Fudge_Brownie

Do you know that the problem is isolated to the iphone, or is that just where you've been trying it? I think there's a broad problem with uploading photos at all right now. Someone brought it up in the mod forum. Initially Chuck thought it was a size constraint, but doesn't look like that's the case.

Is it typical for a CEO of an airline to be directly involved in a banning like that? I guess it's pretty critical but I assumed bans happened semi-often enough to be delegated. I guess maybe because it's a politically loaded issue? Watching the actual video, it's a little more tame than I initially perceived from the article. Seems a little less than 'obscenity-laced pro-Donald Trump tirade'. It'd be more interesting to know what started him off.

Instead, I'll channel my inner Trump and build a wall to keep a certain group of people out.

The weather's great right now. No sweating. A new guy's been riding with my group lately on a 450X and I think the only time I see him is when we stop.

No way, and I'm often for privatization and smaller government. But voting does not seem like a place that should have financial interests. I don't want Blackwater or SurveyMonkey administering the voting.

You're concerned with voter suppression, but not with the politics that could come from a private company handling it?

I like that a lot in theory, but kinda curious how that gets enforced. Government people or managers are going to be demanding receipts? I don't like that part of it. I already said I was aware of isolated incidents. In fact, I knew of one that happened in MA. Bill Clinton showed up in New Bedford during the primaries, with entourage/motorcade and allegedly caused a clusterfuck making it hard for people to get to the voting location. But you didn't address the more important issue: How does mandatory voting improve any of that? It will only make it worse. People aren't going to bother because there's a 10hr line. And what are you going to do to those people who refused to stand around for a long time? Punish them?

What suppression? I'm asking because while I'm aware of some isolated incidents, I'm not sure many would agree with such a broad statement the way you phrased it. Why couldn't we still have that same suppression? After it's mandatory, we can make sure you need your National ID card to vote, and keep the same number of poling locations/staffing/parking despite the double/triple turn out.

I'm not sure you understand how rights work. Just as a right can be exercised, it can be waived. That's the whole point of protecting individual's freedom to choose. By making it a compulsory vote, it's no longer a right.

It's semantics. I don't dispute the effects, or the possibilities that tax policy introduces. I think I've made it pretty clear that I understand why that's significant. I agree that a flat tax has a serious economic risk, but I'm interested in a flat tax fee, not a rate. I also think that introduced today, yes it would unfairly impact the lower class. I see that eventually, incomes would stabilize to match. Unfortunately, I can see how it'd be difficult to ever implement.

Almost none of what you posted is being debated. You're nearly arguing about semantics. You asked what taxes are for, Kevin (and I) both responded with the text book version of the primary purpose. I still don't see a good case to support your point, but I'm also not sure it matters relative to the original point regarding whether a church should be taxed. I think we're all in agreement that taxes can be used to have economic impact. I already explained my view on that in the previous post.

I used something as basic as Britannica because it seemed like you were trying to present your viewpoint as if it was the understanding most people educated on the topic had. But it sounds like you're really defending what is the minority or alternative view. That's fine, and we can agree to disagree on whether it should be viewed that way. I don't think there's anything I'm missing though. I fully understand, and have from the start, that taxes can be used to influence the economy. And why it is theoretically beneficial to give certain groups a pass. Or to tax heavily another. So to the original question, of whether religious groups should get that benefit, I still don't see what's wrong with allowing them to spend all they want on social services while considering money spent on advertising and lobbying as taxable income. That's probably my compromised view. My idealistic view is a flat tax. I don't like the idea of giving mortgage and child deductions either.

I think I might have too many questions about the majority of what you said - so I'm gonna skip to the closing line. I think the government needs taxes in order to fund its activities. I don't understand how else they're going to pay for those activities. I suppose they could print money or take loans until no one will lend to them, but those aren't long term plans. What am I missing? I get that who pays can be used to influence the economy. But that's not it's primary purpose. Encyclopedia Britannica says it better: " Taxation, imposition of compulsory levies on individuals or entities by governments. Taxes are levied in almost every country of the world, primarily to raise revenue for government expenditures, although they serve other purposes as well."

I think you said it better than they did. I agree, there's little room. It's just enough to matter IMO. The letter just crosses the line. I'm not disputing religion's historic role, or whether it should continue to have role today. But role should not mean law. I understand that within a religious group, they will have a moral code driven by their religious leaders. And that this will drive their decisions when it comes to voting. I'm saying at some point, one has to say 'that's for you to self police, not to write law about'. For example, there is not, and should never be, law about dietary choices on a specific religious celebration. But if someone proposed it and said it has social value (health or green), isn't it reasonable to say 'no, that's just your religious value?'. I see that applying to a broader set of decisions. I would have effectively said the same as Kevin. That federal income taxes are to pay for government services that theoretically benefit society. Like the military, the roads, or the FDA. I agree it also lends to economic influence, by allowing deductions in certain areas. But you don't think it's debatable to say economic leverage is the primary purpose? Is it fair to say you're arguing that tax is used as a tool to maintain wealth distribution? If so, I don't see that a church should be given preferential treatment to encourage them to accumulate wealth beyond the way we treat businesses.

