Saving Washington state ?

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Saving Washington state ? (Page 1 of 2)

Posted: 3/24/2006 10:07:12 PM EDT

So we tried electing a republican governor, that did not work because repub votes don't count as good as democrat votes.

So if the vote does not work just how are we supposed to restore our state to the rule of law under the constitution ?

Posted: 3/24/2006 10:18:26 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
So we tried electing a republican governor, that did not work because repub votes don't count as good as democrat votes.

So if the vote does not work just how are we supposed to restore our state to the rule of law under the constitution ?

How can you. Don't you know the WA. Guard is the greatest fighting force Know to man. They have all the coolest stuff to kill people with, that even the regular Army don't have.(yet)

Challenge the Queen and die.

Posted: 3/24/2006 10:25:39 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
Quoted:
So we tried electing a republican governor, that did not work because repub votes don't count as good as democrat votes.

So if the vote does not work just how are we supposed to restore our state to the rule of law under the constitution ?

How can you. Don't you know the WA. Guard is the greatest fighting force Know to man. No arguements there.They have all the coolest stuff to kill people with, that even the regular Army don't have.(yet) Indeed as an enhanced Brigade Task Force we have better equipment than many active duty units. Eample 3rdID in Iraq, had M16A2s and M60machineguns when they relieved us in place. We had M16A4s and M240Bs and the new Kevlar helmets which they also did not have. But I digress since your simply trolling.

Challenge the Queen and die.

Posted: 3/24/2006 10:26:04 PM EDT

[#3]

For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well organized and armed militia is their best security. -- Thomas Jefferson, Eighth Annual Message, November 8, 1808

An armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics -- that without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe... -- James Madison ( First Inaugural Address, Saturday, March 4, 1809.)

The militia is the natural defense of a free country against foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. The right of citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of liberties of the republic, since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the U.S., Book III at 746 (1833)

What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. -- Representative Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789

The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for the powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it ever will remain, in the hands of the people. -- Tench Coxe in the Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Posted: 3/24/2006 10:28:12 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well organized and armed militia is their best security. -- Thomas Jefferson, Eighth Annual Message, November 8, 1808

An armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics -- that without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe... -- James Madison ( First Inaugural Address, Saturday, March 4, 1809.)

The militia is the natural defense of a free country against foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. The right of citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of liberties of the republic, since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the U.S., Book III at 746 (1833)

What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. -- Representative Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789

The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for the powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it ever will remain, in the hands of the people. -- Tench Coxe in the Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

What was your point again?

Posted: 3/24/2006 10:28:27 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So we tried electing a republican governor, that did not work because repub votes don't count as good as democrat votes.

So if the vote does not work just how are we supposed to restore our state to the rule of law under the constitution ?

How can you. Don't you know the WA. Guard is the greatest fighting force Know to man. No arguements there.They have all the coolest stuff to kill people with, that even the regular Army don't have.(yet) Indeed as an enhanced Brigade Task Force we have better equipment than many active duty units. Eample 3rdID in Iraq, had M16A2s and M60machineguns when they relieved us in place. We had M16A4s and M240Bs and the new Kevlar helmets which they also did not have. But I digress since your simply trolling.

Challenge the Queen and die.

I troll for fish often and look at what I caught!

We all must be board tonight.

Posted: 3/24/2006 10:29:59 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So we tried electing a republican governor, that did not work because repub votes don't count as good as democrat votes.

So if the vote does not work just how are we supposed to restore our state to the rule of law under the constitution ?

How can you. Don't you know the WA. Guard is the greatest fighting force Know to man. No arguements there.They have all the coolest stuff to kill people with, that even the regular Army don't have.(yet) Indeed as an enhanced Brigade Task Force we have better equipment than many active duty units. Eample 3rdID in Iraq, had M16A2s and M60machineguns when they relieved us in place. We had M16A4s and M240Bs and the new Kevlar helmets which they also did not have. But I digress since your simply trolling.

Challenge the Queen and die.

I troll for fish often and look at what I caught!

We all must be board bored tonight.

Yep bored, waiting for the wife to get home from work.

Posted: 3/24/2006 10:31:58 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
What was your point again?

