quote:
Really? Please provide me some PROOF that the people that would be concerned about this kind of fraud are concerned about Hillary's fraudulent tax exempt foundation. Actual evidence. Maybe a clip from Jon Stewart. Or this fellow. I'd like some proof from you to. Maybe links to threads you've posted on. I can't just accept your word here after you've gone on and on about this that you care equally.
I'll see if I can find some clips, though I don't know what you'll consider proof. This seems an odd request - provide PROOF that Jon Stewart, John Oliver, or I care equally about different types of frauds. You might as well ask for me to prove that my favorite color is blue.
This is really the only forum that I post on and most of it is philosophical and religious. You won't find any postings of mine where I condemn the supreme court decision to remove limits on individual donations to political campaigns. But I do! The absence of my condemnation toward HRC does not equal an endorsement of her nor is it reasonable to use in concluding that I think her sham fund is okay. In short, I feel no need to prove what I think to you. My arguments stand on their own independently of who or what I am.
quote:
Oh, well...hmm. Is Oliver a hardcore atheist?
In any given week, some corporation or politician is in the news for tax evasion, embezzlement, or something. How often is religious fraud an issue of national discussion. Religious institutions are very protected. Like I said, no politician or mainstream news agency would dare touch this subject because they fear people like you who will view an attack on one pastor as an attack against all of religion.
quote:
Well, see, you can't just care here about religion taking advantage of tax exemptions. That's EXACTLY the concern. That you and people LIKE you are using some examples of fraud by religion to go after it more generally while leaving alone other instances of fraud.
What did I do or say that suggested I only care about religious abuse of tax laws? You have fabricated some story about me having a Crusade against religious fraud only. You don't know me.
And how have I used this very specific issue to go after religion more generally? I go after religion in a general sense for VERY VERY different reasons. You cannot accuse me of lumping all religious people into the sleezy fraudulent televangelist category because they claim to pray to the same God. Stop making up some story about me or making these assumptions and just ask me what I think.
quote:
I can object that these people are abusing what I believe in. You can't. For you, this is no different than HRC's foundation (which you're going to provide me PROOF you care as much about, right?).
I brought up Susan G. Komen and the Smithsonian because Emma Todd said he/she was against ALL tax exemptions. I asked him/her to justify taking down those (mainly to test the veracity of that claim). He/she hasn't done it. I suspect he/she is NOT actually for what he/she said she was. The point is credibility. It's not going to go like this, okay: Let's get rid of the religious tax exemption and fraud...and THEN talk about the other stuff. It's not going to go like that. I know you and others WANT it to. But that's not the way the game's going to be played. You need to demonstrate credibility on the issue. And as long as half the country is willing to vote for someone running a tax free charitable scam, you can't show credibility on this issue.
There are other boards here, other boards in the internet world...maybe somewhere you've posted this much about the Clinton Foundation and it's horrible abuse of the tax system. If not, WHY NOT? Why doesn't THAT abuse draw you out? Isn't it very problematic that a Presidential candidate can get away with abusing the code like that? If they can, then why are we going after religious organizations? It's really not okay at all to target one kind of tax fraud like that while letting the political/elite class get away with it. This is the objection to what the IRS did with Lerner. When you have regulatory law enforcement like that with broad powers it's not appropriate to exercise them just to take down your enemies while you let your friends slide.
For the first paragraph - do you not agree that fraud has different levels? I make a distinction between unethical use of donated money and the unethical use of donated money obtained by the use of extortion and threat.
Again, The fact that I've responded to this abuse does not mean I overlook other abuses. Its simply the only tax related fraudulent issue I've ever addressed in these forums.
I don't need to demonstrate any credibility here. I propose ideas and they stand on their own. My ideas are not more or less useful or true because of who I am. The fact that you think I need to prove my credibility in acting in a non-bias way in order for you to consider my arguments serious is pretty revealing. And with that, I'm done with this discussion. Take my ideas and arguments or leave them - attaching them to my character shows an enormous immaturity in your ability to share ideas in this sort of format.
