Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hill)   "If Obama continues to lose Catholics by the margin the Pew poll suggests, that means he could lose the key swing states of Florida, Ohio, Colorado and Iowa"   (thehill.com) divider line 394
    More: Obvious, Obama administration, pew poll, Catholic Association, Iowa, Ohio, Catholics, Colorado, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops  
•       •       •

1266 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Apr 2012 at 11:48 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



394 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-24 12:23:05 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: Some activists expect civil disobedience, which could lead to powerful images of priests and nuns being led away in hand restraints.


Yeah, that didn't happen when priests were raping little kids. Why would it happen now?
 
2012-04-24 12:24:11 PM  

Animatronik: Its about King Obamas Edict That All Shall Pay for Womens Hormonal Birth Control and Next Day Abortions.


Given that the alternative is "All Shall Pay for Single Mothers and Their Children on Welfare for The Next Eighteen Years"...
 
2012-04-24 12:24:16 PM  

turbidum: EWreckedSean: chaoswolf: EWreckedSean: As soon as the free amendment is over turned.

wut?

If you're attempting to state that we would have to overturn the 1st amendment which gives us freedom of speech and freedom from the establishment of a state religion and the right to worship as we see fit in order to tax the businesses called churches, then you're a moron.

1st amendment, and yes. As soon as you start taxing churches, you've violated the free exercise clause.

[iseewhatyoudidthere.jpg]


Yep, I was thinking free exercise clause of the first amendment and typed free amendment. Oh well.
 
2012-04-24 12:25:05 PM  
Florida--only 26% Catholic, won by Obama in 2008
Ohio--only 21% Catholic, won by Obama in 2008
Colorado--only 19% Catholic, won by Obama in 2008
Iowa--23% Catholic, won by Obama in 2008

Any other deeply burning concerns you would like to voice?
 
2012-04-24 12:25:11 PM  

EWreckedSean: turbidum: EWreckedSean: chaoswolf: EWreckedSean: As soon as the free amendment is over turned.

wut?

If you're attempting to state that we would have to overturn the 1st amendment which gives us freedom of speech and freedom from the establishment of a state religion and the right to worship as we see fit in order to tax the businesses called churches, then you're a moron.

1st amendment, and yes. As soon as you start taxing churches, you've violated the free exercise clause.

[iseewhatyoudidthere.jpg]

Yep, I was thinking free exercise clause of the first amendment and typed free amendment. Oh well.


How would removing tax-exempt status prevent you from practicing whatever religion you choose?
 
2012-04-24 12:25:34 PM  

tnpir: EWreckedSean: 1st amendment, and yes. As soon as you start taxing churches, you've violated the free exercise clause.

You CANNOT be serious. Dare I ask how you reached that conclusion? Or do you have the same GED in Law as our resident legal expert clown?


Try and understand this. I'll say it slowly. Once you put a tax requirement on a religion, you've made religion a pay to play organization, which is a violation of free exercise.
 
2012-04-24 12:25:50 PM  
Ok, I see the pew, but where's the poll?

www.lolsaints.com

pew poll
 
2012-04-24 12:26:12 PM  

Lord_Baull: EWreckedSean: Please quote the part of said amendment you refer to that says what you think it says.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"


Bwahahahahahahaaaaa! So, because the gov't can't establish a religion, and persons can worship anyone they choose, that makes it illegal to tax a church business. Tard.


Yes actually, it does. What happens if a religion can't afford to pay it's taxes genius?
 
2012-04-24 12:26:17 PM  

tnpir: EWreckedSean: 1st amendment, and yes. As soon as you start taxing churches, you've violated the free exercise clause.

You CANNOT be serious. Dare I ask how you reached that conclusion? Or do you have the same GED in Law as our resident legal expert clown?


It was an incredibly ignorant statement. He apparently holds the belief that taxation is unconstitutional because it infringes upon the first amendment. So why are any of us taxed?

I've seen more ignorant spew on fark before, but the belief that churches can't be taxed because of the first amendment is up there on the stupid list.
 