Are you going to enforce the law that founded this state or are you going to enforce the law that destroys this state ?

Have you a solution?

When we assume the Soldier we do not lay aside the citizen !

Posted: 3/24/2006 10:33:28 PM EDT

[#8]

Yes and my spelling is slipping also!

Posted: 3/24/2006 10:35:20 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Quoted:
What was your point again?

Are you going to enforce the law that founded this state or are you going to enforce the law that destroys this state ?

Have you a solution?

When we assume the Soldier we do not lay aside the citizen !

I would also add You should be a citizen first.

Posted: 3/24/2006 10:53:25 PM EDT

[#10]

Same BS different thread.

Posted: 3/24/2006 10:53:42 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Quoted:
What was your point again?

Are you going to enforce the law that founded this state or are you going to enforce the law that destroys this state the law is made by those placed into power by a majority of the people. If you have a problem with that, you dont believe in power of the people. How can you believe in the constitution, if you dont believe in the rule of law and the majority? The law is the law, neither state or Fed constitutions are carved in stone. They are living documents subject to change over time.IF you are asking about lawful and unlawful orders, that is something that has to be decided if and when the order is given.

Have you a solution?Nope, I usually wing it.

When we assume the Soldier we do not lay aside the citizen !

Yes, you do, I dont have the same rights as average joe.

Posted: 3/24/2006 10:56:33 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Same BS different thread.

Yep pretty much, Strat, keeps asking the same questions that have been responded to time and again. He has a comprehension problem me thinks.

Posted: 3/24/2006 11:27:38 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
the law is made by those placed into power by a majority of the people. That is the definition of a pure democracy meaning majority rule, if the majority is wrong there is no remedy for the minority.

If you have a problem with that, you dont believe in power of the people. I believe in a constitutional republic, where the law protects the individual from the majority

How can you believe in the constitution, if you dont believe in the rule of law and the majority? The law is the law, neither state or Fed constitutions are carved in stone. Disagree, the basic foundational law, that of life,liberty and property are carved in stone and can not be changed by the vote of the majorityThey are living documents subject to change over time.NO they are beyond the vote, the only thing subject to change is the representitive IF you are asking about lawful and unlawful orders, that is something that has to be decided if and when the order is given.No the order is either lawful/ enforces the supreme law of the land or it does not, no middle ground here at all

Have you a solution?Nope, I usually wing it.

When we assume the Soldier we do not lay aside the citizen !

Yes, you do, I dont have the same rights as average joe. If you have given up your rights how can I expect you to protect mine ? rights are either unalienable or they are not.

Posted: 3/24/2006 11:29:13 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Same BS different thread.

Yep pretty much, Strat, keeps asking the same questions that have been responded to time and again. He has a comprehension problem me thinks.

Both of you have failed to learn the lesson so it must be repeated until you get it !

"Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would." (John Adams, Boston Gazette, Sept. 5, 1763, reprinted in 3 The Works of John Adams 438, Charles F. Adams ed., 1851)

Posted: 3/24/2006 11:30:20 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Same BS different thread.

Yep pretty much, Strat, keeps asking the same questions that have been responded to time and again. He has a comprehension problem me thinks.

Looks to me like he is trying a different path...

Now to change the course a little,

Am I the only one that is upset that today thousands of hispanic people ( Im sure legal and non-legal) could get up larger number's of people to protest all across the country, and those of us that care about the security, and the direction our dollars are going (south) cant seem to be able to do the samething?

Posted: 3/24/2006 11:41:10 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Am I the only one that is upset that today thousands of hispanic people ( Im sure legal and non-legal) could get up larger number's of people to protest all across the country, and those of us that care about the security, and the direction our dollars are going (south) cant seem to be able to do the samething?

WE can neither get or afford the permits necessary

Posted: 3/25/2006 12:58:09 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Have you a solution?

What, exactly, is yours, if it is possible to get an answer without quotes from dead people?

TIA.

Posted: 3/25/2006 2:57:38 AM EDT

[#18]

I don't think that Strat actually has a single original thought. He just quotes the founding fathers with the ferver or zealousness of a ROP fundamentalist quoting the Qu'oran. And possibly with as little understanding of what he purports to believe. Actually thinking about it, I don't see a whole lot of difference. It's not politics with him, but seems to actually be religion.

