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.

(Yahoo)   Romney: 'I will put work back in welfare'. Oh well, the welfare vote was for Obama anyway   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 348
    More: Spiffy, Mitt Romney, obama, farm subsidies, Leersia oryzoides, welfare fraud, President Clinton, welfare reform, Hillary Rodham Clinton  
•       •       •

1843 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Aug 2012 at 10:06 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-08 03:05:07 AM  

intelligent comment below: bhcompy: Idealism is great, but it's unsustainable for running a nation.


But the conservative ideology of "we are a nation of haves and soon to haves" is totally sustainable amiright?

It's just easy to pass everyone off as jealous and a hater. Until the comments come from someone who can literally buy you, your family, and everyone you've ever met. Literally. And yet you still don't listen to them. Soros is more of a capitalist than you ever will be, yet you dismiss him with typical right wing insults.


I don't recall ever dismissing the bogeyman that is Soros.

As far as ideology, I prefer an ideology of each individual person contributes to their own success, and by encouraging and empowering people to achieve success through their own contributions, you make the nation better from the ground up. You can't legislate a healthy nation.

Sabyen91: That might be a good point if they weren't funding an initiative to deny people civil rights. PP does a whole host of things (97%) that is good for poor women. Prop 8 didn't do anything but deny rights. Also, that was pure politics. Nothing charitable at all.


And that's not even 3% of what the Mormon church does. So what's you're point?
 
2012-08-08 03:08:22 AM  

bhcompy: As far as ideology, I prefer an ideology of each individual person contributes to their own success, and by encouraging and empowering people to achieve success through their own contributions, you make the nation better from the ground up. You can't legislate a healthy nation.


And in order to make sure people CAN contribute to their own success, you have to make sure that their basic needs are taken care of and they're relatively stable. It's next to impossible for someone who's constantly fighting to meet their most basic needs to get out of that cycle without access to tools like decent education, ability to be treated for illness before it turns into permanent disability, and without a stable address.
 
2012-08-08 03:09:35 AM  

bhcompy: Sabyen91: That might be a good point if they weren't funding an initiative to deny people civil rights. PP does a whole host of things (97%) that is good for poor women. Prop 8 didn't do anything but deny rights. Also, that was pure politics. Nothing charitable at all.

And that's not even 3% of what the Mormon church does. So what's you're point?


My point is they do very little in humanitarian spending. Wasn't that obvious?
 
2012-08-08 03:10:40 AM  

Sabyen91: Dokushin: Sabyen91: Dokushin: Sabyen91: Wut? I am talking about the "charitable donations" Romney touts. 15% of his income (I am assuming this because I have no proof...) goes to the Mormon Church. He calls this charity. The Mormon Church turns around and gives it to anti-gay initiatives. You asked about what the "correct charities are" and I am telling you it isn't the Mormon Church.

So a charity should be considered not a charity if they donate to legislation that is disagreeable to ... who? You? Again, who gets to choose?

I am saying a charity should do charitable things.

And what are "charitable things"?

Oh, come on. You can't possibly defend funding anti-gay groups as charitable expenses. You aren't really trying to do that, are you?


Okay. We'll back up one. Who gets to decide what political speech is protected, and what isn't? You are advocating the abandonment of protected political speech by denying rights to groups that back legislation that you don't agree with -- so who gets to decide what goes on what list? How about abortion? Does pro-life get the charity label, or does pro-choice? How about health care? How about education? What group of people do you trust to make those decisions for you?
 
2012-08-08 03:11:27 AM  

Dokushin: Who gets to decide what political speech is protected, and what isn't?


Probably the IRS though they are slacking.
 
2012-08-08 03:12:08 AM  

Dokushin: Sabyen91: Dokushin: Sabyen91: Dokushin: Sabyen91: Wut? I am talking about the "charitable donations" Romney touts. 15% of his income (I am assuming this because I have no proof...) goes to the Mormon Church. He calls this charity. The Mormon Church turns around and gives it to anti-gay initiatives. You asked about what the "correct charities are" and I am telling you it isn't the Mormon Church.

So a charity should be considered not a charity if they donate to legislation that is disagreeable to ... who? You? Again, who gets to choose?

I am saying a charity should do charitable things.

And what are "charitable things"?

Oh, come on. You can't possibly defend funding anti-gay groups as charitable expenses. You aren't really trying to do that, are you?

Okay. We'll back up one. Who gets to decide what political speech is protected, and what isn't? You are advocating the abandonment of protected political speech by denying rights to groups that back legislation that you don't agree with -- so who gets to decide what goes on what list? How about abortion? Does pro-life get the charity label, or does pro-choice? How about health care? How about education? What group of people do you trust to make those decisions for you?


Also, protected speech /= untaxable speech.
 
2012-08-08 03:13:48 AM  

Dokushin: Sabyen91: Dokushin: Sabyen91: Dokushin: Sabyen91: Wut? I am talking about the "charitable donations" Romney touts. 15% of his income (I am assuming this because I have no proof...) goes to the Mormon Church. He calls this charity. The Mormon Church turns around and gives it to anti-gay initiatives. You asked about what the "correct charities are" and I am telling you it isn't the Mormon Church.