2012-04-24 12:27:46 PM  

EWreckedSean: Lord_Baull: EWreckedSean: Please quote the part of said amendment you refer to that says what you think it says.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"


Bwahahahahahahaaaaa! So, because the gov't can't establish a religion, and persons can worship anyone they choose, that makes it illegal to tax a church business. Tard.

Yes actually, it does. What happens if a religion can't afford to pay it's taxes genius?


Too bad?
 
2012-04-24 12:28:18 PM  

EWreckedSean: Lord_Baull: EWreckedSean: Please quote the part of said amendment you refer to that says what you think it says.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"


Bwahahahahahahaaaaa! So, because the gov't can't establish a religion, and persons can worship anyone they choose, that makes it illegal to tax a church business. Tard.

Yes actually, it does. What happens if a religion can't afford to pay it's taxes genius?


Fortunately, "a Christian church" does not equal "Christianity".

What happens to any church that breaks the law? Or are you suggesting that churches should be above all laws?
 
2012-04-24 12:28:25 PM  

chaoswolf: tnpir: EWreckedSean: 1st amendment, and yes. As soon as you start taxing churches, you've violated the free exercise clause.

You CANNOT be serious. Dare I ask how you reached that conclusion? Or do you have the same GED in Law as our resident legal expert clown?

It was an incredibly ignorant statement. He apparently holds the belief that taxation is unconstitutional because it infringes upon the first amendment. So why are any of us taxed?

I've seen more ignorant spew on fark before, but the belief that churches can't be taxed because of the first amendment is up there on the stupid list.


I so love that you call me stupid while ignoring 200+ years of case law on the separation of church and state.
 
2012-04-24 12:28:39 PM  
I might add that Obama won New York with a 26.9 % margin. NY is over 40% Catholic.
 
2012-04-24 12:28:49 PM  

EWreckedSean: Lord_Baull: EWreckedSean: Please quote the part of said amendment you refer to that says what you think it says.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"


Bwahahahahahahaaaaa! So, because the gov't can't establish a religion, and persons can worship anyone they choose, that makes it illegal to tax a church business. Tard.

Yes actually, it does. What happens if a religion can't afford to pay it's taxes genius?


They can go meet in Ethel's basement.
 
2012-04-24 12:28:50 PM  
ITT, I learn that not only does money equal speech, but money also equals religion.
 
2012-04-24 12:29:44 PM  

EWreckedSean: chaoswolf: tnpir: EWreckedSean: 1st amendment, and yes. As soon as you start taxing churches, you've violated the free exercise clause.

You CANNOT be serious. Dare I ask how you reached that conclusion? Or do you have the same GED in Law as our resident legal expert clown?

It was an incredibly ignorant statement. He apparently holds the belief that taxation is unconstitutional because it infringes upon the first amendment. So why are any of us taxed?

I've seen more ignorant spew on fark before, but the belief that churches can't be taxed because of the first amendment is up there on the stupid list.

I so love that you call me stupid while ignoring 200+ years of case law on the separation of church and state.


What if the church breaks that separation first?
 
2012-04-24 12:29:48 PM  

qorkfiend: I alone am best: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: I alone am best: qorkfiend: EWreckedSean: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Diogenes: In late January, priests in scores of churches across the country read letters from the pulpit urging congregants to contact members of Congress to oppose the new rule.

Larry Cirignano, a Catholic activist, said evangelical groups such as the Christian Coalition had sent out direct mail to raise money to push back against the Obama administration.

And speaking of encroachment.

When do these political organizations lose their tax exempt status?

As soon as the free amendment is over turned.

Which amendment is tax exemption guaranteed under?

The first. It was common law long before churches had to be 501c3 orginizations which only happened in the mid 50's.

Please quote the part of said amendment you refer to that says what you think it says.

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.

How about all of it? But mostly the bolded. See Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury baptists and 200 years of supreme court decisions.

Laws that carve out a special exemption for a religious organization actually run counter to the idea of the First Amendment, by respecting an establishment of religion.