And unfortunately, Matt, Torakan, and 161Inf keep going after the bait it seems.

Posted: 3/25/2006 5:35:18 AM EDT

[#19]

I understand what Strat is saying to a degree.. but I think at least in this state, it's going to get worse. Only reason it's taking so long compared to California is that our legislator is not in session year round. Whenever the libtards want to win something, they just dig up more votes in King county to win.

We are loosing a "Cultural Revolution" in this country. The mindset that many "progressives" are trying to impose on the masses is frightfully similiar to what Mao Tse-Tung did in the mid '60s. The only difference is, the Red Guard used guns, beatings, and torture. Here, the tactic is constant media bombardment that is nothing short of propaganda that is designed to shape opinions. This has been going on for generations.

Add in the propaganda machines that have become our schools, and well.. I'm honestly surprised we've half way held onto a few of our freedoms for this long.

Posted: 3/25/2006 6:50:14 AM EDT

[#20]

Well Strat. can flat out debate. and why not use quotes from dead people. if you want to get the point across about what the Constitution should mean. Why not use the thoughts of the people wrote the document in the first place. This way you won't lose meaning of what they(founding fathers) Were passing down to us. And you can't misconstrue the point that way. Which makes it very frustrating for some here. This tactic is very hard to debate with.

Edited to add It's Sat. and we all need to get out and get some trigger time.

Posted: 3/25/2006 7:20:33 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Same BS different thread.

At least it's in their own thread this time.

Lets just hope there will be some new BS this round.

(tag)

Posted: 3/25/2006 7:25:23 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Same BS different thread.

At least it's in their own thread this time. Lets just hope there will be some new BS this round.

(tag)

Hope springs eternal

Posted: 3/25/2006 7:32:58 AM EDT

[#23]

Maybe we can keep this civil?

I think we all can pretty much agree there is a huge problem...

Posted: 3/25/2006 7:46:45 AM EDT

[#24]

What I believe Strat is saying, is that based on the US Constitution and the words of our founding fathers whom he quotes.
Is that we need an armed populace (militia) to keep out government honest as was intended buy our founding fathers when the United States was born.
And to have a force to fight back should the United States go the way of Nazi Germany , Yugoslavia or any government that would take away the rights of it's citizens.
IE: Britain & Australia taking away it's citizen's guns.

The other group says, fight my government and I will kill you for sedition.

Posted: 3/25/2006 9:28:03 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

The other group says, fight my government and I will kill you for sedition.

You're about as pinheaded as Unicorn, reading what YOU want to, in mine, and simular viewpoint responses.

Get over it.

Posted: 3/25/2006 9:45:58 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Quoted:

The other group says, fight my government and I will kill you for sedition.
Reading comprehension is your friend.

You're about as pinheaded as Unicorn, Well he was with 2-146, go figure.reading what YOU want to, in mine, and simular viewpoint responses.

Get over it.

So Strat, like a politician or Jehovahs witness you will keep repeating the lie until it becomes truth? Taking a tactic from the Democratic party I see.

Posted: 3/25/2006 9:51:07 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Quoted:
the law is made by those placed into power by a majority of the people. That is the definition of a pure democracy meaning majority rule, if the majority is wrong there is no remedy for the minority.

If you have a problem with that, you dont believe in power of the people. I believe in a constitutional republic, where the law protects the individual from the majority

How can you believe in the constitution, if you dont believe in the rule of law and the majority? The law is the law, neither state or Fed constitutions are carved in stone. Disagree, the basic foundational law, that of life,liberty and property are carved in stone and can not be changed by the vote of the majorityThey are living documents subject to change over time.NO they are beyond the vote,Constitutional Amendments the only thing subject to change is the representitive IF you are asking about lawful and unlawful orders, that is something that has to be decided if and when the order is given.No the order is either lawful/ enforces the supreme law of the land or it does not, no middle ground here at allHow are you going to know until the order is given? you possess mental telepathy or something, got a crystal ball, read tea leaves?????

Have you a solution?Nope, I usually wing it.