So a charity should be considered not a charity if they donate to legislation that is disagreeable to ... who? You? Again, who gets to choose?

I am saying a charity should do charitable things.

And what are "charitable things"?

Oh, come on. You can't possibly defend funding anti-gay groups as charitable expenses. You aren't really trying to do that, are you?

Okay. We'll back up one. Who gets to decide what political speech is protected, and what isn't? You are advocating the abandonment of protected political speech by denying rights to groups that back legislation that you don't agree with -- so who gets to decide what goes on what list? How about abortion? Does pro-life get the charity label, or does pro-choice? How about health care? How about education? What group of people do you trust to make those decisions for you?


Also, WTF? Weren't we talking about charitable contributions? Now tax deductible charities only need to not violate the 1st amendment? Wut?
 
2012-08-08 03:14:40 AM  

Sabyen91: Dokushin: Sabyen91: Dokushin: Sabyen91: Dokushin: Sabyen91: Wut? I am talking about the "charitable donations" Romney touts. 15% of his income (I am assuming this because I have no proof...) goes to the Mormon Church. He calls this charity. The Mormon Church turns around and gives it to anti-gay initiatives. You asked about what the "correct charities are" and I am telling you it isn't the Mormon Church.

So a charity should be considered not a charity if they donate to legislation that is disagreeable to ... who? You? Again, who gets to choose?

I am saying a charity should do charitable things.

And what are "charitable things"?

Oh, come on. You can't possibly defend funding anti-gay groups as charitable expenses. You aren't really trying to do that, are you?

Okay. We'll back up one. Who gets to decide what political speech is protected, and what isn't? You are advocating the abandonment of protected political speech by denying rights to groups that back legislation that you don't agree with -- so who gets to decide what goes on what list? How about abortion? Does pro-life get the charity label, or does pro-choice? How about health care? How about education? What group of people do you trust to make those decisions for you?

Also, WTF? Weren't we talking about charitable contributions? Now tax deductible charities only need to not violate the 1st amendment? Wut?


I apologize for three posts in a row. His comment was so WTF that I needed to make three posts about it.
 
2012-08-08 03:16:54 AM  

Sabyen91: Dokushin: Sabyen91: Dokushin: Sabyen91: Dokushin: Sabyen91: Wut? I am talking about the "charitable donations" Romney touts. 15% of his income (I am assuming this because I have no proof...) goes to the Mormon Church. He calls this charity. The Mormon Church turns around and gives it to anti-gay initiatives. You asked about what the "correct charities are" and I am telling you it isn't the Mormon Church.

So a charity should be considered not a charity if they donate to legislation that is disagreeable to ... who? You? Again, who gets to choose?

I am saying a charity should do charitable things.

And what are "charitable things"?

Oh, come on. You can't possibly defend funding anti-gay groups as charitable expenses. You aren't really trying to do that, are you?

Okay. We'll back up one. Who gets to decide what political speech is protected, and what isn't? You are advocating the abandonment of protected political speech by denying rights to groups that back legislation that you don't agree with -- so who gets to decide what goes on what list? How about abortion? Does pro-life get the charity label, or does pro-choice? How about health care? How about education? What group of people do you trust to make those decisions for you?

Also, WTF? Weren't we talking about charitable contributions? Now tax deductible charities only need to not violate the 1st amendment? Wut?


You are saying you should deny charitable status to groups that back some forms of legislation, and not other forms. That's exactly 1st amendment territory. The only alternative is giving someone the right to punish someone for their political views, which we have wisely avoided thus far. You should consider carefully before abandoning it.
 
2012-08-08 03:17:06 AM  

Genevieve Marie: Securing the borders would cost a fortune and wouldn't do anything about all of the people who are already here. Also, if you totally take away illegal immigrants, most of our agricultural system shuts down or food prices sky rocket. Worth reading about the effect the illegal immigration crack down had on Georgia farms. That's actually a great example of one problem that people are recommending really impractical solutions for.

Also? Social programs have been trimmed to the bone. This myth that there's an insane amount of funding disappearing there needs to stop. Also, why do people act like that's money that disappears? It's not- it re-enters the system immediately. Take away food stamp funding and see what it does not only to crime rates, but also to grocery store and agriculture profits.

That's what I mean about looking at the whole.


Yes, it doesn't work well for Georgia because Alabama takes up the slack. It's like the town that bans smoking in bars, all the smokers go to the next town over to drink. Like I said, comprehensive national policy, not willynilly.

And that doesn't even get in to cost.. Not even talking about securing the borders or deporting people, lets just talk about responsibility. The federal government's job is dealing with this problem as Holder was so kind to point out this year in federal court against Arizona. California's perennial multibillion dollar deficit could be more than covered just by the federal government paying for the people they refuse to police in the first place. Why do our state prisons and county jails have 20-50% populations of non-resident aliens(depending on locale)? Why are the local districts forced to pay for the costs of educating the same? Why isn't the federal government picking up this slack?

