Is nixon president again?

[Jeff Gersten]

The press is the enemy. The IRS is used to go after political enemies.
The gentleman in charge of wikileaks is treated with the same attitude
as Daniel Ellsberg was treated.

So, how does obama differ from nixon? Once they get in the white house,
they're all the same. For instance general petraeus advises bush to have
a surge in Iraq. (obama, then a senator adamantly opposes.) general
petraeus advise obama to have a surge in Afghanistan, He no longer
opposes, but embraces it.

[theget]

On May 15, 1:05 pm, JeffGers...@webtv.net (Jeff Gersten) wrote:

> So, how does obama differ from nixon?

I don't recall Nixon ever making the promise about transparency that
Obama did.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment

"My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of
openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public
trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation,
and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote
efficiency and effectiveness in Government."

[theget]

On May 15, 1:05 pm, JeffGers...@webtv.net (Jeff Gersten) wrote:

> So, how does obama differ from nixon?

Charlie Rangel says it's silly to compare Obama and Nixon.

With video goodness.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/charlie-rangel-irs-associated-press-comments-91398.html?hp=r6

" “I think this is just the beginning and the whole idea of comparing
this with Nixon, I really think is just, it doesn’t make much sense.
But the president has to come forward and share why he did not alert
the press they were going to do this. He has to tell the Americans,
including me: What was this national security question? You just can’t
raise the flag and expect to salute it every time without any reason
and the same thing applies to the IRS.”"

[Jeff Gersten]

I judge them by their actions, not their empty promises. After all, they
are politicians. Every word out of their mouths should be considered a
LIE.

[David / Amicus]

The voting age had been lowered from 21 to 18 and in 1972 I had the
honor to cast my first vote in a presidential election for Mr Nixon for
his second term.


Looking back now after all these years and the many presidential
elections since then that vote was my proudest vote!



Everyday when I drove onto the campus there were students holding
McGovern signs.

At the time I remember reading of students who took a year off from
college to travel across the nation and campaign for McGovern.

And the night before the election all three networks aired a half hour
political program for McGovern.

[D.F. Manno]

In article <861-5193...@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net>,

Am I the only person in the U.S. that thinks the scrutiny was justified?
Organizations that endorse candidates are ineligible for tax-exempt
status, so political groups that seek such status should be closely
examined to insure that they toe the line.

--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
GOP delenda est!

[Jeff Gersten]

I agree, however, you have to scrutinize organizations that back "your
candidate" as well as those that oppose the present administration.
Otherwise, it's the old nixon "enemies list" all over again.

[D.F. Manno]

In article <10269-519...@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net>,

Was there a movement similar to the "Tea Party" on the other side of the
aisle seeking tax-exempt status? You can't scrutinize something that
doesn't exist.

[David / Amicus]

<<Am I the only person in the U.S. that thinks the scrutiny was
justified? Organizations that endorse candidates are ineligible for
tax-exempt status, so political groups that seek such status should be
closely examined to insure that they toe the line. >>

When a Democratic Party candidate speaks from a church pulpit while
running for office does that not cross the line and should not that
church lose its tax exempt status?

[theget]

On May 18, 6:22 pm, "D.F. Manno" <dfma...@mail.com> wrote:
> In article <10269-5197F7D3-...@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net>,
>  JeffGers...@webtv.net (Jeff Gersten) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > dfma...@mail.com (D.F. Manno) wrote:
>
> > In article <861-5193C055-...@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net>,

Well no, I don't think so. I don't think any rightish or conservative
groups endorsed Obama. And those are the ones that seem to have been
targeted.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/14/politics/irs-conservative-targeting

"The IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea
Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based
upon their names or policy positions instead of indications of
potential political campaign intervention," according to the report.

But don't worry. Obama fired the top guy. Oh wait did I say fired?
Wasn't he allowed to resign? Oh wait, resign? Wasn't he going to
retire in a few days or weeks or something? No cites.

[theget]

On May 18, 5:51 pm, JeffGers...@webtv.net (Jeff Gersten) wrote:
> dfma...@mail.com (D.F. Manno) wrote:
>
> In article <861-5193C055-...@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net>,

Is this what the law requires? I wonder if the IRS broke the law.

I mean, it's certainly bad. The sort of thing that will probably lead
to bad outcomes as it tends to make people angry. But is what the IRS
did actually against the law?

[Jeff Gersten]

And when a Catholic priest from the pulpit tells his congregation who to
vote for based on their stand on abortion, should the Church lose its
tax exemption?

[Jeff Gersten]

dfm...@mail.com (D.F. Manno) wrote: (some snipped)

Yes, thee are groups on the left that use the same tax exemption.