How does removing tax-exempt status "prohibit the free exercise [of religion]"? Note the bolded word.


Because the power to tax is also the power to destroy.
 
2012-04-24 12:30:36 PM  
Don't worry Catholics, your leaders can go on sexually abusing little boys and/or covering up that abuse, he's not going to encroach THAT much into your "religious freedom"...

Can you guys imagine how easy it wold be to get actual TRUTH into the discussion if we could just take out all of the Fox News assets? 99% of the lies that have any legs either start with them, get bumped higher into the discussion by them, or are 'discovered' by them...
 
2012-04-24 12:31:08 PM  
If the Catholic Church's hierarchy wants to be the party responsible for the demise of health insurance for the poor and the young, a foreign policy that shoots first and asks questions later, more children going to bed hungry and the legalized plunder of our retirement savings and women dying of sepsis in emergency wards from botched abortions, then let them swing the elections to the GOP.

The cry of the poor, the widow and the orphan against the Catholic Church hierarchy shall ascend to God, who will deal with it at His pleasure.
 
2012-04-24 12:31:15 PM  

EWreckedSean: I'll say it slowly.


If you are saying things slowly in a text based internet forum, it's probably because of a combination of stroke symptoms and a fundamental misconception regarding technology. Helmets save lives.
 
2012-04-24 12:31:19 PM  

EWreckedSean: tnpir: EWreckedSean: 1st amendment, and yes. As soon as you start taxing churches, you've violated the free exercise clause.

You CANNOT be serious. Dare I ask how you reached that conclusion? Or do you have the same GED in Law as our resident legal expert clown?

Try and understand this. I'll say it slowly. Once you put a tax requirement on a religion, you've made religion a pay to play organization, which is a violation of free exercise.



Try and understand this. Taxing a CHURCH (note, not a religion) that engages in non-religious activities - like, I don't know, let's say politics - does not keep you from believing in that religion. You're still FREE TO EXERCISE YOUR RELIGION.
 
2012-04-24 12:31:36 PM  

GAT_00: What's the big difference?


The hats.
 
2012-04-24 12:32:32 PM  

Car_Ramrod: EWreckedSean: chaoswolf: tnpir: EWreckedSean: 1st amendment, and yes. As soon as you start taxing churches, you've violated the free exercise clause.

You CANNOT be serious. Dare I ask how you reached that conclusion? Or do you have the same GED in Law as our resident legal expert clown?

It was an incredibly ignorant statement. He apparently holds the belief that taxation is unconstitutional because it infringes upon the first amendment. So why are any of us taxed?

I've seen more ignorant spew on fark before, but the belief that churches can't be taxed because of the first amendment is up there on the stupid list.

I so love that you call me stupid while ignoring 200+ years of case law on the separation of church and state.

What if the church breaks that separation first?


The church isn't the government and not bound by the constitution.
 
2012-04-24 12:33:02 PM  

EWreckedSean: Lord_Baull: EWreckedSean: Please quote the part of said amendment you refer to that says what you think it says.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"


Bwahahahahahahaaaaa! So, because the gov't can't establish a religion, and persons can worship anyone they choose, that makes it illegal to tax a church business. Tard.

Yes actually, it does. What happens if a religion can't afford to pay it's taxes genius?



You keep saying "religion." How does one tax a religion?
i13.photobucket.com
 
2012-04-24 12:33:06 PM  

EWreckedSean: turbidum: EWreckedSean: chaoswolf: EWreckedSean: As soon as the free amendment is over turned.

wut?

If you're attempting to state that we would have to overturn the 1st amendment which gives us freedom of speech and freedom from the establishment of a state religion and the right to worship as we see fit in order to tax the businesses called churches, then you're a moron.

1st amendment, and yes. As soon as you start taxing churches, you've violated the free exercise clause.

[iseewhatyoudidthere.jpg]

Yep, I was thinking free exercise clause of the first amendment and typed free amendment. Oh well.