These type of cost responsibility problems tie in to what you want to do socially. Does the federal government do what it normally does and force the states to do all the heavy lifting(as it does with the burden of illegal immigrants and many other things)? Assuming this is the case, what happens to a state like California that has a much higher per capita rate of welfare recipients than any other state? Funnel more money inefficiently through extra levels of bureaucracy, like we do with MediCal from Medicaid?

The whole has to be sustainable. You'd be better off putting people in to education programs or teaching people how to grow their own food
 
2012-08-08 03:17:43 AM  

intelligent comment below: Dokushin: I'm talking about how common it is for people who know nothing about trying to run a small business and the incredible amount of work involved to make snarky comments when they see people discuss it. I've been involved with several small business owners, and I've never known one who wasn't working far beyond a normal workweek. When people say stuff like "anyone who claims running a business is hard is actually getting SECRET HANDOUTS" I find it offensive. It's the precursor to legislation of the least common denominator.


If by snarky comments you mean admit you "didn't built everything on your own" then guilty as charged.

Every entitled douchebag who ridicules the poor for just being too lazy and too stupid to get out there and become successful grew up with a silver spoon in their mouth.

But you, you're projecting in here because you take government handouts every time you deposit your paycheck


When you can come in and do my job, you can tell me what's a handout and what's compensated work. (Spoiler: you can't.)

This idea that everything from the government is a handout, and also everything that a small business owner does is a free ride and they're actually just sipping cocktails on the beach is completely out of touch with reality. What's actually going on is you aren't happy with your success in life, so instead of doing something about it, you want to make it illegal for someone else to succeed. Everyone is familiar with this attitude -- we saw it in grade school. "She wouldn't go to the prom with me -- they should make it against the rules to ask people to the prom!" Give me a break.
 
2012-08-08 03:17:46 AM  

bhcompy: As far as ideology, I prefer an ideology of each individual person contributes to their own success, and by encouraging and empowering people to achieve success through their own contributions, you make the nation better from the ground up. You can't legislate a healthy nation.



Never mind that food stamps are one of the best returns on investments, can you explain a policy to replace welfare? No, of course you can't. Because it doesn't exist

You think holding hands and singing koombaya will magically create jobs for people to be able to apply for
 
2012-08-08 03:18:55 AM  

Dokushin: Sabyen91: Dokushin: Sabyen91: Dokushin: Sabyen91: Dokushin: Sabyen91: Wut? I am talking about the "charitable donations" Romney touts. 15% of his income (I am assuming this because I have no proof...) goes to the Mormon Church. He calls this charity. The Mormon Church turns around and gives it to anti-gay initiatives. You asked about what the "correct charities are" and I am telling you it isn't the Mormon Church.

So a charity should be considered not a charity if they donate to legislation that is disagreeable to ... who? You? Again, who gets to choose?

I am saying a charity should do charitable things.

And what are "charitable things"?

Oh, come on. You can't possibly defend funding anti-gay groups as charitable expenses. You aren't really trying to do that, are you?

Okay. We'll back up one. Who gets to decide what political speech is protected, and what isn't? You are advocating the abandonment of protected political speech by denying rights to groups that back legislation that you don't agree with -- so who gets to decide what goes on what list? How about abortion? Does pro-life get the charity label, or does pro-choice? How about health care? How about education? What group of people do you trust to make those decisions for you?

Also, WTF? Weren't we talking about charitable contributions? Now tax deductible charities only need to not violate the 1st amendment? Wut?

You are saying you should deny charitable status to groups that back some forms of legislation, and not other forms. That's exactly 1st amendment territory. The only alternative is giving someone the right to punish someone for their political views, which we have wisely avoided thus far. You should consider carefully before abandoning it.


What about giving money to Prop 8 support was charitable?
 
2012-08-08 03:19:35 AM  

intelligent comment below: bhcompy: As far as ideology, I prefer an ideology of each individual person contributes to their own success, and by encouraging and empowering people to achieve success through their own contributions, you make the nation better from the ground up. You can't legislate a healthy nation.


Never mind that food stamps are one of the best returns on investments, can you explain a policy to replace welfare? No, of course you can't. Because it doesn't exist

You think holding hands and singing koombaya will magically create jobs for people to be able to apply for


Ice floes.
 
2012-08-08 03:20:19 AM  

Sabyen91: What about giving money to Prop 8 support was charitable?


So you are saying that if you donate money to a charity, and the charity uses some of that money to support legislation, it should not be considered a charity?
 
2012-08-08 03:21:26 AM  

Sabyen91: My point is they do very little in humanitarian spending. Wasn't that obvious?


You obviously have no idea what the Mormon church does domestically and abroad with their Mission programs.

The Mormon Chruch has taken some awful stances lately, and funded awful things, but that doesn't mean that they haven't also done good work as well.

