Discussion in 'Blazers OT Forum' started by SlyPokerDog, May 24, 2020.
Don’t forget about Russia and the “bots” or whatever. Oh and the TV brainwash brigade.
Too rich for my blood.
Your outrage is misdirected. Our policies are being influenced by Paula White and the like, whose brand of religion is about as palatable as Alex Jones. They are embedded in our government; just use google, you'll find hundreds of examples. It's obscene and steering our policies towards the "moral" rigidity and extremeness of something like the Hand Maiden's Tale. I would put a wrecking ball through such behavior in government if I could. The effects will be lasting.
It's fine for a few to sit back and snark, but what troubles me is the overwhelming number of people who just sort of shrug it off. "All politicians do that." "[Insert previous politician] was worse." "It's always been this way." and so forth. Fuh-uck that.
The tolerance for this exposes, in my opinion, just how duplicitous we are with each other. The unspokens are very loud right now: shrug off this nonsense about churches being essential, for example, or pretend that there is something resembling an overarching benevolence in this world, is akin to a secret desire for there to be MORE religion sprinkled into our politics. And akin to this, and also blatantly unspoken, is that those supporting the train-wreck in office, and I know I've said this before but I really, really believe it, are harboring some ugliness and secret fuckedupness that no religion can fix.
Yes, except you make them not-for--profit part is complicated. How do you define helping others?
Not stock piling money and buying properties/planes, or profiting from the church goers.
I was just messing with you. Otherwise, I meant nothing by my flippant remark.
Not that easily defined. What's considered profiting? How do you define salaries? Properties could be used to supplement that good works of a church.
Are there any parallels in other works of charity as defined by the IRS?
I don't think they're particularly fatty, so they shouldn't be too rich.
If you don't use too much oil, anyway.
Ive always felt that charity should be without strings attached (deductions).
You could still have Churches and Tithes and Charity without deductions. It would truly be charity then.
I get where you're coming from, but there would be an awful lot of charities that would take major hits if people had to make their donations with post-tax dollars. I'd argue that if charitable donations were nixed, things like political and environmental deductions should also go by the wayside.
There’s always been some religion embedded in our government, it was founded that way. The part where you’re wrong is claiming there is more being sprinkled about, which isn’t true, there is really less now than ever. A candidate from either party HAD to practice some form of conventional Christianity/Catholicism to even be considered in years past. And now we’ve just come off and election race that featured a gay man and a Buddhist woman of color, among others (oops, the left cancelled her and the others and chose an old white guy with dementia, crazy ironic huh?). And the “moral rigidity” akin to the Handmaids Tale can easily be found on the left via censorship, cancel culture, diminished privacy and just general egregious big government overreach which the left ALWAYS votes for. If anything, the right has loosened up a bit while the left has become a bunch of stiff, authoritarian-loving, bitchy tattletale Karens with a new fucking rule, phrase or fee for every situation.
I'd like to make a new fucking rule that calling people "Karens" to insult them does not become a bitchy, tattletale, stiff, authoritarian loving thing...and if Karen wants new rules about fucking let her have them anyway...maybe she's picky
I literally said what troubles me is the people just snark and say “It’s always been this way” or something of the sort. But I do know what you’re saying about religion when the country was founded. I personally give no fucks. They also wore goofy clothes, used leaches to extract bad humors, and had slaves. That’s kind of my point: it’s time to move on.
I had moral in quotes. Much of religious right believes things I find immoral and ridiculous. As do most of us, even those that are religious. The moral pushed by people, THE people, might not suit Wyoming or rural Oregon, but they suit the urban centers just fine. Where you say overreach, I say “overreach.” (We’ve come full circle.) The government is not doing enough for people, this giving the religious right this false currency of benevolence.
And I think Karens bother everyone. You can still be cool and just, without being officious. But going the other way and diving headlong into the Dark Ages is inexcusable. There are many reasons but zero excuses for what is happening to us in this country.
I’m open to all, “non-profits” having to pay taxes. There are a ton of political groups that benefit under that umbrella.
Oh okay then. Guess you can’t tax churches because they aren’t public? Gotcha
"Having" or "not having"?
Personally, I think if there were a legit full flat tax the average American Family would have more for legit charity and/or supporting churches with tithe's.
No deduction/exemption for any non profit including planned parenthood and churches. People can still offer monetary charity.
The Rich would pay more as everyone would pay the same percentage. The more you make the more you pay in total dollars to the government. It's about as progressive as you can get once you take away all the loop holes, and deductions.
...you are quickly becoming one of my favs...I like the way you articulate your thoughts.
I feel the same way about you.
Separate names with a comma.