Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

IRS: 'Please Detail Content of Your Prayers'

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 10:06:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The IRS wants to know what you're praying about.

"During a House Ways and Means Committee hearing today, Rep. Aaron Schock, R-Ill., grilled outgoing IRS commissioner Steven Miller about the IRS targeting a pro-life group in Iowa.

"Their question, specifically asked from the IRS to the Coalition for Life of Iowa: "Please detail the content of the members of your organization"s prayers,"" Schock declared.

"Would that be an inappropriate question to a 501 c3 applicant?" asked Schock. "The content of one"s prayers?"

"It pains me to say I can"t speak to that one either," Miller replied."

http://washingtonexaminer.com...
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 12:38:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Is this so over the line?
If a Pro-life group is trying to be exempt as a religious group (not a PAC), then why isn't the content of their religious practices called into question?

http://www.irs.gov...(c)(3)
"The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency."
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 12:40:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
My link is broken for some reason...

Add "(c)(3)" at the end of this link and hit enter, ignoring the quotes but include the (). It should get you to the right page.
http://www.irs.gov...(c)(3)
My work here is, finally, done.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 6:00:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 10:06:52 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
The IRS wants to know what you're praying about.

Ah good ole Geo and his taking everything out of context to create some paranoid conspiratorial unrest.

No sorry, the IRS doesn't want to know what you're praying about. They want to know what organizations who apply for tax exempt status on the basis that they are a religious organization are praying about. Is it the smartest question to ask? Maybe, maybe not. But when you go to someone with your hand out and say "treat me as if I'm special because I pray, don't get mad when they ask you what you pray about.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 8:29:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 6:00:54 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 5/20/2013 10:06:52 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
The IRS wants to know what you're praying about.

Ah good ole Geo and his taking everything out of context to create some paranoid conspiratorial unrest.

No sorry, the IRS doesn't want to know what you're praying about. They want to know what organizations who apply for tax exempt status on the basis that they are a religious organization are praying about. Is it the smartest question to ask? Maybe, maybe not. But when you go to someone with your hand out and say "treat me as if I'm special because I pray, don't get mad when they ask you what you pray about.

Not being subjected to parasitical activity is not "special treatment." Political groups and religious should not be taxed for obvious reasons.

You have the premise all wrong. The IRS is the vulture, not the political groups seeking tax-exempt status. Oh how awful, groups asking the IRS to leave them alone. How about the IRS is illegal and unConstitutional.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 8:35:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 8:29:01 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/20/2013 6:00:54 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 5/20/2013 10:06:52 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
The IRS wants to know what you're praying about.

Ah good ole Geo and his taking everything out of context to create some paranoid conspiratorial unrest.

No sorry, the IRS doesn't want to know what you're praying about. They want to know what organizations who apply for tax exempt status on the basis that they are a religious organization are praying about. Is it the smartest question to ask? Maybe, maybe not. But when you go to someone with your hand out and say "treat me as if I'm special because I pray, don't get mad when they ask you what you pray about.

Not being subjected to parasitical activity is not "special treatment." Political groups and religious should not be taxed for obvious reasons.

You have the premise all wrong. The IRS is the vulture, not the political groups seeking tax-exempt status. Oh how awful, groups asking the IRS to leave them alone. How about the IRS is illegal and unConstitutional.

If your problem is with the IRS as a whole, then why not make a thread attacking the IRS as a whole, instead of making a thread to attack something the IRS does which would be perfectly reasonable for it to do, given that there are no problems with the concept of the IRS in general?
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 8:45:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 8:35:26 PM, drhead wrote:
At 5/20/2013 8:29:01 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/20/2013 6:00:54 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 5/20/2013 10:06:52 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
The IRS wants to know what you're praying about.

Ah good ole Geo and his taking everything out of context to create some paranoid conspiratorial unrest.

No sorry, the IRS doesn't want to know what you're praying about. They want to know what organizations who apply for tax exempt status on the basis that they are a religious organization are praying about. Is it the smartest question to ask? Maybe, maybe not. But when you go to someone with your hand out and say "treat me as if I'm special because I pray, don't get mad when they ask you what you pray about.

Not being subjected to parasitical activity is not "special treatment." Political groups and religious should not be taxed for obvious reasons.

You have the premise all wrong. The IRS is the vulture, not the political groups seeking tax-exempt status. Oh how awful, groups asking the IRS to leave them alone. How about the IRS is illegal and unConstitutional.

If your problem is with the IRS as a whole, then why not make a thread attacking the IRS as a whole, instead of making a thread to attack something the IRS does which would be perfectly reasonable for it to do, given that there are no problems with the concept of the IRS in general?