Genevieve Marie: And in order to make sure people CAN contribute to their own success, you have to make sure that their basic needs are taken care of and they're relatively stable. It's next to impossible for someone who's constantly fighting to meet their most basic needs to get out of that cycle without access to tools like decent education, ability to be treated for illness before it turns into permanent disability, and without a stable address.


I agree if the person is willing to be productive and there is a limit, but these are luxuries that must come after administering to the broader population first. If the state is out of money, you don't defund elementary school education to pay for the Occupy kid's room and board.
 
2012-08-08 03:22:05 AM  

Sabyen91: intelligent comment below: bhcompy: As far as ideology, I prefer an ideology of each individual person contributes to their own success, and by encouraging and empowering people to achieve success through their own contributions, you make the nation better from the ground up. You can't legislate a healthy nation.


Never mind that food stamps are one of the best returns on investments, can you explain a policy to replace welfare? No, of course you can't. Because it doesn't exist

You think holding hands and singing koombaya will magically create jobs for people to be able to apply for

Ice floes.


Eating the poor.
 
2012-08-08 03:24:32 AM  

Dokushin: Sabyen91: What about giving money to Prop 8 support was charitable?

So you are saying that if you donate money to a charity, and the charity uses some of that money to support legislation, it should not be considered a charity?


LDS gives VERY little in actual humanitarian aid. You are giving him props for that 15% going toward charity. No.
 
2012-08-08 03:24:58 AM  

intelligent comment below: bhcompy: As far as ideology, I prefer an ideology of each individual person contributes to their own success, and by encouraging and empowering people to achieve success through their own contributions, you make the nation better from the ground up. You can't legislate a healthy nation.


Never mind that food stamps are one of the best returns on investments, can you explain a policy to replace welfare? No, of course you can't. Because it doesn't exist

You think holding hands and singing koombaya will magically create jobs for people to be able to apply for


You don't need to replace, you need to improve. The goal should not be to provide subsistence in perpetuity. It should be to generate a productive citizen.
 
2012-08-08 03:25:08 AM  

bhcompy: You obviously have no idea what the Mormon church does domestically and abroad with their Mission programs.


Yeah, I really have no respect for Missions.
 
2012-08-08 03:26:04 AM  

Sabyen91: Dokushin: Sabyen91: What about giving money to Prop 8 support was charitable?

So you are saying that if you donate money to a charity, and the charity uses some of that money to support legislation, it should not be considered a charity?

LDS gives VERY little in actual humanitarian aid. You are giving him props for that 15% going toward charity. No.


How much "humanitarian aid" is necessary before you consider something a charity, and who decides what constitutes allowed "humanitarian aid"?
 
2012-08-08 03:27:27 AM  

Dokushin: When you can come in and do my job, you can tell me what's a handout and what's compensated work. (Spoiler: you can't.)



Cool story bro, you work on computers all day. I bet you make all the 17 year olds with the same skill jealous as fark

Dokushin: This idea that everything from the government is a handout, and also everything that a small business owner does is a free ride and they're actually just sipping cocktails on the beach is completely out of touch with reality. What's actually going on is you aren't happy with your success in life, so instead of doing something about it, you want to make it illegal for someone else to succeed. Everyone is familiar with this attitude -- we saw it in grade school. "She wouldn't go to the prom with me -- they should make it against the rules to ask people to the prom!" Give me a break.



Out of touch with reality?

The argument is nobody got to where they are today merely from "hard work" and "smarts"

The people who keep pretending they did are the truly pathetic out of touch with reality

If you really were such a hard working capitalist you'd have your own lab working with private industry, not accepting a government paycheck.
 
2012-08-08 03:31:45 AM  

Dokushin: Sabyen91: Dokushin: Sabyen91: What about giving money to Prop 8 support was charitable?

So you are saying that if you donate money to a charity, and the charity uses some of that money to support legislation, it should not be considered a charity?

LDS gives VERY little in actual humanitarian aid. You are giving him props for that 15% going toward charity. No.

How much "humanitarian aid" is necessary before you consider something a charity, and who decides what constitutes allowed "humanitarian aid"?


I would say at least 50%. LDS isn't even close.
 
2012-08-08 03:33:54 AM  

intelligent comment below: Cool story bro, you work on computers all day.


Yup. You clearly nailed it. Science is for those skinny dorks, right? Cool people play football.

Maybe in the future you might wonder where the computers came from, or why they seem to keep getting better. Must be all those 17-year-olds, eh?
 
2012-08-08 03:34:39 AM  

Sabyen91: Dokushin: Sabyen91: Dokushin: Sabyen91: What about giving money to Prop 8 support was charitable?

So you are saying that if you donate money to a charity, and the charity uses some of that money to support legislation, it should not be considered a charity?

LDS gives VERY little in actual humanitarian aid. You are giving him props for that 15% going toward charity. No.

How much "humanitarian aid" is necessary before you consider something a charity, and who decides what constitutes allowed "humanitarian aid"?

I would say at least 50%. LDS isn't even close.


Okay. So what is "humanitarian aid"? What counts towards the 50%?
 