[D.F. Manno]

In article <20870-519...@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net>,

Churches should not be exempt from taxation, period.

[Porter Smith]

"D.F. Manno" <dfm...@mail.com> wrote in news:dfmanno-
DE559F.121...@news.albasani.net:

> Churches should not be exempt from taxation, period.

I heartily agree. If I was King the only organizations exempt from
property, sales and income taxes would be those that are owned and
operated by the taxing government.

Yes, that means I would tax churches, private schools, hospitals, the
Elks club, the American Red Cross, the American Legion etc.

[theget]

On May 19, 2:00 pm, Porter Smith <my_port_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "D.F. Manno" <dfma...@mail.com> wrote in news:dfmanno-
> DE559F.12142519052...@news.albasani.net:

>
> > Churches should not be exempt from taxation, period.
>
> I heartily agree. If I was King the only organizations exempt from
> property, sales and income taxes would be those that are owned and
> operated by the taxing government.
>
> Yes, that means I would tax churches, private schools, hospitals, the
> Elks club, the American Red Cross, the American Legion etc.

Oh your majesty, I'm sure the peasants will hail you as King Porter,
the just and fair. Because if there's anyone every American loves
it's someone who wants to increase their taxes and be entitled
nobility.

[theget]

On May 19, 12:14 pm, "D.F. Manno" <dfma...@mail.com> wrote:
> In article <20870-5198A097-...@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net>,

>  JeffGers...@webtv.net (Jeff Gersten) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ami...@webtv.net (David / Amicus) wrote:
>
> > ><<Am I the only person in the U.S. that thinks
> > >the scrutiny was justified? Organizations that
> > >endorse candidates are ineligible for
> > >tax-exempt status, so political groups that
> > >seek such status should be closely examined
> > >to insure that they toe the line. >>
>
> > >When a Democratic Party candidate speaks
> > >from a church pulpit while running for office
> > >does that not cross the line and should not
> > >that church lose its tax exempt status?
>
> > And when a Catholic priest from the pulpit tells his congregation who to
> > vote for based on their stand on abortion, should the Church lose its
> > tax exemption?
>
> Churches should not be exempt from taxation, period.

Why ever not?

[Porter Smith]

I m sure they would.

Such a plan would decrease the taxes paid by the average citizen by
making these groups pay their fair share.

[David / Amicus]

<<And when a Catholic priest from the pulpit tells his congregation who
to vote for based on their stand on abortion, should the Church lose its
tax exemption?>>

This is just from my own personal experience.

I have never heard a priest in my parish from the pulpit take a partisan
position on a candidate.

What I have heard is the priest before an election stating what the
Church's position is on certain issues.


But never from the pulpit a priest saying vote for a particular
candidate.

[Porter Smith]

I think most religious leaders are very good at getting their message
across without actually naming a candidate. In the 2012 election
several bishops and cardinals issued statements that said a Roman
Catholic may not vote for a candidate who supports abortion.

Many fundamentalist Christians pastors told their congregations that a
Mormon president would answer first to his church. Likewise, 1960 a lot
of protestant pastors warned against voting for a Roman Catholic candidate.

I recall when New Jersey was considering legalizing gambling in Atlantic
City many pastors preached sermons against it and urged their
congregations to support opposition candidates.

But apparently as long as you don't come out and say "Vote for John Doe"
you are OK.

[David / Amicus]

<<But apparently as long as you don't come out and say "Vote for John
Doe" you are OK.>>

Unlike in some protestant churches politicians are not invited into the
parish church to speak from the pulpit during the Sunday service.

[theget]

Please tell me what you mean by 'fair' in the above. I've asked lots
of people about this and I can't seem to get an objective answer to
the question.

And also, I'd like to know where the money that all those
organizations you name is going to come from?

I think McCain wanted to eliminate all charitable donation
deductions. Do you favor this as well?

[Porter Smith]

On 5/19/2013 10:33 PM, theget wrote:
> On May 19, 4:03 pm, Porter Smith <my_port_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 5/19/2013 3:47 PM, theget wrote:

>
> Please tell me what you mean by 'fair' in the above. I've asked lots
> of people about this and I can't seem to get an objective answer to
> the question.

For property taxes it should be based on the value of the property, just
like my house, or the factory across town, For income taxes, keep reading.

>
> And also, I'd like to know where the money that all those
> organizations you name is going to come from?

The same place they get all their money -- sales of goods and services,
contributions, interest earned on their endowment etc. If they cannot
sustain their operations they should fold, thus reducing their demand
for public services.