When we assume the Soldier we do not lay aside the citizen !
Yes, you do, I dont have the same rights as average joe. If you have given up your rights how can I expect you to protect mine ? rights are either unalienable or they are not.

In the military you give up many rights, such as free speech, this is necessary to maintain order.

Posted: 3/25/2006 10:06:56 AM EDT

[#28]

I've been for the most part staying out of this shit because I believe it to be a waste of my time to argue with people I have no hope of persuading. Like the saying goes, fighting on the internet is like the special olympics--you're a loser no matter what. I believe some progress may be gained by making a few salient points in reply to this specific quote.

the law is made by those placed into power by a majority of the people. If you have a problem with that, you dont believe in power of the people. How can you believe in the constitution, if you dont believe in the rule of law and the majority? The law is the law, neither state or Fed constitutions are carved in stone. They are living documents subject to change over time.IF you are asking about lawful and unlawful orders, that is something that has to be decided if and when the order is given.

"Power of the people" is a communist slogan. It has no role in a Constitutional Republic, which America supposedly is. The purpose of the state and federal constitutions is, ostensibly, to protect the rights of the individual against abuse by others, be they fellow Americans or foreigners. The whole purpose of having a constitution is to hinder the majority's efforts to institutionalize injustice. Unfortunately, due to numerous factors, the constitutions are not accomplishing that as well as one would hope. The constitutions are the supreme law of the land--statutory law can never supercede constitutional law.

Constitutions are NOT living documents, you can NOT change what they mean on a whim. They outline how changes can be made if necessary, but it does not merely require a simple majority of the population. To amend (change for those of you without the benefits of private education) the uSA constitution, it takes 3/4 of state legislatures (or state conventions) and 2/3 of each house of congress. Here is a link to the process for Washington state: www.courts.wa.gov/education/constitution/index.cfm?fa=education_constitution.display&displayid=Article-23

Posted: 3/25/2006 10:10:58 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
I've been for the most part staying out of this shit because I believe it to be a waste of my time to argue with people I have no hope of persuading. Like the saying goes, fighting on the internet is like the special olympics--you're a loser no matter what. I believe some progress may be gained by making a few salient points in reply to this specific quote.

the law is made by those placed into power by a majority of the people. If you have a problem with that, you dont believe in power of the people. How can you believe in the constitution, if you dont believe in the rule of law and the majority? The law is the law, neither state or Fed constitutions are carved in stone. They are living documents subject to change over time.IF you are asking about lawful and unlawful orders, that is something that has to be decided if and when the order is given.

"Power of the people" is a communist slogan. It has no role in a Constitutional Republic, which America supposedly is. The purpose of the state and federal constitutions is, ostensibly, to protect the rights of the individual against abuse by others, be they fellow Americans or foreigners. The whole purpose of having a constitution is to hinder the majority's efforts to institutionalize injustice. Unfortunately, due to numerous factors, the constitutions are not accomplishing that as well as one would hope. The constitutions are the supreme law of the land--statutory law can never supercede constitutional law.

Constitutions are NOT living documents, you can NOT change what they mean on a whim. They outline how changes can be made if necessary, but it does not merely require a simple majority of the population. To amend (change for those of you without the benefits of private education) the uSA constitution, it takes 3/4 of state legislatures (or state conventions) and 2/3 of each house of congress. Here is a link to the process for Washington state: www.courts.wa.gov/education/constitution/index.cfm?fa=education_constitution.display&displayid=Article-23

Perhaps you should have followed your advice and stayed out of it.

Some people simply dont have a sense of humor or can look at themselves critically. Give them something to chew on and sometimes they go mad with rage, this shows in the posts. I like arguement, in this dialoge you get to see how the other side believes. Many times I will post something simply to start a dialoge, whether I believe in it or not. Some on here need to take a chill pill, they cannot seem to handle the hard questions.

Posted: 3/25/2006 10:28:59 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Perhaps you should have followed your advice and stayed out of it. Some people simply dont have a sense of humor or can look at themselves critically. Give them something to chew on and sometimes they go mad with rage, this shows in the posts. I like arguement, in this dialoge you get to see how the other side believes. Many times I will post something simply to start a dialoge, whether I believe in it or not. Some on here need to take a chill pill, they cannot seem to handle the hard questions.