No, I was more pointing out the fact that both your argument and the argument of I alone am best seem to have no basis in fact or the wording of the amendment, when in fact you both saw through all the bullshiat, straight through to the Founders' true intentions:

The free exercise of religion should be just that: free. You can't tax it, because it's free!
 
2012-04-24 12:33:07 PM  
Manufactured outrage is manufactured.

At this point, Obama isn't losing votes. Anyone that feels Romney is a better candidate was voting Nobama anyway.
 
2012-04-24 12:33:25 PM  

Shostie: I'm Catholic. I will very likely vote for Obama unless it turns out that he's a Reptloid.


You didn't see him on 'V'? Most definitely a Reptloid. According to Glenn Beck, that was a documentary, not a TV Drama...

/Reptloid still better than any of the Republicans, save Huntsman, that one would actually give me pause.
 
2012-04-24 12:34:00 PM  

Animatronik: Objecting to the current administrations abuses does not qualify.


Please define an "abuse"...
 
2012-04-24 12:34:39 PM  

I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: I alone am best: qorkfiend: EWreckedSean: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Diogenes: In late January, priests in scores of churches across the country read letters from the pulpit urging congregants to contact members of Congress to oppose the new rule.

Larry Cirignano, a Catholic activist, said evangelical groups such as the Christian Coalition had sent out direct mail to raise money to push back against the Obama administration.

And speaking of encroachment.

When do these political organizations lose their tax exempt status?

As soon as the free amendment is over turned.

Which amendment is tax exemption guaranteed under?

The first. It was common law long before churches had to be 501c3 orginizations which only happened in the mid 50's.

Please quote the part of said amendment you refer to that says what you think it says.

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.

How about all of it? But mostly the bolded. See Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury baptists and 200 years of supreme court decisions.

Laws that carve out a special exemption for a religious organization actually run counter to the idea of the First Amendment, by respecting an establishment of religion.

How does removing tax-exempt status "prohibit the free exercise [of religion]"? Note the bolded word.

Because the power to tax is also the power to destroy.


If someone was proposing tax rates of 100% on churches and churches only, you might have a point.

Why should churches get a special exemption from this "power to destroy", and why does this special exemption not run counter to the idea of the First Amendment? Remember, we are talking about churches, as in physical buildings, not organized religion, as in "Christianity".
 
2012-04-24 12:35:56 PM  
3.bp.blogspot.com

4.bp.blogspot.com

2.bp.blogspot.com

mundabor.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-04-24 12:36:05 PM  

I alone am best: downpaymentblues: I alone am best: Why would they have to pay taxes? The church can mess with the government all they want. I was unaware that they were bound by the constitution to stay out of it. Oh wait, they are not bound by constitutional limitations where the government is.

Where in the Constitution does it say churches are guaranteed tax exempt status no matter what they do?

In the first amendment. Jeffersons letter to the Danbury baptists and the intent of the amendment to be "separation of church and state."


You think the first amendment gives churches tax exempt status? You are just being funny, and I am missing the joke, right?
 
2012-04-24 12:36:12 PM  
Oh, look, it's a thread about Catholics on FARK.

i2.photobucket.com
 
2012-04-24 12:36:12 PM  

EWreckedSean: Try and understand this. I'll say it slowly. Once you put a tax requirement on a religion, you've made religion a pay to play organization, which is a violation of free exercise.


No you haven't, you've just started treating it fairly. If they don't want taxes, they should remain income neutral, paying for operating costs, and donating everything else.
 
2012-04-24 12:36:44 PM  
Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. All religious institutions should be taxed.

If anybody wants to convince me otherwise, you'll first have to convince these idiots (and the Baptist idiots, and the Mormon idiots...) to get out of politics completely. No more laws pulled straight from their personal interpretations of the Bible, no more campaign contributions or fundraisers, no more election-year "If you really love God, you'll vote GOP" pamphlets in the mail.
 
2012-04-24 12:37:38 PM  

Animatronik: That would be true if they engage in campaigning for a candidate.

Objecting to the current administrations abuses does not qualify.


