Pastor : I'll 'hold my nose,' vote for Mormon Romney

[candycorn]

And we wonder why the country is in the shape it is in? When you have such little faith (either rightly or wrongly) in the person you're electing there isn't a need to pull that lever.

Oh, but there is. As much as I find disappointment in the election of a 'typical' Democratic government, I truly fear the election of another 'typical' Republican government.

The experiment in supply side economics and trickle down needs to be buried once and for all. It don't work.

Well, lets talk about that:

I've stated here time and again that the reason I'm more closely aligned with the Democratic Party is because I agree with their stance on social issues. Fiscally, I belive both parties are out to lunch and always will be until we have a great day of reckoning in this nation. I don't mean revolution; I do mean an understanding that we either need to pay for the government we want or decide we can't afford it and serioulsy discontinue entitlements, the military, and scale back the safety net to a level we can support.

Fearing the typical left or right offerings is fine. I see where you are going with that. But I think it is more...scary...if you will to think there is any difference economically. While certainly there are members of the Right and the Left whom you would not think are of the the same species if you looked at their beliefs, the party as a whole in both cases straddles the line of what they think they can get away with spending on their philosophically different programs; the right wants more guns, the left wants more butter.

It is because of this that I proudly split my ticket.

It is also because of this that I fully and firmly believe that at some point in the next 20-30 years, the country and yes even the elected officials will determine that our Constitution needs further perfecting. We have a dysfunctional government. The world stage is no place for a government that doesn't work.

 

[Dick Tuck]

It will be interesting to see how all these many Southern Baptist bigots turn on a dime about what they've been preaching to their flock for generations, about their opinion of the false god of Mormon, and firing up the Evangelical base to turn out for Mittens. But Pastor Jeffress has certainly led the way of putting to the side his sacred values, in order to endorse partisan politics.

If it weren't for the potential catastrophe of another corporate oligarch in the Whitehouse, Pastor Jeffress, and the moral relativism of the right wing would be funny.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Romney....

LOL...

HAHAHAHAH... We could save a lot of money by not having an election.

Im sure Obama would like that. But unfortunately for him, we live in a Republic, not a dictatorship. So he's leaving next year.

Yes, we live in a republic, a plutocratic republic - our democratic republic died slowly and then five members of the Supreme Court dealt democracy the death blow when they voted to allow unlimited and anonymous money to influence the voters.

I wouldn't count on the President not winning the election in November.

Notwithstanding Romney's lies and efforts by the echo chamber here, Santorum and Romney, McConnell and Boehner, the right wing media and the Koch Brothers (et al) to stall our economic recovery we are on the mend.

I know that pisses off the self defined conservatives and religious zealots but facts are facts. The Republicans running for the nomination are either liars, charlatans or hypocrites and I very much doubt American voters will trust the office of POTUS to the candidate who eventually survives the circular firing squad in which they are engaged.

 

[Cammmpbell]

And we wonder why the country is in the shape it is in? When you have such little faith (either rightly or wrongly) in the person you're electing there isn't a need to pull that lever.

Oh, but there is. As much as I find disappointment in the election of a 'typical' Democratic government, I truly fear the election of another 'typical' Republican government.

The experiment in supply side economics and trickle down needs to be buried once and for all. It don't work.

Well, lets talk about that:

I've stated here time and again that the reason I'm more closely aligned with the Democratic Party is because I agree with their stance on social issues. Fiscally, I belive both parties are out to lunch and always will be until we have a great day of reckoning in this nation. I don't mean revolution; I do mean an understanding that we either need to pay for the government we want or decide we can't afford it and serioulsy discontinue entitlements, the military, and scale back the safety net to a level we can support.

Fearing the typical left or right offerings is fine. I see where you are going with that. But I think it is more...scary...if you will to think there is any difference economically. While certainly there are members of the Right and the Left whom you would not think are of the the same species if you looked at their beliefs, the party as a whole in both cases straddles the line of what they think they can get away with spending on their philosophically different programs; the right wants more guns, the left wants more butter.

It is because of this that I proudly split my ticket.

It is also because of this that I fully and firmly believe that at some point in the next 20-30 years, the country and yes even the elected officials will determine that our Constitution needs further perfecting. We have a dysfunctional government. The world stage is no place for a government that doesn't work.