2012-08-08 03:36:41 AM  

Dokushin: Sabyen91: Dokushin: Sabyen91: Dokushin: Sabyen91: What about giving money to Prop 8 support was charitable?

So you are saying that if you donate money to a charity, and the charity uses some of that money to support legislation, it should not be considered a charity?

LDS gives VERY little in actual humanitarian aid. You are giving him props for that 15% going toward charity. No.

How much "humanitarian aid" is necessary before you consider something a charity, and who decides what constitutes allowed "humanitarian aid"?

I would say at least 50%. LDS isn't even close.

Okay. So what is "humanitarian aid"? What counts towards the 50%?


You know. The IRS has rules for this. They are falling down on the job but there is a definition. LDS wouldn't be one if they enforced the rules. Link
 
2012-08-08 03:38:48 AM  
Dokushin: Can I ask you a genuine question really quick-like? Now, I'm not calling anyone any names here, but are you evil, or are you stupid? I'm genuinely curious.
 
2012-08-08 03:42:37 AM  

Sabyen91: Dokushin: Sabyen91: Dokushin: Sabyen91: Dokushin: Sabyen91: What about giving money to Prop 8 support was charitable?

So you are saying that if you donate money to a charity, and the charity uses some of that money to support legislation, it should not be considered a charity?

LDS gives VERY little in actual humanitarian aid. You are giving him props for that 15% going toward charity. No.

How much "humanitarian aid" is necessary before you consider something a charity, and who decides what constitutes allowed "humanitarian aid"?

I would say at least 50%. LDS isn't even close.

Okay. So what is "humanitarian aid"? What counts towards the 50%?

You know. The IRS has rules for this. They are falling down on the job but there is a definition. LDS wouldn't be one if they enforced the rules. Link


The IRS specifically defines "advancement of religion" as an exempt charitable action. Surely you do not contend that the LDS church is failing to apply proceeds to that purpose?
 
2012-08-08 03:44:17 AM  

Dokushin: Sabyen91: Dokushin: Sabyen91: Dokushin: Sabyen91: Dokushin: Sabyen91: What about giving money to Prop 8 support was charitable?

So you are saying that if you donate money to a charity, and the charity uses some of that money to support legislation, it should not be considered a charity?

LDS gives VERY little in actual humanitarian aid. You are giving him props for that 15% going toward charity. No.

How much "humanitarian aid" is necessary before you consider something a charity, and who decides what constitutes allowed "humanitarian aid"?

I would say at least 50%. LDS isn't even close.

Okay. So what is "humanitarian aid"? What counts towards the 50%?

You know. The IRS has rules for this. They are falling down on the job but there is a definition. LDS wouldn't be one if they enforced the rules. Link

The IRS specifically defines "advancement of religion" as an exempt charitable action. Surely you do not contend that the LDS church is failing to apply proceeds to that purpose?


Now you have to show me what "advancement of religion" is. Spending on Prop 8?
 
2012-08-08 03:44:29 AM  

James F. Campbell: Dokushin: Can I ask you a genuine question really quick-like? Now, I'm not calling anyone any names here, but are you evil, or are you stupid? I'm genuinely curious.


What, precisely, have I presented that you feel is "evil" or "stupid"?
 
2012-08-08 03:46:18 AM  

Dokushin: What, precisely, have I presented that you feel is "evil" or "stupid"?


Answering a question with a question. You must be really desperate for attention. :( I feel bad for you now. Do... do you need a shoulder to cry on? It's OK if you do. I understand. I'm sure we can find someone willing to endure it.
 
2012-08-08 03:46:19 AM  

Sabyen91: Now you have to show me what "advancement of religion" is. Spending on Prop 8?


You just said that if they spent 50% of the money they received on the IRS definition of charitable works that they should be exempt. I believe there is a very strong possibility that they spend 50% of donations solely on advancement of religion, satisfying your conditions. What, therefore, does prop 8 have to do with it? How much do you think they spent on that?
 
2012-08-08 03:46:48 AM  

Dokushin: Sabyen91: Dokushin: Sabyen91: Dokushin: Sabyen91: Dokushin: Sabyen91: What about giving money to Prop 8 support was charitable?

So you are saying that if you donate money to a charity, and the charity uses some of that money to support legislation, it should not be considered a charity?

LDS gives VERY little in actual humanitarian aid. You are giving him props for that 15% going toward charity. No.

How much "humanitarian aid" is necessary before you consider something a charity, and who decides what constitutes allowed "humanitarian aid"?

I would say at least 50%. LDS isn't even close.

Okay. So what is "humanitarian aid"? What counts towards the 50%?

You know. The IRS has rules for this. They are falling down on the job but there is a definition. LDS wouldn't be one if they enforced the rules. Link

The IRS specifically defines "advancement of religion" as an exempt charitable action. Surely you do not contend that the LDS church is failing to apply proceeds to that purpose?


I imagine his stance isn't that the what you state isn't charitable, rather the church abuses its tax-exempt status against regulation that states that they should stay out of politics in order to retain that status.
 
2012-08-08 03:47:39 AM  

Dokushin: Sabyen91: Now you have to show me what "advancement of religion" is. Spending on Prop 8?