They never objected when Republicans did it for the last decade

Link

How is it "current administration abuses" when they didn't care prior to a Democrat being involved?
 
2012-04-24 12:37:52 PM  

EWreckedSean: tnpir: EWreckedSean: 1st amendment, and yes. As soon as you start taxing churches, you've violated the free exercise clause.

You CANNOT be serious. Dare I ask how you reached that conclusion? Or do you have the same GED in Law as our resident legal expert clown?

Try and understand this. I'll say it slowly. Once you put a tax requirement on a religion, you've made religion a pay to play organization, which is a violation of free exercise.


And YOU try to understand this, which I'll say even slower: HOW. Newspaper companies pay taxes, that doesn't infringe on freedom of press. So how is a church paying taxes an infringement of free exercise? And cite examples if you can actually come up with any.

Seriously, stop being a retard.
 
2012-04-24 12:38:00 PM  

downpaymentblues: I alone am best: Why would they have to pay taxes? The church can mess with the government all they want. I was unaware that they were bound by the constitution to stay out of it. Oh wait, they are not bound by constitutional limitations where the government is.

Where in the Constitution does it say churches are guaranteed tax exempt status no matter what they do?


This ! Do we tax lobbying groups? Are certain religious institutions lobbying the governor for preference and favor?
 
2012-04-24 12:38:00 PM  
I would say that 99 percent of Catholics aren't really Catholic, maybe culturally, they went to Catholic school and their grandparents from Ireland and Italy were Catholic, but practicing Catholic?

Less than 1% of so called "Catholics"
 
2012-04-24 12:38:08 PM  

ginandbacon: The bishops only prosper and succeed because the laity support them. You want people to not confuse the two? Maybe the laity should do the talking with their feet like many did after the revelations of how widespread and legitimate the allegations of kidfarking by priests were.

Look, I'm not Catholic. I am in fact an atheist. But I've worked a lot in politics and the one thing I know is that you really can't take whatever statement the USCCB releases as any indication of how Catholics will vote. They don't obey the way that hardcore white evangelicals do. They will vote for candidates who are so far to the left they make Italian Communist Party leaders look like members of the John Birch Society. The Bishops have power because Rome grants it to the most conservative (male) leaders. One of the things the Church has always struggled with is the complete disconnect between leadership and adherents on social issues. If the GOP wants to get in bed with the Bishops, I say go for it! It will only benefit progressives in the end, just like most of their disastrous decisions in the last few months.


Okay, but what redress does the laity have when their bishops (i.e. their leaders) purport to speak for them? You've already said that the laity finds it "tacky" to speak out against their bishops.

If we are not supposed to take their silence on the issue as complicity, how exactly are we supposed to take it?
 
2012-04-24 12:38:58 PM  

EWreckedSean: Try and understand this. I'll say it slowly. Once you put a tax requirement on a religion, you've made religion a pay to play organization, which is a violation of free exercise.


Bzzt. Wrong. No tax requirement is being placed on a religion. It would be placed on a church. A church is a pyramid scheme based business where consumers pay for a product that makes the church leaders wealthy. That wealth should be taxed. Taxing a church in no way infringes on someone's right to follow a religion.


EWreckedSean: Yes actually, it does. What happens if a religion can't afford to pay it's taxes genius?


What happens when any other business can't pay its taxes? Again, this will not in any way stop a citizen from worshiping their god of choice.


EWreckedSean: I so love that you call me stupid while ignoring 200+ years of case law on the separation of church and state.


Yes, I can call you stupid for being stupid.
 
2012-04-24 12:39:35 PM  

I alone am best: Car_Ramrod: EWreckedSean: chaoswolf: tnpir: EWreckedSean: 1st amendment, and yes. As soon as you start taxing churches, you've violated the free exercise clause.

You CANNOT be serious. Dare I ask how you reached that conclusion? Or do you have the same GED in Law as our resident legal expert clown?

It was an incredibly ignorant statement. He apparently holds the belief that taxation is unconstitutional because it infringes upon the first amendment. So why are any of us taxed?