Neither party has ever cut spending a goddam dime. At least the Democrats tax enough to pay the bills. Beginning with Ronald Reagan our system has gone to shit. Tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations has made the difference. Trickle Down didn't work:

Total U S Debt


09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accomodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43 (First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38(Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)

09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

 

[Cammmpbell]

And we wonder why the country is in the shape it is in? When you have such little faith (either rightly or wrongly) in the person you're electing there isn't a need to pull that lever.

Oh, but there is. As much as I find disappointment in the election of a 'typical' Democratic government, I truly fear the election of another 'typical' Republican government.

The experiment in supply side economics and trickle down needs to be buried once and for all. It don't work.

Well, lets talk about that:

I've stated here time and again that the reason I'm more closely aligned with the Democratic Party is because I agree with their stance on social issues. Fiscally, I belive both parties are out to lunch and always will be until we have a great day of reckoning in this nation. I don't mean revolution; I do mean an understanding that we either need to pay for the government we want or decide we can't afford it and serioulsy discontinue entitlements, the military, and scale back the safety net to a level we can support.

Fearing the typical left or right offerings is fine. I see where you are going with that. But I think it is more...scary...if you will to think there is any difference economically. While certainly there are members of the Right and the Left whom you would not think are of the the same species if you looked at their beliefs, the party as a whole in both cases straddles the line of what they think they can get away with spending on their philosophically different programs; the right wants more guns, the left wants more butter.

It is because of this that I proudly split my ticket.

It is also because of this that I fully and firmly believe that at some point in the next 20-30 years, the country and yes even the elected officials will determine that our Constitution needs further perfecting. We have a dysfunctional government. The world stage is no place for a government that doesn't work.

Neither party has ever cut spending a goddam dime. At least the Democrats tax enough to pay the bills. Beginning with Ronald Reagan our system has gone to shit. Tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations has made the difference. Trickle Down didn't work:

Total U S Debt


09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accomodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38(Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)

09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

 

[bodecea]

The Right to Free Speech, the Protection of Religious Liberty are both Guaranteed. Let's consider the abuse of authority, before claiming Negative Rights on Religious Institutions, in the name of Tyranny of the State and Despotism. Conscience is neither subject to Regulation or Tax. The notion is an offense.

Protection of religious liberty is one thing. I'm an American too and I don't have to see and hear tales about your ancient superstition. I hope we're not finished until public displays of that crap are gone forever.

That about sums up your position on Liberty for Anyone that is in disagreement with you. How tolerant of you, Fascist. Fuck Off. You want to censor something, start with yourself.

Why does my business have to pay taxes and religious organizations don't.

 

[Avorysuds]

I, and the First Amendment, would disagree.

Wrong. Tax exempt organizations are prohibited from such activities.

Which, of course, is illegal and unconstitutional. "Congress shall make no law" means specifically that. Congress can't pass a law penalizing preachers for preaching. Period.

Funny how they made a law to not tax them...

 

[dblack]

Why does my business have to pay taxes and religious organizations don't.

Because the first amendment was violated by making a law 'respecting the establishment of religion'.

 

[Avorysuds]

Why does my business have to pay taxes and religious organizations don't.

Because the first amendment was violated by making a law 'respecting the establishment of religion'.

Yup! And they use that money to lobby to get laws made in their favor... Imagine not paying 15% of your taxes (give or take) on your buisness to the federal Government.

 

[Intense]

It will be interesting to see how all these many Southern Baptist bigots turn on a dime about what they've been preaching to their flock for generations, about their opinion of the false god of Mormon, and firing up the Evangelical base to turn out for Mittens. But Pastor Jeffress has certainly led the way of putting to the side his sacred values, in order to endorse partisan politics.

If it weren't for the potential catastrophe of another corporate oligarch in the Whitehouse, Pastor Jeffress, and the moral relativism of the right wing would be funny.

They are not Electing a Mormon God, just a Man who happens to be a Mormon. I am so touched about your concern on the matter.

 

[Avatar4321]

Wrong. Tax exempt organizations are prohibited from such activities.

Which, of course, is illegal and unconstitutional. "Congress shall make no law" means specifically that. Congress can't pass a law penalizing preachers for preaching. Period.

WRONGO, Avatar.

501c3s that get involved in political campaigns lose their not-for profit status.

As well they should, I note.

Why is it so difficult for people, especially politicians, to understand "Congress shall make no law"?

You honestly think the government is entitled under the constitution to punish people with a tax because they support a certain politician?