You just said that if they spent 50% of the money they received on the IRS definition of charitable works that they should be exempt. I believe there is a very strong possibility that they spend 50% of donations solely on advancement of religion, satisfying your conditions. What, therefore, does prop 8 have to do with it? How much do you think they spent on that?


I actually said 50% on humanitarian aid. You appear to be trying to put words in my mouth.
 
2012-08-08 03:47:55 AM  

James F. Campbell: Dokushin: What, precisely, have I presented that you feel is "evil" or "stupid"?

Answering a question with a question. You must be really desperate for attention. :( I feel bad for you now. Do... do you need a shoulder to cry on? It's OK if you do. I understand. I'm sure we can find someone willing to endure it.


Yes, because you asked a reasonable question. Strangely, you fail to answer mine at all; I'll try to contain my surprise. Don't worry, if you keep shouting people down they'll give up and agree with you. Someday.
 
2012-08-08 03:50:08 AM  

Sabyen91: Dokushin: Sabyen91: Now you have to show me what "advancement of religion" is. Spending on Prop 8?

You just said that if they spent 50% of the money they received on the IRS definition of charitable works that they should be exempt. I believe there is a very strong possibility that they spend 50% of donations solely on advancement of religion, satisfying your conditions. What, therefore, does prop 8 have to do with it? How much do you think they spent on that?

I actually said 50% on humanitarian aid. You appear to be trying to put words in my mouth.


I asked what you considered to be humanitarian aid, and you replied by saying:

Sabyen91: You know. The IRS has rules for this. They are falling down on the job but there is a definition. LDS wouldn't be one if they enforced the rules. Link


I took that to mean you used that as a definition of humanitarian aid. I apologize if I misunderstood. What, then, do you consider to be humanitarian aid?
 
2012-08-08 03:51:44 AM  

Dokushin: Sabyen91: Dokushin: Sabyen91: Now you have to show me what "advancement of religion" is. Spending on Prop 8?

You just said that if they spent 50% of the money they received on the IRS definition of charitable works that they should be exempt. I believe there is a very strong possibility that they spend 50% of donations solely on advancement of religion, satisfying your conditions. What, therefore, does prop 8 have to do with it? How much do you think they spent on that?

I actually said 50% on humanitarian aid. You appear to be trying to put words in my mouth.

I asked what you considered to be humanitarian aid, and you replied by saying:

Sabyen91: You know. The IRS has rules for this. They are falling down on the job but there is a definition. LDS wouldn't be one if they enforced the rules. Link

I took that to mean you used that as a definition of humanitarian aid. I apologize if I misunderstood. What, then, do you consider to be humanitarian aid?


Sorry, that was my fault. Humanitarian aid is helping people who need help. The poor, the diseased, the oppressed. The people Jesus would have helped.
 
2012-08-08 03:52:40 AM  

Dokushin: Yes, because you asked a reasonable question. Strangely, you fail to answer mine at all; I'll try to contain my surprise. Don't worry, if you keep shouting people down they'll give up and agree with you. Someday.


What's the matter? Did I hurt your feelings? Big bad JFC said the mean things to the silly, attention-starved man? Come down off the cross, Jesus. We all know what your game is: waste everyone's time, be dishonest and deceitful, and get as much attention as possible. I pity anyone who wastes time taking you seriously.
 
2012-08-08 03:52:46 AM  

bhcompy: Dokushin: Sabyen91: Dokushin: Sabyen91: Dokushin: Sabyen91: Dokushin: Sabyen91: What about giving money to Prop 8 support was charitable?

So you are saying that if you donate money to a charity, and the charity uses some of that money to support legislation, it should not be considered a charity?

LDS gives VERY little in actual humanitarian aid. You are giving him props for that 15% going toward charity. No.

How much "humanitarian aid" is necessary before you consider something a charity, and who decides what constitutes allowed "humanitarian aid"?

I would say at least 50%. LDS isn't even close.

Okay. So what is "humanitarian aid"? What counts towards the 50%?

You know. The IRS has rules for this. They are falling down on the job but there is a definition. LDS wouldn't be one if they enforced the rules. Link

The IRS specifically defines "advancement of religion" as an exempt charitable action. Surely you do not contend that the LDS church is failing to apply proceeds to that purpose?

I imagine his stance isn't that the what you state isn't charitable, rather the church abuses its tax-exempt status against regulation that states that they should stay out of politics in order to retain that status.


This is actually fairly compelling -- if you are saying that a church should only be able to use advancement of religion as a defense of charity if they do not fund legislation, then I absolutely agree. However, that would eliminate a large number of U.S. charities, and not just LDS; my original interest was in the dismissal of Romney's contributions specifically and in isolation. I do agree, though.
 
2012-08-08 03:53:51 AM  

James F. Campbell: Dokushin: Yes, because you asked a reasonable question. Strangely, you fail to answer mine at all; I'll try to contain my surprise. Don't worry, if you keep shouting people down they'll give up and agree with you. Someday.