I've seen more ignorant spew on fark before, but the belief that churches can't be taxed because of the first amendment is up there on the stupid list.

I so love that you call me stupid while ignoring 200+ years of case law on the separation of church and state.

What if the church breaks that separation first?

The church isn't the government and not bound by the constitution.


When does a church stop being a church and becomes a political entity?
 
2012-04-24 12:40:06 PM  

Lord_Baull: EWreckedSean: Lord_Baull: EWreckedSean: Please quote the part of said amendment you refer to that says what you think it says.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"


Bwahahahahahahaaaaa! So, because the gov't can't establish a religion, and persons can worship anyone they choose, that makes it illegal to tax a church business. Tard.

Yes actually, it does. What happens if a religion can't afford to pay it's taxes genius?


You keep saying "religion." How does one tax a religion?
[i13.photobucket.com image 222x282]


I think you are confusing a religion with a religious belief. Catholicism as a religion has a whole infrastructure behind it.
 
2012-04-24 12:40:53 PM  

EWreckedSean: Lord_Baull: EWreckedSean: Lord_Baull: EWreckedSean: Please quote the part of said amendment you refer to that says what you think it says.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"


Bwahahahahahahaaaaa! So, because the gov't can't establish a religion, and persons can worship anyone they choose, that makes it illegal to tax a church business. Tard.

Yes actually, it does. What happens if a religion can't afford to pay it's taxes genius?


You keep saying "religion." How does one tax a religion?
[i13.photobucket.com image 222x282]

I think you are confusing a religion with a religious belief. Catholicism as a religion has a whole infrastructure behind it.


That "infrastructure" is called the catholic church

DERP
 
2012-04-24 12:40:55 PM  
Obama has is going to lose Florida anyway.

He can thank Al Sharpton and the Black Panthers.
 
2012-04-24 12:42:26 PM  

Mildot: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 528x505]

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 500x397]

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 528x378]

[mundabor.files.wordpress.com image 600x339]


One would think stupidity wasn't so elastic.
 
2012-04-24 12:43:16 PM  

qorkfiend:
If someone was proposing tax rates of 100% on churches and churches only, you might have a point.

Why should churches get a special exemption from this "power to destroy", and why does this special exemption not run counter to the idea of the First Amendment? Remember, we are talking about churches, as in physical buildings, not organized religion, as ...


That's how some people exercise their religion. If your asking how forcing them to practice their religion in a different manner would be "free exercise" i don't know what to tell you. While were on it are you for labor unions tax exempt status being revoked?
 
2012-04-24 12:44:17 PM  
This discussion is silly, even for Fark. A given church's tax-exempt status is statuatory, not constitutional. If a church fails to follow the rules governing 501(c)3s then it should lose it's certification. The only thing keeping this from happening is a yellow streak in the administration ordering the IRS to do it's job and revoke said certification.

There is absolutely nothing in the 1st Amendment barring the state from taxing churches. As pointed out up-thread to do so actually singles out churches for special treatment by the state expressly contrast to that amendment.
 
2012-04-24 12:44:24 PM  
Guys, at least the teabaggers are now acknowledging the separation of church and state.

Sure, they think it means religious institutions are above any and all laws, but hey. They're pro separation of church and state!
 
2012-04-24 12:44:48 PM  

barneyfifesbullet: Obama has is going to lose Florida anyway.

He can thank Al Sharpton and the Black Panthers.


True, that probably hurt his FL numbers.

Obama doing well in Florida

Barack Obama starts the general election with a 5 point advantage over Mitt Romney in Florida, 50-45. This is the biggest lead Obama's had in Florida over the course of five polls PPP's done in the state since the beginning of 2011.

Or not.
 
2012-04-24 12:45:28 PM  

I alone am best: While were on it are you for labor unions tax exempt status being revoked?


Sure. I'd like to see ALL businesses taxed. Or quit taxing all of them and crank up a federal sales tax. I'm good either way. It's the fact that the businesses calling themselves churches get special treatment that pisses me off.
 
Displayed 50 of 394 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report