Because this is Geo we're talking about.... Geo isnt capable of making reasonable threads like you are proposing
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 8:59:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 8:29:01 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/20/2013 6:00:54 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 5/20/2013 10:06:52 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
The IRS wants to know what you're praying about.

Ah good ole Geo and his taking everything out of context to create some paranoid conspiratorial unrest.

No sorry, the IRS doesn't want to know what you're praying about. They want to know what organizations who apply for tax exempt status on the basis that they are a religious organization are praying about. Is it the smartest question to ask? Maybe, maybe not. But when you go to someone with your hand out and say "treat me as if I'm special because I pray, don't get mad when they ask you what you pray about.

Not being subjected to parasitical activity is not "special treatment." Political groups and religious should not be taxed for obvious reasons.

You have the premise all wrong. The IRS is the vulture, not the political groups seeking tax-exempt status. Oh how awful, groups asking the IRS to leave them alone. How about the IRS is illegal and unConstitutional.

Uh...huh....so, you've heard of the sixteenth amendment, right?

It's three amendments down from the one that said our post-bellum constitution should also drop the whole "slavery is fine" bit.
YYW
Posts: 36,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 9:27:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 10:06:52 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
The IRS wants to know what you're praying about.

"During a House Ways and Means Committee hearing today, Rep. Aaron Schock, R-Ill., grilled outgoing IRS commissioner Steven Miller about the IRS targeting a pro-life group in Iowa.

"Their question, specifically asked from the IRS to the Coalition for Life of Iowa: "Please detail the content of the members of your organization"s prayers,"" Schock declared.

"Would that be an inappropriate question to a 501 c3 applicant?" asked Schock. "The content of one"s prayers?"

"It pains me to say I can"t speak to that one either," Miller replied."

http://washingtonexaminer.com...

Someone had to do it.
Tsar of DDO
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 10:46:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 8:59:17 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 5/20/2013 8:29:01 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/20/2013 6:00:54 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 5/20/2013 10:06:52 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
The IRS wants to know what you're praying about.

Ah good ole Geo and his taking everything out of context to create some paranoid conspiratorial unrest.

No sorry, the IRS doesn't want to know what you're praying about. They want to know what organizations who apply for tax exempt status on the basis that they are a religious organization are praying about. Is it the smartest question to ask? Maybe, maybe not. But when you go to someone with your hand out and say "treat me as if I'm special because I pray, don't get mad when they ask you what you pray about.

Not being subjected to parasitical activity is not "special treatment." Political groups and religious should not be taxed for obvious reasons.

You have the premise all wrong. The IRS is the vulture, not the political groups seeking tax-exempt status. Oh how awful, groups asking the IRS to leave them alone. How about the IRS is illegal and unConstitutional.

Uh...huh....so, you've heard of the sixteenth amendment, right?

Income taxes were unconstitutional.
The 16th Amendment amended the constitution to allow income taxes.
However, the 16th Amendment was not ratified properly
Therefore, it is still unconstitutional.

I have actually seen the rationale for this claim somewhere. It has to do with legal things I am not an expert in, so I have no solid opinion on it, but I don't dismiss it like other kook claims.

Basically, the 16th Amendment when it was being ratified, wasn't recorded properly. And the respective secretary of states never actually signed the paperwork. So, technically the amendment was never ratified.

It was something along those lines were the people who needed to sign it never did (or only like 2 states did).

Of course, all of this is largely moot, as I am sure if the 16th Amendment were up for a vote, it would pass. And the author of the article I read this claim about even said as much.


It's three amendments down from the one that said our post-bellum constitution should also drop the whole "slavery is fine" bit.
My work here is, finally, done.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 10:59:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 10:48:17 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Right to privacy: applies to abortion, not to prayers.

Sad days.

So, by your analogy you're saying that we should give tax exemption to everyone who asks for it, without even attempting to confirm that they actually qualify for it? If so, then this is a very, very naive statement. If what Royal said is true, 66% of the organizations involved in the IRS scandal were found to be actual fraudulent cases. Of course, it is better to apply such flags homogenously (though targeting of groups opposed to taxes is logically sound and reasonable), but that doesn't undermine the fact that it worked, and it caught a lot of bullsh*tters.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 11:00:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 10:48:17 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Right to privacy: applies to abortion, not to prayers.

Sad days.

How are your prayers private when you make them public?
My work here is, finally, done.
YYW
Posts: 36,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 11:19:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I can only imagine congress convening something like HUAC once more, but instead of hunting communists they call chaplains, priests, ministers, etc. in.

rofl
Tsar of DDO
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 11:55:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 8:59:17 PM, Wnope wrote:
Uh...huh....so, you've heard of the sixteenth amendment, right?