What's the matter? Did I hurt your feelings? Big bad JFC said the mean things to the silly, attention-starved man? Come down off the cross, Jesus. We all know what your game is: waste everyone's time, be dishonest and deceitful, and get as much attention as possible. I pity anyone who wastes time taking you seriously.


Your contributions are manifold. Have you considered publishing?
 
2012-08-08 03:58:53 AM  

Dokushin: This is actually fairly compelling -- if you are saying that a church should only be able to use advancement of religion as a defense of charity if they do not fund legislation, then I absolutely agree. However, that would eliminate a large number of U.S. charities, and not just LDS; my original interest was in the dismissal of Romney's contributions specifically and in isolation. I do agree, though.


Well, not just advancement of religion, rather any justification of being a tax-exempt organization. The laws/regulations are murky and the IRS only picks and chooses who they persecute, but what it basically says is that if you're a tax-exempt organization you are prohibited from "political activities" such as campaigning for a candidate. Of course, this is one of the many things our government turns a blind eye to because these types of groups donate heavily to political parties and campaigns directly and indirectly.
 
2012-08-08 04:02:27 AM  

bhcompy: Dokushin: This is actually fairly compelling -- if you are saying that a church should only be able to use advancement of religion as a defense of charity if they do not fund legislation, then I absolutely agree. However, that would eliminate a large number of U.S. charities, and not just LDS; my original interest was in the dismissal of Romney's contributions specifically and in isolation. I do agree, though.

Well, not just advancement of religion, rather any justification of being a tax-exempt organization. The laws/regulations are murky and the IRS only picks and chooses who they persecute, but what it basically says is that if you're a tax-exempt organization you are prohibited from "political activities" such as campaigning for a candidate. Of course, this is one of the many things our government turns a blind eye to because these types of groups donate heavily to political parties and campaigns directly and indirectly.


I had no idea "advancement of religion" was a thing. It seems to me that is as much of a blank check as "Commerce Clause" is.
 
2012-08-08 04:03:01 AM  

Genevieve Marie: bhcompy: As far as ideology, I prefer an ideology of each individual person contributes to their own success, and by encouraging and empowering people to achieve success through their own contributions, you make the nation better from the ground up. You can't legislate a healthy nation.

And in order to make sure people CAN contribute to their own success, you have to make sure that their basic needs are taken care of and they're relatively stable. It's next to impossible for someone who's constantly fighting to meet their most basic needs to get out of that cycle without access to tools like decent education, ability to be treated for illness before it turns into permanent disability, and without a stable address.


That sort of reasoning won't be tolerated, especially the part about preventive care being the ounce that saves the pound.

Food stamps in particular are vital to the nation's poor. You can't even begin to better yourself when the simple idea of your next meal is a consuming obsession. That sort of abject poverty leads to depression and crime far more often than it leads to someone just making a fortune appear from hard work. For every rags-to-riches story, there are a 1,000 rags-to-not-being a total drain on society. This money, even if it is occasionally abused, is an essential building block for society. Churches won't do it, at least not en masse. You need to eat in order to stay sane, let alone be healthy enough to work.

"Welfare" barely exists outside of benefits for children. I know this for a fact because after Katrina (I have you farkied as NOLA), they had this slipstream application process for things I didn't even care to to sign up for, but the lady just said she'd put me through the system and see how it all shook out. I was denied for nearly everything except foodstamps and about 35% of my earnings in temporary unemployment. So despite having been ejected from my home, my job, and my soul, the government doesn't just hand out cash to people the way teabillies seem to think it's done. "Welfare check" (direct cash benefit) is far less common than the right would have us believe. Food stamps are probably the most prevalent form of assistance and you know what? That sh*t's really important.
 
2012-08-08 04:04:19 AM  

Sabyen91: Dokushin: Sabyen91: Dokushin: Sabyen91: Now you have to show me what "advancement of religion" is. Spending on Prop 8?

You just said that if they spent 50% of the money they received on the IRS definition of charitable works that they should be exempt. I believe there is a very strong possibility that they spend 50% of donations solely on advancement of religion, satisfying your conditions. What, therefore, does prop 8 have to do with it? How much do you think they spent on that?

I actually said 50% on humanitarian aid. You appear to be trying to put words in my mouth.

I asked what you considered to be humanitarian aid, and you replied by saying:

Sabyen91: You know. The IRS has rules for this. They are falling down on the job but there is a definition. LDS wouldn't be one if they enforced the rules. Link

I took that to mean you used that as a definition of humanitarian aid. I apologize if I misunderstood. What, then, do you consider to be humanitarian aid?

Sorry, that was my fault. Humanitarian aid is helping people who need help. The poor, the diseased, the oppressed. The people Jesus would have helped.


So I certainly find this agreeable, but the problem is that it is a difficult thing to capture on paper -- that is, it's hard to write laws to this end. Someone has to commit an interpretation to the books. Historically, interpretation of "charity" has been incredibly broad because of this problem, and a tremendous amount of good is done through charitable contribution. I'm not harping on the "who gets to decide" point just to be obstinant; it really is, I feel, the defining issue of these sorts of problems.