But do you see the difference in the points you raise against it, compared to the overall point made by the church's letter? Why does the church need to petition it's members to vote a certain way, to enforce their views? It's so blatant that the church wants the law to do it's work. To control the acts of the population based on their social expectations. Full disclosure, this one's kind of a developing thought so I'm just talking out loud: I see a double standard. Religious people don't want laws that stifle their way of life, but want laws that enforce their own. They'll happily vote against assisted suicide, but then hide behind their religion when it comes to being asked to sign a gay couple's marriage certificate. I understand (and value) the protections granted, but I think it's perhaps an oversight that indirectly, those without religion lack similar protections. There's comedy in that I could try and argue that atheism is a religion despite having strongly argued against that. So let's pretend it is. If atheism were a religion, then shouldn't we all get together and write a book of rules, and then claim you can't pass these laws because they stifle ours? I think to some degree, that's already played out with religious group's use of drugs but I haven't followed those issues closely.

I don't see that applying taxes to them the same as everyone else is oppressing religion. Though I don't know where that would leave me on my own question of taxing other non-profits. I suppose they get to pay too. To some degree, you're taking the tone that religion is the victim now, and I see that elsewhere. But I can sympathize with his anger in that it's obnoxious that there is some effort to make or keep law for the purpose of enforcing what a religious text says. I cannot see how LDS should be petitioning against assisted suicide. That's a problem within their own group, not for the law to handle. I don't think he's arguing to apply a flat tax to everyone, and then demand payment. I assume it'd be like a business. If you don't have any money on the books, then there is no money to pay tax on. If you wrote off all your costs of running community services by spending your money, that seems reasonable. Once you start spending that money on advertising though, no write off.

What about non-profits? Like should UNICEF, the American Cancer Society, or the ACLU be able to lobby for voting on an issue, and be tax-exempt?

Let me re-frame it in a way that he'll be more receptive: Check out this post from r/politics [-] Burn-E 5,007 points 14 hours ago You're preening like an ignorant parrot. There's a difference between campaigning on behalf of a politician and speaking out on a moral issue. The latter is a foundational element of the 1st Amendment. And such speech does not contradict the requirements to retain tax exempt status. Religious institutions are not taxed as an element of that freedom of speech that drove our founders to revolt against England and the Anglican Church. permalink embed parent

What if... just what if.... the Republicans hate Trump so much that they tell everyone to vote for Johnson instead. Come on guys, do it for the lulz. I can dream, right?

That picture of the sunken boat is a different boat right? Did they sink one, then build an entirely different boat and rename it the exact same name, including the '3'? What am I missing? I bet that's his home. The wet suit is a good idea but I wonder what his plan was if he got tossed. If the storm is coming in, hope you're getting carried in that direction? Maybe the video doesn't do it justice, but it kinda reminds me of the sounds on the top of a mountain in a winter storm, or maybe some of the really bad nor'esters. I live near somewhat of a large cove, and I went down to the beach one time as a storm was rolling in. It was similar to his video where it's storm conditions but no rain. And I remember seeing this massive sail boat anchored in the middle, probably too deep a keel to risk getting any closer to an unfamiliar shore. And it was bouncing around like a toy boat in a bathtub. It was impressive, but damn nature, you scary.

Eh, I think it's becoming easier and/or more socially acceptable to push back against the religious integration in to our laws and government. I don't know if I'd agree it's broadly under attack so much as under review. Being questioned. And I've argued quite a few times here against the use of religion to directly define or justify law. Unfortunately, I think that also extends to a lot of religious people becoming disillusioned with their previous religious upbringing and railing strongly against it like they're now free from a captor in an aggressively unreasonable way. Granted, I think I might have just implied they're all cults. I just don't get why he's limiting it. It seems lazily thought out. A lot of religiously motivated political decisions have happened since 9/11.

Is it possible I'm a fast talking yankee? Or is this guy trying to see how slow he can talk? If you think his voting bias lends to your believe that it's a cult, why don't you do the same with the other christian congressmen who vote in the name of their own religion? Why are you limiting the scope of cult to only those two? Seems like the others would fit your criteria too.

I just remembered that I haven't had Fluff in a long time. I really want Fluff right now. Is that something everyone knows? Or is it restricted to Northeast US knowledge? Growing up I thought everyone had it in their cabinet, but I think like half of the US doesn't know what it is. Most people are all about the fluffernutter, but I just like to east raspberry fluff with a spoon from the jar.