It's three amendments down from the one that said our post-bellum constitution should also drop the whole "slavery is fine" bit.

16th Amendment was not ratified. It is illegitimate. We have an IRS because of a Progressive Income Tax, a violation of the 14th Amendment.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 12:35:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 11:55:54 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/20/2013 8:59:17 PM, Wnope wrote:
Uh...huh....so, you've heard of the sixteenth amendment, right?

It's three amendments down from the one that said our post-bellum constitution should also drop the whole "slavery is fine" bit.

16th Amendment was not ratified. It is illegitimate. We have an IRS because of a Progressive Income Tax, a violation of the 14th Amendment.

Ah yes, the ratification argument. Benson and Beckman thinking only four states ratified the sixteenth because the bills given to different states were different.

It should be first suspicious that whenever these arguments come it, it's not a back and forth about evidence, it's people asking for evidence and not getting any.

Where'd Benson get the number four?

Because the others contain errors in capitalization, punctuate, diction, and spelling. For instance, if a state didn't capitalize the letter "s" Benson ruled it null.

In reality, thirty eight states ratified the sixteenth. And all of them knew what they were signing, regardless of punctuation.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 12:36:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 10:46:34 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/20/2013 8:59:17 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 5/20/2013 8:29:01 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/20/2013 6:00:54 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 5/20/2013 10:06:52 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
The IRS wants to know what you're praying about.

Ah good ole Geo and his taking everything out of context to create some paranoid conspiratorial unrest.

No sorry, the IRS doesn't want to know what you're praying about. They want to know what organizations who apply for tax exempt status on the basis that they are a religious organization are praying about. Is it the smartest question to ask? Maybe, maybe not. But when you go to someone with your hand out and say "treat me as if I'm special because I pray, don't get mad when they ask you what you pray about.

Not being subjected to parasitical activity is not "special treatment." Political groups and religious should not be taxed for obvious reasons.

You have the premise all wrong. The IRS is the vulture, not the political groups seeking tax-exempt status. Oh how awful, groups asking the IRS to leave them alone. How about the IRS is illegal and unConstitutional.

Uh...huh....so, you've heard of the sixteenth amendment, right?

Income taxes were unconstitutional.
The 16th Amendment amended the constitution to allow income taxes.
However, the 16th Amendment was not ratified properly
Therefore, it is still unconstitutional.

I have actually seen the rationale for this claim somewhere. It has to do with legal things I am not an expert in, so I have no solid opinion on it, but I don't dismiss it like other kook claims.

Basically, the 16th Amendment when it was being ratified, wasn't recorded properly. And the respective secretary of states never actually signed the paperwork. So, technically the amendment was never ratified.

It was something along those lines were the people who needed to sign it never did (or only like 2 states did).

Of course, all of this is largely moot, as I am sure if the 16th Amendment were up for a vote, it would pass. And the author of the article I read this claim about even said as much.


It's three amendments down from the one that said our post-bellum constitution should also drop the whole "slavery is fine" bit.

As to your little attempt at nit-picking who filed what, please look up the Enrolled Bill Rule. A bill ratified or voted on by congress is still enforceable in court even if some file clerk forgets to sign his name.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 1:23:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 12:36:39 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 5/20/2013 10:46:34 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/20/2013 8:59:17 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 5/20/2013 8:29:01 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/20/2013 6:00:54 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 5/20/2013 10:06:52 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
The IRS wants to know what you're praying about.

Ah good ole Geo and his taking everything out of context to create some paranoid conspiratorial unrest.

No sorry, the IRS doesn't want to know what you're praying about. They want to know what organizations who apply for tax exempt status on the basis that they are a religious organization are praying about. Is it the smartest question to ask? Maybe, maybe not. But when you go to someone with your hand out and say "treat me as if I'm special because I pray, don't get mad when they ask you what you pray about.

Not being subjected to parasitical activity is not "special treatment." Political groups and religious should not be taxed for obvious reasons.

You have the premise all wrong. The IRS is the vulture, not the political groups seeking tax-exempt status. Oh how awful, groups asking the IRS to leave them alone. How about the IRS is illegal and unConstitutional.

Uh...huh....so, you've heard of the sixteenth amendment, right?

Income taxes were unconstitutional.
The 16th Amendment amended the constitution to allow income taxes.
However, the 16th Amendment was not ratified properly
Therefore, it is still unconstitutional.