I almost hate to take this back to the minefield, but supposing Romney really believes that the LDS provides this humanitarian aid by bringing his belief system to people that he feels are in need of it. If you want laws to deny that as charitable contribution, then you have to make a determination on what constitutes acceptable aid; and the person who proposes (or maintains) those laws may not come up with the same interpretation. To this point, the prevailing wisdom, especially with religion, is to just leave it alone. It's kind of a spiritual counterpart to let the buyer beware -- let the giver beware?

The risk is fairly low, as a person giving their money without expecting return is likely to give it where they feel it will do the most good. LDS carries "mandatory" tithes, but I submit that if Romney did not feel donating to that church was worthwhile he would not be a part of their order.

Don't get me wrong -- I haven't decided if I'm a Romney supporter or not. He certainly has stances I disagree with. But he does voluntarily give his money to what he feels is a worthwhile organization; for that at least I feel he deserves some credit, modulo that usual "can afford it" caveats.
 
2012-08-08 04:09:31 AM  

Dokushin: Sabyen91: Dokushin: Sabyen91: Dokushin: Sabyen91: Now you have to show me what "advancement of religion" is. Spending on Prop 8?

You just said that if they spent 50% of the money they received on the IRS definition of charitable works that they should be exempt. I believe there is a very strong possibility that they spend 50% of donations solely on advancement of religion, satisfying your conditions. What, therefore, does prop 8 have to do with it? How much do you think they spent on that?

I actually said 50% on humanitarian aid. You appear to be trying to put words in my mouth.

I asked what you considered to be humanitarian aid, and you replied by saying:

Sabyen91: You know. The IRS has rules for this. They are falling down on the job but there is a definition. LDS wouldn't be one if they enforced the rules. Link

I took that to mean you used that as a definition of humanitarian aid. I apologize if I misunderstood. What, then, do you consider to be humanitarian aid?

Sorry, that was my fault. Humanitarian aid is helping people who need help. The poor, the diseased, the oppressed. The people Jesus would have helped.

So I certainly find this agreeable, but the problem is that it is a difficult thing to capture on paper -- that is, it's hard to write laws to this end. Someone has to commit an interpretation to the books. Historically, interpretation of "charity" has been incredibly broad because of this problem, and a tremendous amount of good is done through charitable contribution. I'm not harping on the "who gets to decide" point just to be obstinant; it really is, I feel, the defining issue of these sorts of problems.

I almost hate to take this back to the minefield, but supposing Romney really believes that the LDS provides this humanitarian aid by bringing his belief system to people that he feels are in need of it. If you want laws to deny that as charitable contribution, then you have to make a determination on what constitutes acceptable ai ...


I agree it is tough to quantify. I have an objection to a tithing as being a charitable contribution because, like the LDS, very little of it might be used as actual charity.
 
2012-08-08 04:09:32 AM  

Dokushin: Yup. You clearly nailed it. Science is for those skinny dorks, right? Cool people play football.

Maybe in the future you might wonder where the computers came from, or why they seem to keep getting better. Must be all those 17-year-olds, eh?



You aren't a scientist. No matter what your "computer science" degree says.

So you work in a government lab inventing new technology? Yeah how about no.

By the way, who paid for all your degrees? Because at the very least you had cheap subsidized loans from the government. So tell me all about the hard work you did to get where you are, without help from anyone else.
 
2012-08-08 04:19:09 AM  
In the betting pool going on right now I have all my money on you being ex military and having all your school paid for by the tax payers.

If you were really inventing shiat, you'd be in private industry in silicon valley or the PNW with someone like Intel or M$
 
2012-08-08 04:23:14 AM  

Sabyen91: I agree it is tough to quantify. I have an objection to a tithing as being a charitable contribution because, like the LDS, very little of it might be used as actual charity.


I do agree that tithing changes the flavor a bit. I think we've got this down to irreducible complexity -- what's left is mostly philosophy, which I'm not qualified to discuss *grin* and I need to get to bed, anyway. We may not agree, exactly, but I think in the end we want the same things. Thank you for a civil discussion involving both religion and politics; that doesn't happen much around here. Seriously. :)
 
2012-08-08 04:25:06 AM  

Dokushin: Sabyen91: I agree it is tough to quantify. I have an objection to a tithing as being a charitable contribution because, like the LDS, very little of it might be used as actual charity.

I do agree that tithing changes the flavor a bit. I think we've got this down to irreducible complexity -- what's left is mostly philosophy, which I'm not qualified to discuss *grin* and I need to get to bed, anyway. We may not agree, exactly, but I think in the end we want the same things. Thank you for a civil discussion involving both religion and politics; that doesn't happen much around here. Seriously. :)


Sleep well.
 
2012-08-08 04:27:20 AM  

Dokushin: Thank you for a civil discussion


check out your first contribution to the topic

Dokushin: How's the business you own doing?


Oh sweet irony
 
Displayed 50 of 348 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | 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