Quoted:
How about you learn to go F##K yourself. Isnt that always the tactic used by nutsjob such as yourself attack intelligence, attack education anything in an attempt to win their pathetic excuse for an arguement. Perhaps you wannabes are the ones with the mental disorder.

Here lies the rub. Hypocrisy. (both sides, but this one was just a prime example)

Truth is, a majority rule would shitcan the ability to even continue these discussions here. Most of us either don't care, are laughing at all of it, or are considering a better place to hang out with our friends.

I asked you guys to take it elsewhere. Maybe you tried, and it didn't work. Try again.

The rest of the world keeps spinning, and some of you want to ignore it while you compare historical trivia to imaginary what-if scenarios. There's better ways to spend your Saturdays gentlemen, IMHO.

Posted: 3/25/2006 10:31:59 AM EDT

[#31]

...in this dialoge you get to see how the other side believes

Very true.

Quoted:
...like a politician or Jehovahs witness you will keep repeating the lie until it becomes truth? Taking a tactic from the Democratic party I see.

So now that we know how you feel about freedom of speech, how about religion?

Posted: 3/25/2006 10:55:51 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Quoted:
The other group says, fight my government and I will kill you for sedition.

You're about as pinheaded as Unicorn, reading what YOU want to, in mine, and simular viewpoint responses.As you have done with my statements

Get over it.

It's my opinion, which I can share and do so without calling others names or mocking their beliefs.
Strat has beliefs, you have beliefs. At least Strat has been respectful.
Get over it.

Posted: 3/25/2006 11:20:29 AM EDT

[#33]

Freedom of religion sure, the Gov should also tax the hell out of them.(frick'n free loaders).

Posted: 3/25/2006 11:23:23 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Perhaps you should have followed your advice and stayed out of it. Some people simply dont have a sense of humor or can look at themselves critically. Give them something to chew on and sometimes they go mad with rage, this shows in the posts. I like arguement, in this dialoge you get to see how the other side believes. Many times I will post something simply to start a dialoge, whether I believe in it or not. Some on here need to take a chill pill, they cannot seem to handle the hard questions.

Quoted:
How about you learn to go F##K yourself. Isnt that always the tactic used by nutsjob such as yourself attack intelligence, attack education anything in an attempt to win their pathetic excuse for an arguement. Perhaps you wannabes are the ones with the mental disorder.

Here lies the rub. Hypocrisy. (both sides, but this one was just a prime example)

Truth is, a majority rule would shitcan the ability to even continue these discussions here. Most of us either don't care, are laughing at all of it, or are considering a better place to hang out with our friends.

I asked you guys to take it elsewhere. Maybe you tried, and it didn't work. Try again.Can you please provide a list of topics that are ok to post in here then? And the ones that are VERBOTTEN we will try to not discuss, dont want to enrage the establishment.

The rest of the world keeps spinning, and some of you want to ignore it while you compare historical trivia to imaginary what-if scenarios. There's better ways to spend your Saturdays gentlemen, IMHO.

Posted: 3/25/2006 11:26:39 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
Freedom of religion sure, the Gov should also tax the hell out of them.(frick'n free loaders).

Why should they (I assume you mean church) be taxed?

Posted: 3/25/2006 11:45:41 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Can you please provide a list of topics that are ok to post in here then? And the ones that are VERBOTTEN we will try to not discuss, dont want to enrage the establishment.

Sure, but I have to go look up the word VERBOTTEN first.

In the meantime, just read the COC, and post about whatever you like. Be polite, and leave others scabs alone.... you'll do fine.

Posted: 3/25/2006 11:47:29 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I asked you guys to take it elsewhere. Maybe you tried, and it didn't work. Try again.Can you please provide a list of topics that are ok to post in here then? And the ones that are VERBOTTEN we will try to not discuss, dont want to enrage the establishment.

The rest of the world keeps spinning, and some of you want to ignore it while you compare historical trivia to imaginary what-if scenarios. There's better ways to spend your Saturdays gentlemen, IMHO.

You are so right, but I'm stuck at the office this half way decent day, so I'll take a stab at it.

