies in the face of that.

Perhaps you should start a thread to that effect? This one is about National Public Radio.

I count four others on this thread that have no problem understanding my argument. You are the only one that seems confused. I count three that disagree and one that did agree We shall carry on w/ discussion while you enjoy debate w/ yourself.

[Biggs3535]

Okay (in the interest of moving the discussion along) i stand corrected on the NPR thing.

Good to see you came around.  Now how about BBB/Klink?

[dbucfan]

The Feds sending money to Churches?  Hadn't heard that!!

Durango - you have not made a single point to support changing the tax status charitable organizations/churches.  Perhaps you are prepared to let all taxpayers know their heretofore charitable donations will considered a payment of sorts and therefore income to their churches/charitable organizations?

[The White Tiger]

want government out of the redistribution business. Now, that, I am interested in hearing about and as I asked W/T how would that work? I think an argument could be made that providing tax relief to one (Churches) is not equitable to all. Again, though how does one make that work? Beats me.

Perhaps then, you would care to explain how a government constrained by it's operating documents from placing ANY limits on the RIGHT of religious freedom - constitutes a provision of tax relief, by the government?

Because at this juncture it's beginning to appear that you need a fundamental lesson regarding the difference between RIGHTS versus priviledges - if you would be good enough to answer whether you believe that: A) rights come from government, B) come from men, C) come from "natures God" D) are guaranteed by government, or C) the Bill of Rights forbids the government from certain behaviours?

(hint: you may select more than one answer to come to the proper conclusion).

If you can be intellectually honest in answering - then you will have answered the question for yourself - and won't need to be taught anymore fundamental underpinnings of OUR basic rights as found in in the very first sentence of the very first ammendment to our Constitution.

If you cannot be intellectually honest - it will be quickly recognized.

[Chief Joseph]

I count four others on this thread that have no problem understanding my argument. You are the only one that seems confused. I count three that disagree and one that did agree We shall carry on w/ discussion while you enjoy debate w/ yourself.

Oh, I understand your argument perfectly. That's why I labeled it a non-sequitur (you may wish to review). The only thing I'm confused about is how you came to the conclusion that your position is tenable.

If you want to make the argument that religious institutions should no longer be tax exempt, start a thread on the subject. Bringing to light how shams like the "Church" of Scientology are protected under this tenet could be a productive avenue of approach.

[The White Tiger]

May be a fun exercise - but ultimately pointless - because the wording "is Congress" and "NO" and they just keep playing over and over in my mind....

Like John Han**CENSORED**'s signature - you can derive much meaning from the freedom of religion from ANY governmental constraint (and no matter how you slice it, taxingf is a constraint) starts with the FIRST sentence of THE VERY FIRST ammendment.

There really is no arguing it.

"Congress Shall make NO law..." extremely specific, and very emphatic.

Just because this generation isn't taught to treasure this right = makes absolutely no difference.

[dbucfan]

John Han**CENSORED** is censored - really?  OMIGOD - it is - this site is.... what it is.

[The White Tiger]

The debate seems to have ended?

Always does when one guy spouts belief, and the other guy uses fact.

It's like the guy who THINKS he's right and really on to something - forgets he didn't read the bill - but comes full of Barbara Streisand nonetheless!

[John Galt?]

John Han**CENSORED** is censored - really?  OMIGOD - it is - this site is.... what it is.

Apparently, John H. was a fan of **CENSORED**y foods.