Why should we treat the Royal Order of Water Buffalo differently than
Joe's Bar & Grill? Especially since I am allowed to go into Joe's but
not the Buffalo Lodge.

>
> I think McCain wanted to eliminate all charitable donation
> deductions. Do you favor this as well?
>

Absolutely. We should eliminate all deductions from income tax and go
with a single, flat percentage, The studies I've seen show that 16% on
all income, from whatever source (wages, capital gains, interest,
dividends) above $20,000, would be revenue neutral.

Taxes are supposed to be a revenue stream for the government, not a tool
of social engineering.

[Jeff Gersten]

Ami...@webtv.net (David / Amicus) wrote:

Why are we not hearing from theget that you are attacking the first
amendment freedom of both speech and religion with your criticism of
whom some Protestant churches allow to speak in their churches?

As for your beloved Catholic Church, do you deny they take political
positions, not just theological decisions. Have cardinals told church
members not to vote for candidates favoring abortion and/or gay
marriage. Has your church actively campaigned against obamacare? Are
church members threatened with excommunication for supporting those
political positions that the church opposed? Did you know that Cardinal
Dolan in NY has threatened NY Governor Cuomo with excommunication
because he has a live in girl friend? Do you think its right that your
church fought for many years to keep priests from being prosecuted for
sexual abuse of children?

They should be allowed their beliefs, but if they are a political
organization, they should forfeit their religious tax exemption. JMHO

[theget]

On May 20, 5:42 am, JeffGers...@webtv.net (Jeff Gersten) wrote:
> Ami...@webtv.net (David / Amicus) wrote:
> ><<But apparently as long as you don't come
> >out and say "Vote for John Doe" you are
> >OK.>>
> >Unlike in some protestant churches politicians
> >are not invited into the parish church to speak
> >from the pulpit during the Sunday service.
>
> Why are we not hearing from theget that you are attacking the first
> amendment freedom of both speech and religion with your criticism of
> whom some Protestant churches allow to speak in their churches?

What in particular do you want to hear. No one is forcing a
particular church to take tax exempt status. Maybe none of them
should have it. But as to the rules as they currently are....

>
> As for your beloved Catholic Church, do you deny they take political
> positions, not just theological decisions. Have cardinals told church
> members not to vote for candidates favoring abortion and/or gay
> marriage. Has your church actively campaigned against obamacare? Are
> church members threatened with excommunication for supporting those
> political positions that the church opposed? Did you know that Cardinal
> Dolan in NY has threatened NY Governor Cuomo with excommunication
> because he has a live in girl friend? Do you think its right that your
> church fought for many years to keep priests from being prosecuted for
> sexual abuse of children?

...I don't think the Catholic Church is violating the current rules,
which I think say specifically that you can't endorse a particular
candidate. I don't think there's anything in the rules as they stand
regarding non profit status that is violated above.

Or maybe the rules should be different and religious groups should be
allowed to take part in the political arena where people can test
their gods to see whose god has the most influence.

As to the child sexual abuse and covering it up, that might be
prosecutable under RICO or some such. It's even possible that the
Catholic Church could be effectively dissolved. But I won't hold my
breath waiting for it to happen.

> They should be allowed their beliefs, but if they are a political
> organization, they should forfeit their religious tax exemption. JMHO

Why?

[theget]

Yes. Well. Even if I use the word myself I'm a little suspicious of
the phrase "supposed to be". It usually indicates that things are not
and are never "to be".

I suspect a true flat tax could be somewhat lower. Consider the other
revenue streams that you'll open. Corporate taxes. Religious groups.
Charitable groups. Oil exploration. Food. A long list. But I don't
think people really want it. Even if it came to pass it would
probably be less than three seconds before lobbyists would lobby to
change it.

And certainly "progressives" would claim that it isn't fair. Whatever
that means.

[theget]

On May 15, 1:05 pm, JeffGers...@webtv.net (Jeff Gersten) wrote:
> The press is the enemy. The IRS is used to go after political enemies.
> The gentleman in charge of wikileaks is treated with the same attitude
> as Daniel Ellsberg was treated.
>
> So, how does obama differ from nixon? Once they get in the white house,
> they're all the same. For instance general petraeus advises bush to have
> a surge in Iraq. (obama, then a senator adamantly opposes.) general
> petraeus advise obama to have a surge in Afghanistan, He no longer
> opposes, but embraces it.

Bob Shieffer wants to know too, although he says this is nothing like
Watergate. Nothing like it at all. He repeats that a few times just
to make sure you know he's not comparing the two.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/05/19/schieffer-obama-advisor-why-are-you-here-why-isn-t-white-house-chief