I have recently learned to have enough respect for those on both sides of the issue, and those in the WAHTF to sit back, relax, post less or not at all when it gets heated, and try to ask more questions to try to draw out what someone really means in regard to this kind of emotional or philosophical issue. I hope this becoming obvious. Like others here, I am truly bored with the quotes from Strat. I would really like to hear what he has to say. He says very little, in the long run, that wasn't said before by many well spoken and brilliant minds. He wants to hang his hat on those quotes, but many of us want to have a conversation. BTW, I don't expect him to change to please me, I don't expect that from anyone.

Second, as far as "verboten" topics, well, that is where you refer to the ARFCOM CoC, and our own ability to realize when something is in a death spiral, and it's time to get off. My boss reminded me a couple of days ago you can't hear anything when your shouting. If everyone is shouting, they'll never hear you.

We'll figure out a balance of sorts, then some new foks will join and start jumping in, just like I did not too long ago, and it might all go to hell in a handbasket again, and the cycle may repeat.

Thanks for listening.

Posted: 3/25/2006 12:07:23 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Freedom of religion sure, the Gov should also tax the hell out of them.(frick'n free loaders).

Why should they (I assume you mean church) be taxed?

As private citizens, if I can prove that my charity is equal to my tax burden, then I may not owe any tax. Churches should be required to prove their charity in dollar figures, just like everyone else.

You think the folks that run the Crystal Cathedral in Orange County, CA, aren't enjoying a damn good and luxurious life off their donors, and doing so under the tax free guise of being a church? Heh. Churches do fill important charitable roles, but why do so many people sit back and assume that is where all the money goes? Because the church leaders say so? Might as well make them government with that level of blind trust.

Posted: 3/25/2006 12:36:24 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Freedom of religion sure, the Gov should also tax the hell out of them.(frick'n free loaders).

Why should they (I assume you mean church) be taxed?

As private citizens, if I can prove that my charity is equal to my tax burden, then I may not owe any tax. Churches should be required to prove their charity in dollar figures, just like everyone else.

You think the folks that run the Crystal Cathedral in Orange County, CA, aren't enjoying a damn good and luxurious life off their donors, and doing so under the tax free guise of being a church? Heh. Churches do fill important charitable roles, but why do so many people sit back and assume that is where all the money goes? Because the church leaders say so? Might as well make them government with that level of blind trust.

So, is taxing the church the answer? There are better solutions to that problem.

Posted: 3/25/2006 12:41:48 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Freedom of religion sure, the Gov should also tax the hell out of them.(frick'n free loaders).

Why should they (I assume you mean church) be taxed?

As private citizens, if I can prove that my charity is equal to my tax burden, then I may not owe any tax. Churches should be required to prove their charity in dollar figures, just like everyone else.

You think the folks that run the Crystal Cathedral in Orange County, CA, aren't enjoying a damn good and luxurious life off their donors, and doing so under the tax free guise of being a church? Heh. Churches do fill important charitable roles, but why do so many people sit back and assume that is where all the money goes? Because the church leaders say so? Might as well make them government with that level of blind trust.

So, is taxing the church the answer? There are better solutions to that problem.[/quote]

Sure, why not? Religious sects within in this country have too much power anyways. They use these funds to push there own agendas, why shouldnt they be tax'd, other business's are and religion is a business.(opened another can of worms)

Posted: 3/25/2006 12:47:36 PM EDT

[#41]

Anybody who is bad mouthing churchs for the "tax free" thing ever been involved in the finances of a church?......I can assure you we pay plenty of taxs.....The tax-free thing comes into play on the property the church owns that is used solely for worship services..and any income derived from those services.

anything else is taxed and taxes are paid on property [not used for worship services] as well as employee taxes, incorporation taxes, etc.....

Posted: 3/25/2006 12:49:10 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
So, is taxing the church the answer? There are better solutions to that problem.

It may be just one solution to a problem that needs many more solutions. Is taxing anything, or taxing more what I want? No. However, since taxes are not going away anytime soon, I'm sure that many will agree with me that there needs to be some major changes, and looking at this issue may be necessary. Churches that are serving a public good with their donated $'s are going to have nothing change at all except for filing a return just like you and me. I see no problem with that. Now, if the Crystal Cathedral folks end up with their nipples in the wringer for deceiving their donors, then they should get what anyone else in that situation would get.