I have actually seen the rationale for this claim somewhere. It has to do with legal things I am not an expert in, so I have no solid opinion on it, but I don't dismiss it like other kook claims.

Basically, the 16th Amendment when it was being ratified, wasn't recorded properly. And the respective secretary of states never actually signed the paperwork. So, technically the amendment was never ratified.

It was something along those lines were the people who needed to sign it never did (or only like 2 states did).

Of course, all of this is largely moot, as I am sure if the 16th Amendment were up for a vote, it would pass. And the author of the article I read this claim about even said as much.


It's three amendments down from the one that said our post-bellum constitution should also drop the whole "slavery is fine" bit.

As to your little attempt at nit-picking who filed what, please look up the Enrolled Bill Rule. A bill ratified or voted on by congress is still enforceable in court even if some file clerk forgets to sign his name.

Where did I say it was my attempt?
I was trying to be helpful by stating what Geo's response would be. Obviously, you knew about this argument and didn't need my input.
My work here is, finally, done.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 2:05:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
"An income tax is the most degrading and totalitarian of all possible taxes. Its implementation wrongly suggests that the government owns the lives and labor of the citizens it is supposed to represent."

-- Ron Paul
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 6:56:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 10:46:34 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/20/2013 8:59:17 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 5/20/2013 8:29:01 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/20/2013 6:00:54 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 5/20/2013 10:06:52 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
The IRS wants to know what you're praying about.

Ah good ole Geo and his taking everything out of context to create some paranoid conspiratorial unrest.

No sorry, the IRS doesn't want to know what you're praying about. They want to know what organizations who apply for tax exempt status on the basis that they are a religious organization are praying about. Is it the smartest question to ask? Maybe, maybe not. But when you go to someone with your hand out and say "treat me as if I'm special because I pray, don't get mad when they ask you what you pray about.

Not being subjected to parasitical activity is not "special treatment." Political groups and religious should not be taxed for obvious reasons.

You have the premise all wrong. The IRS is the vulture, not the political groups seeking tax-exempt status. Oh how awful, groups asking the IRS to leave them alone. How about the IRS is illegal and unConstitutional.

Uh...huh....so, you've heard of the sixteenth amendment, right?

Income taxes were unconstitutional.
The 16th Amendment amended the constitution to allow income taxes.
However, the 16th Amendment was not ratified properly
Therefore, it is still unconstitutional.

I have actually seen the rationale for this claim somewhere. It has to do with legal things I am not an expert in, so I have no solid opinion on it, but I don't dismiss it like other kook claims.

Basically, the 16th Amendment when it was being ratified, wasn't recorded properly. And the respective secretary of states never actually signed the paperwork. So, technically the amendment was never ratified.

It was something along those lines were the people who needed to sign it never did (or only like 2 states did).

Of course, all of this is largely moot, as I am sure if the 16th Amendment were up for a vote, it would pass. And the author of the article I read this claim about even said as much.


It's three amendments down from the one that said our post-bellum constitution should also drop the whole "slavery is fine" bit.

Do you have any proof that the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified? I mean, in reality the entire Constitution is illegal because the Articles of Confederation were never unanimously destroyed, and they required unanimous destruction to be overturned.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 6:57:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 10:48:17 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Right to privacy: applies to abortion, not to prayers.

Sad days.

You individually have a right to pray privately. You can even collectively pray privately. If you make a public declaration that requires special treatment, however, you need to provide evidence.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 7:00:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I hope you guys know that this scandal mongering isn't doing anything but making Congress (which has an approval rating of 16.6%) look even worse. It's not affecting Obama at all.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 8:26:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 7:00:41 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
I hope you guys know that this scandal mongering isn't doing anything but making Congress (which has an approval rating of 16.6%) look even worse. It's not affecting Obama at all.

It's gumming up the works. The less that gets done the better.

All hail the gridlock system. The Founders had the right idea with that one.
Nordenkalt444
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 9:03:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
What the IRS did is criminal, that's all they are. We should reform our taxes, but not in the direction they're going. This is exactly what happens when big government expands into where it doesn't need to be.
Waffles anyone?
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 9:43:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 8:26:10 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 5/21/2013 7:00:41 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
I hope you guys know that this scandal mongering isn't doing anything but making Congress (which has an approval rating of 16.6%) look even worse. It's not affecting Obama at all.

It's gumming up the works. The less that gets done the better.

No, it isn't "gumming up the works". The government has already been doing nothing, which is why Congress' approval rating is so low.
All hail the gridlock system. The Founders had the right idea with that one.

Why have a political system at all? The Founders' government did nothing put redistribute wealth upwards and promote theft of labor and liberty through slavery.