If there is more to the 20 min sum it up. But the only morons that want more money on enforcement must not have any clue what a horrible agency the IRS is. Are you following at all the dishonest way they've dealt with lost emails? It's a scam outfit.

quote:

---

quote:

---

And hell, Kurt, who has argued with me the most here, HAS COMPLETELY CONCEDED THAT THE IRS ISN'T REALLY A GOOD ENOUGH GOVT AGENCY TO ENFORCE THIS.

---

Holy F@#$%! This was never part of my argument! You are completely insane! I'm done with you. . . .

---

So the whole point here is this is awful. But...we can't trust the IRS so...


Because that was kind of my point--I don't trust the IRS to be fair. Especially when it's being pushed by people with an anti religious agenda.

I argued that certain types of frauds are worse than others. I did not say that religious fraud is automatically worse than others and I made it clear that there are types of fraud that are worse than what these televangelists do.

Lets try this. Consider Susan G. Komen collecting millions of dollars through small donations and intentionally mis-representing how the money is being used (wasted in many cases). We can both agree that there is some fraudulent behavior in how Susan G. represents themselves and how their money is actually used. Next lets consider a mother of a son dying of leukemia who cannot afford care and cannot get help for whatever reason. A doctor approaches her and says he can provide a brand new promising experimental drug to the boy that may save his life. He knows that she can't afford the treatment, but he'll take whatever she can give. The drug is a sham never intended to work and the doctor walks away with whatever the mother had on this world. This is a worse fraud.

Some fraud is worse than others. Do you think the doctor's actions are morally equivalent to Susan G.?

quote:

---

Wait...the point of that was to spend more money on the IRS?.. I thought you couldn't defend the IRS? You want to spend more money giving them enforcement powers?

---

Why did you type that last sentence? In what way did I say that I agreed with John Oliver that we should give them more money? I posted it, as I stated in the post, to provide a more well rounded view of Oliver's view of the IRS - and there was plenty of criticism there of the IRS if you watched the whole thing.

Do you honestly not see how dishonest you are and mis-representative of everything I post? This blows my mind. 6 page of discussion and you have yet to once understand anything I've said - you simply twist it to follow this distorted picture of what you think I believe. Stop putting me in this stupid mold you have of what you think atheists MUST be like.

I'm done for real now.

quote:

---

I argued that certain types of frauds are worse than others. I did not say that religious fraud is automatically worse than others and I made it clear that there are types of fraud that are worse than what these televangelists do.

Lets try this. Consider Susan G. Komen collecting millions of dollars through small donations and intentionally mis-representing how the money is being used (wasted in many cases). We can both agree that there is some fraudulent behavior in how Susan G. represents themselves and how their money is actually used. Next lets consider a mother of a son dying of leukemia who cannot afford care and cannot get help for whatever reason. A doctor approaches her and says he can provide a brand new promising experimental drug to the boy that may save his life. He knows that she can't afford the treatment, but he'll take whatever she can give. The drug is a sham never intended to work and the doctor walks away with whatever the mother had on this world. This is a worse fraud.

Some fraud is worse than others. Do you think the doctor's actions are morally equivalent to Susan G.?

---

Both are going to result in deaths ultimately. The Susan G. Komen fraud maybe a little further down the line.

But ultimately, there's only so much money to spend on cancer. What Susan G. Komen ties up in bad spending (and this is an assumption here, not an actual argument that they do) could ultimately result in people dying.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Wait...the point of that was to spend more money on the IRS?.. I thought you couldn't defend the IRS? You want to spend more money giving them enforcement powers?

---

Why did you type that last sentence? In what way did I say that I agreed with John Oliver that we should give them more money? I posted it, as I stated in the post, to provide a more well rounded view of Oliver's view of the IRS - and there was plenty of criticism there of the IRS if you watched the whole thing.

Do you honestly not see how dishonest you are and mis-representative of everything I post? This blows my mind. 6 page of discussion and you have yet to once understand anything I've said - you simply twist it to follow this distorted picture of what you think I believe. Stop putting me in this stupid mold you have of what you think atheists MUST be like.

---

Why would you want me to watch 20 minutes of a video you don't agree with?

Were you intentionally trying to waste my time with that?

Just as long as we're clear. The well rounded view exposes Oliver as a hack and a moron that wants more money for one of the least trustworthy govt agencies. Right?

I just realized something. This is a political discussion that doesn't belong here. It's about tax exempt status. Why didn't anyone bring that up before?

quote:

---

I just realized something. This is a political discussion that doesn't belong here. It's about tax exempt status. Why didn't anyone bring that up before?

---

Man, you really got ruffled because I thought one of your threads was better suited for the politics board. My apologies.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I just realized something. This is a political discussion that doesn't belong here. It's about tax exempt status. Why didn't anyone bring that up before?

---

Man, you really got ruffled because I thought one of your threads was better suited for the politics board. My apologies.

---

You forgot to post that this thread belongs somewhere else.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I just realized something. This is a political discussion that doesn't belong here. It's about tax exempt status. Why didn't anyone bring that up before?

---

Man, you really got ruffled because I thought one of your threads was better suited for the politics board. My apologies.

---

You forgot to post that this thread belongs somewhere else.

---

I'd have to actually read the OP and watch the video to know for sure. But, if it's along the same lines as your political thread, then yes, I believe the Politics board would be the best place for this thread.

Kurt?

http://texags.com/forums/15/topics/2650890/1

You were telling the truth when you said you'd support restrictions on other 501c3s, right?

Saw the the thread, but as I said above, I'm still done with this conversation. Your only interest is in 'winning' an argument and not in discussing the issue. Remember how happy your posts were when you were convinced I had conceded something?

I wish I had been one.

quote:

---

Saw the the thread, but as I said above, I'm still done with this conversation. Your only interest is in 'winning' an argument and not in discussing the issue. Remember how happy your posts were when you were convinced I had conceded something?

---

I did not think you really meant you wanted PPs status revoked.

What you get when you send in money to John Oliver's Church

http://imgur.com/a/YcQsb