I see two very different styles of churches in this country, those that save, and those that want your savings.

Posted: 3/25/2006 12:51:22 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
Anybody who is bad mouthing churchs for the "tax free" thing ever been involved in the finances of a church?......I can assure you we pay plenty of taxs.....The tax-free thing comes into play on the property the church owns that is used solely for worship services..and any income derived from those services.

anything else is taxed and taxes are paid on property [not used for worship services] as well as employee taxes, incorporation taxes, etc.....

That is why I refered to the Crystal Cathedral of Orange County, CA. Not your average church, not by a long shot.

Posted: 3/25/2006 1:37:58 PM EDT

[#44]

All church property needs to be tax'd, when its not(as in removed from the tax base), WE make up the difference.

Posted: 3/25/2006 1:38:02 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
Sure, why not? Religious sects within in this country have too much power anyways. They use these funds to push there own agendas, why shouldnt they be tax'd, other business's are and religion is a business.(opened another can of worms)

The problem I have with taxes is that it redistributes the local charity to a general fund that ends up funding urban shitholes like Seattle and D.C. In other words, more socialism.

Quoted:
It may be just one solution to a problem that needs many more solutions. Is taxing anything, or taxing more what I want? No. However, since taxes are not going away anytime soon, I'm sure that many will agree with me that there needs to be some major changes, and looking at this issue may be necessary. Churches that are serving a public good with their donated $'s are going to have nothing change at all except for filing a return just like you and me. I see no problem with that. Now, if the Crystal Cathedral folks end up with their nipples in the wringer for deceiving their donors, then they should get what anyone else in that situation would get.

We should have some fundamental laws for this, such as fraud and embezzlement. Church leaders, and whoever else abuses the public trust, should be jailed. Too bad the system is so easy to circumvent.

Back to the original topic, shouldn't this also apply to vote fraud and any politician involved?

ed. fixed my quote foo.

Posted: 3/25/2006 1:56:57 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
Back to the original topic, shouldn't this also apply to vote fraud and any politician involved?

I believe there should be certain crimes that you cannot plea out of a harsher sentence, and voter fraud is one of them. The very heart of our system, the power of the vote, being tainted intentionally in any way, is a crime that should be punished very harshly.

I am not smart enough, nor do I have enough patience, to try to seek out this problem on a case by case basis, but I can clearly see that both of the major parties in our country will do anything to maintain the two party system, and have no difficulty pointing fingers across the aisle to affix blame for our problems to distract us from the fact that our problems are clearly much more complicated than a simple index finger of blame can fix.

Posted: 3/25/2006 2:17:44 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
I am not smart enough, nor do I have enough patience, to try to seek out this problem on a case by case basis, but I can clearly see that both of the major parties in our country will do anything to maintain the two party system, and have no difficulty pointing fingers across the aisle to affix blame for our problems to distract us from the fact that our problems are clearly much more complicated than a simple index finger of blame can fix.

My sentiments exactly. Politicians always win the elections. The rest of us just pay for the show.

Posted: 3/25/2006 2:32:58 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
Quoted:
The problem I have with taxes is that it redistributes the local charity to a general fund that ends up funding urban shitholes like Seattle and D.C. In other words, more socialism.

I agree. That is why if a church wants it's donated money to go to their own choice charities or used to support their own charitable works instead of state controlled waste, they can easily show this on a tax return, and be able to back it up if audited. Just like you and me.

Posted: 3/25/2006 3:33:00 PM EDT

[#49]

But Churchs also use their so called donations to influence politics and get their agenda forward'd.

Posted: 3/25/2006 3:33:53 PM EDT

[#50]

If the governmentment truly held to a strict separation between Church and state policy, they would tax Churchs exactly like every other property and be completely blind to to the activities that go on inside, it is flat wrong to give tax breaks (thus making others take up the financial slack) to anyone on the grounds of religion.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Saving Washington state ? (Page 1 of 2)

Hometown » Washington

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us