 

[dblack]

Why is it so difficult for people, especially politicians, to understand "Congress shall make no law"?

You honestly think the government is entitled under the constitution to punish people with a tax because they support a certain politician?

That's what government is all about - handing out special privileges and then revoking them if you step out of line.

 

[Avatar4321]

Which, of course, is illegal and unconstitutional. "Congress shall make no law" means specifically that. Congress can't pass a law penalizing preachers for preaching. Period.

WRONGO, Avatar.

501c3s that get involved in political campaigns lose their not-for profit status.

As well they should, I note.

It's not what Avatar knows that makes him dangerous. It's what he *thinks* he knows that isn't true that's the problem.

The only thing that makes me dangerous is that I actually read the text of the Constitution and think we should follow it. I know that's complete radical to most people nowadays.

I take my oath to uphold the Constitution seriously.

 

[Avatar4321]

So someone putting aside their most deeply-held beliefs in order to effect temporal matters is supposed to be inspiring? Is that what the thread is about?

Nope. This thread is merely about the news of the story. If you find this man inspiring, I have to question you.

However, it seems that some think this man should be taxed if he shares an opinion on politics over the pulpit. There is a reason the Constitution doesn't allow Congress to make laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. It's specifically so politicians would never have power to punish preachers who speak out against them.

Sadly, some think they should.

 

[Avatar4321]

Wrong. Tax exempt organizations are prohibited from such activities.

Which, of course, is illegal and unconstitutional. "Congress shall make no law" means specifically that. Congress can't pass a law penalizing preachers for preaching. Period.

Except that it doesn't restrict the free exercise of religion. It removes a special preference in the law.

That "preference" exists because the First amendment forbids Congress from making any law to affect the free exercise of religion.

politicians cannot revoke your first amendment rights merely because you openly support another politician.

 

[Intense]

Protection of religious liberty is one thing. I'm an American too and I don't have to see and hear tales about your ancient superstition. I hope we're not finished until public displays of that crap are gone forever.

That about sums up your position on Liberty for Anyone that is in disagreement with you. How tolerant of you, Fascist. Fuck Off. You want to censor something, start with yourself.

Why does my business have to pay taxes and religious organizations don't.

Have you ever been involved with a Religious Institution, that does Charity? I suspect that if you had, you would know better to ask silly questions. Just saying.

 

[Avatar4321]

The Right to Free Speech, the Protection of Religious Liberty are both Guaranteed. Let's consider the abuse of authority, before claiming Negative Rights on Religious Institutions, in the name of Tyranny of the State and Despotism. Conscience is neither subject to Regulation or Tax. The notion is an offense.

The fact that people dont find the notion of politicians being able to punish people for exercising their rights to free speech and their rights to exercise their religion freely is downright scary.

 

[Avatar4321]

The Right to Free Speech, the Protection of Religious Liberty are both Guaranteed. Let's consider the abuse of authority, before claiming Negative Rights on Religious Institutions, in the name of Tyranny of the State and Despotism. Conscience is neither subject to Regulation or Tax. The notion is an offense.

Protection of religious liberty is one thing. I'm an American too and I don't have to see and hear tales about your ancient superstition. I hope we're not finished until public displays of that crap are gone forever.

So religious protected, except any mention of it publically?

Thank God you weren't a Founder!

 

[Intense]

Which, of course, is illegal and unconstitutional. "Congress shall make no law" means specifically that. Congress can't pass a law penalizing preachers for preaching. Period.

Except that it doesn't restrict the free exercise of religion. It removes a special preference in the law.

That "preference" exists because the First amendment forbids Congress from making any law to affect the free exercise of religion.

politicians cannot revoke your first amendment rights merely because you openly support another politician.

They actually think they can. They think that Every Time the Church Challenges Government on issues of Conscience, that The Government has the Right to Threaten the Church with Revocation of Tax Exempt Status. Talk about Bullying, Extorting, Blackmailing, and Manipulating. Nobody does it like Government.

 

[Avatar4321]

Protection of religious liberty is one thing. I'm an American too and I don't have to see and hear tales about your ancient superstition. I hope we're not finished until public displays of that crap are gone forever.

That about sums up your position on Liberty for Anyone that is in disagreement with you. How tolerant of you, Fascist. Fuck Off. You want to censor something, start with yourself.

Why does my business have to pay taxes and religious organizations don't.

Does the first amendment prevent Congress from making laws against your free exercise of business?