Ending God's Tax Exempt Status

[lumberjim]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

I just call 'em like I see 'em. And I don't like the inequity of two people behaving the same way, and only one of them getting shit for it.



That's not my style. Maybe LJ will do that - D'oh, I don't see that happening.

I will determine who i make threads about, Nancy. And if i do it, it won't be veiled in some stupid assed question that a 7 year old could see through.

[queequeger]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

I wonder if they go to churches who don't get taxed?

Good point, I can't help but feel this meandering is somehow my fault...

[lumberjim]

ThreadHijackman would be impressed.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

They are here illegally because we need them, because they need the work, and because so many want to enforce laws that are not enforceable. Since we are into enforcing stupid laws, then bring back prohibition. Notice all the drunk drivers who would not longer exist if we just enforce that law also.

If the law is stupid, change it, don't ignore it.

[dar512]

Looks like this thread has drifted.

[9th Engineer]

The thing is, you can argue day and night, but in the end legality will always win when the situation must be resolved. Actually, so much of our law is based on common law (precedents), that not enforcing a law in one scenario has an enormous impact on its ability to be enforced in other areas. Law is logic, if I can make the argument and connect the dots, I win. If I have a very wealthy client who wants to skirt the law and there is a precedent of non-enforcement that I can tie to him in any way, then your original law may as well not even be there. Think carefully.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

If the law is stupid, change it, don't ignore it.

Some laws make sense in some situations and don't in others.

For example, there is a difference between an 18 year old drinking responsibly and an 18 year old passed out in bathtub after waking up all of his or her neighbors at 3 in the morning, vandalizing their homes, and peeing on their lawn. Just like there is a difference between going 20 over on a country road and going 20 over on a city road. There will be times when the same law will make sense and a time when it doesn't and that is why we have courts, kinda.

Some laws are very hard to change like legalizing drug as well and are easier just to ignore it.

[lumberjim]

Originally Posted by dar512

Looks like this thread has drifted.

DOESN'T THAT LOOK APPEALING RIGHT NOW!!?!?!?

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Some laws make sense in some situations and don't in others.

For example, there is a difference between an 18 year old drinking responsibly and an 18 year old passed out in bathtub after waking up all of his or her neighbors at 3 in the morning, vandalizing their homes, and peeing on their lawn. Just like there is a difference between going 20 over on a country road and going 20 over on a city road. There will be times when the same law will make sense and a time when it doesn't and that is why we have courts, kinda.

Some laws are very hard to change like legalizing drug as well and are easier just to ignore it.

In that case, their age is not the issue.

[tw]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Some laws make sense in some situations and don't in others.

This still does not explain why sanctuary inside a tax free church is not good protection from enforcement of stupid laws. Even the alter boys nip at the sacrifical wine and don't get prosecuted.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Separation of church and state requires the state not recognize the Church as sanctuary... and it never has.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

In that case, their age is not the issue.

Yeah, but the law was created because the people that made the law said that 18 year olds, or at least the majority of them, are not mature enough to drink responsibly so they raised the drinking age. So the contradiction of punishing an 18 year old for responsible drinking when the law was made because of irresponsible drinking will come up.

[9th Engineer]

Actually, the National Minimum Drinking Age Act did not specifically ban the consumption alcohol by minors, only the purchasing of it. Different states modified it, some to include consumption. The bill would never have gone through at all of course without huge campaigns by MADD, and it really does little to nothing to curb the efforts of stupid teenagers to damage themselves. Big hoopla for the nanny state is all it is.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by queequeger

These problems could all be solved by deporting every illegal alien and spending more time and money on hunting down the ones we can't find. However, it would be a kinder solution to simply give them citizenship. All the sudden they're no harder or easier to track than you or me.

Is that fair to the people that play by the rules? Does that teach them to respect the laws or just encourage them to flaunt more laws that are inconvenient for them? Doesn't that just encourage more to come illegally demanding the same treatment? I know the answer, yes it does, but that's what you want. Well I don't, because I'm not leaving the country.

I speed, I've done illegal drugs, I've sold illegal drugs, I drank underage, etc. Who here hasn't broken laws? I can't imagine it's been very exciting for anyone who's never gone over the speed limit. Why is crossing the border illegally so much more heinous than anything I've done?

I can see why you don't expect them to respect the law, you don't.

I don't buy the concept that this is 'only a legal argument' because what I'm trying to get at is the law is stupid. If the law is stupid, it's stupid to punish people for it. Punishment for it's own sake is likewise a stupid concept.

The law is not stupid. It's a good law, better than most countries have. If the quotas are outdated, then update them to reflect the times, don't just ignore the protections the law provides.

Regardless, what this all boils down to is that I am entitled to live here because I was born here, and you are NOT entitled to live here because you were born elsewhere. I can't buy it, it's too nasty. So, if you believe entitlement by birth is an OK thing for us to have, then that core belief makes us so different that there's not much common ground to argue from, eh?

Nasty? More people are immigrating into the US than anywhere else in the world and we're nasty? Give me a break.

And bruce, I'm sorry I pissed you off.

Why? What difference does it make to you or me? I holler, don't brood.

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Yeah, but the law was created because the people that made the law said that 18 year olds, or at least the majority of them, are not mature enough to drink responsibly so they raised the drinking age. So the contradiction of punishing an 18 year old for responsible drinking when the law was made because of irresponsible drinking will come up.

Then everything else needs to be raised, taxes, military service, property rights, all of it.
It was a punk-ass-move.
They are mature enough to buy a house, die for their country, pay taxes, be tried as an adult but not buy a beer. Only an idiot thinks such a thing.
Either they are too immature for all of it or none.
It was feel-good-politics just like gay laws, not taxing churches and the garden club and most other bull-shit politicians spend our money on.