I read it. Not sure I see it any differently.


I've read the proposed amendment, but there's a ton literature surrounding the issue, built up over the decades since the act was originally proposed and it doesn't all lead to the same conclusion. So if you have a specific point then make it. Otherwise, I wouldn't know what your point is.


Tax exemptions were always meant for non-profit organizations for obvious reasons. (If you don't make a profit how are you going to pay taxes?) The other rule is that exemptions can only be applied to non-political organizations, again the reason being obvious. (We are a representative democracy so we don't want our politics to be influenced by money.)

Some churches however turn enormous profits and some of those fund political campaigns. If they can do these things, they sure as hell don't need the exemptions. So I have no patience for those churches who act like victims just because they might lose an unfair advantage they should never have had in the first place.


And how exactly are these preachers being punished EC and for what exactly? 'cause it seems to me like you're just continuing to play victim with broad strokes. "Oh, the liberals hate us... they hate God, they wanna punish us for being good...wah, waaah..." Ugh.


Most people can tell hate speech when they hear it. I actually struggle to stay true to my assertion that ALL speech should be allowed when I hear people encouraging hatred and violence. I don't know what the solution is but if Canada has indeed passed laws against hate speech, I can't say I blame them.

What I find utterly absurd is how he same people who attack liberals for protesting hate speech will throw a conniption fit the moment a liberal drops an f-bomb on a site like this.

I don't think it's possible in today's media market to satisfy everyone's demands. Mediums like the Internet have democratized media, giving the consumers an abundance of alternatives sources. So as a media company today you almost HAVE to "pander" to one sub-culture or another, or risk losing whatever audience you have.

The measure of a news program's integrity still rides on reporting the truth. If a consumer wants the WHOLE truth it's on him to consume more than one channel and triangulate from there.

I wasn't the one that started down the "me engineer, me smart" path - that was bilordinary to whom I was responding. But if you're calling my posts "prolonged" it's pretty easy to make the assumption that you are not an educated person and your obvious irritation with people who you think are pretending to be smart only enforces that assumption.

I'll tell you the same thing I tell everyone else who has a problem with another person's intellect. Stop worrying about how "smart" you think other people think they are and just counter their points with solid arguments. A good argument can prove what you're insults can't.

As for going anywhere... No thanks, I'm good right here in America where I can influence the future with my opinions, my votes, my activism and my contributions. Oh, and there's plenty of terrorists to go around, right here. I think you know who I'm referring to ;)

I've read that a good portion of the air pollution over cities like L.A. are actually from China. Not sure how true that it but it wouldn't surprise me.

As the article that you referenced had stated, this discredited story is part of the whataboutism that is essentially the ONLY defense Trump has. "Impeach Trump? What about Biden?" Well, Biden isn't the one on trial, right?

Of course they have every right to get the Ukraine to investigate Biden's involvement in corruption. They just need some probable cause first, I mean, other than some nutty story being spun by some alt-right, D&D loser in his mom's basement.

Even if they DID eventually find any real evidence of wrong-doing by either of the Bidens it wouldn't make any difference to the impeachment hearings now because so far there IS no such evidence, which means there wasn't any when Trump tried to get President Z to launch investigations. If there was the Trump defense would have presented it by now.

As it is, all they have are distractions and tizzy-fits. That's not enough to stop the House from impeaching him or for the American people to vote him out in 2020 if the Senate fails to remove him or from history writing him down as the corrupt and incapable president he is.

That's one of the common characteristics of fascism. When a leader caters to a ideological subset of the people often at the expense of the others and indeed manipulating the elections is almost a constant.

For Trump, who isn't really strong or smart enough to pull off a fascist overthrow of our democracy I think this just falls into his ineptitude. Any group larger than 30% is going to have internal conflicts that a leader would have to negotiate and Trump doesn't have those skills.

I work on laptops and tend to be mobile much of the time. My references are in electronic form, but I do have book cases in my office filled with classic references including the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. Too many to list, but I can say that my own beliefs can't be calibrated by what's on my book shelves anyway because they represent the world I am interested in knowing about, not necessarily the world I agree with.

LOL, ok.

So... no facts or logic then. Got it.

Yes, the Democrats did vote to build a wall. They actually called it a fence and they built lots of them in key places where other means of securing the border was limited. They didn't build a "wall" from coast to coast because they found more effective ways of securing the border in combination with the fences they already have.

The rest of your statement looks like a big pile of half-baked accusations and unfounded conspiracy theories. I mean seriously, what law did they try to pass that makes it a crime for calling yourself a Christian? Would you like to explain that one, or are you just propagating the lies?

Are you disturbed because it's the Ukraine? (worth asking given your Russian background) or are you generally opposed to sending money that you think should be spent on border security overseas?

Either way, Trump seems to be a bad fit for your priorities. All the money he is trying to direct to the border is for his "wall", which in truth means an "extension of the fence that is already there". This fence is only a small component of border security and not the the most effective one at that. Trump has actually cut funding for the more effective components such as the Coast Guard that stops the vast majority of the drug traffic. Even the Border Patrol itself has shrunk under Trump.

As for foreign aid, he seems to be fine doling it out... for favors.

Maybe it's time for you folks to find a real leader instead of falling over yourselves to defend a con-man.

That is assuming a fair election in 2020. ;)

Actually, I think the poll is only stating the obvious, which is why no one really seems to be under the impression that these hearings are going to change minds. The alt-right rumour mill of course makes all kinds of claims that the Democrats are doing this to swing votes, but you know how that goes.

The Democrats are proceeding with the impeachment because they have to restore faith among their own constituents that they will indeed take action to defend the Constitution. So if any votes are being pursued by this action it's the Democrats trying to keep their own voters.

As for whether or not Trump deserves to be impeached, the divide may as well be set in concrete. The majority of Americans want him out and the same minority of Americans that have been defending him since day one will continue to defend him to the end.

whoa there cowboy... I was just poking fun at your bold statement about facts and logic because you followed it up with two examples of conclusions that have no basis in either.

Now I'm defending Adam Schiff? (I assume that's who you are childishly referring to as Schitt). Look, I'm not defending anyone. I'm just pointing out the BS when I see it.

As for Eric Ciaramella... I didn't know anything about him until you mentioned it, but it's interesting that when I Google his name I get a ton of hits on small right-wing media sites and nothing else. This is usually a sign that another right-wing conspiracy nut has released another theory.

Sure enough, I finally found his name mentioned in a Newsweek article that says...

"On June 11, alt-right blogger Mike Cernovich published an article attacking an assistant to National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, claiming the previously low-profile civil servant wanted to “sabotage” President Donald Trump.

The piece described Eric Ciaramella as “pro-Ukraine and anti-Russia” and alleged, with no evidence, that he was possibly responsible for high-level leaks."

...with no evidence.

So... do YOU any "facts or logic" Mr. Engineer, to support your up-until-now baseless claim?

Are you going to tell me I'm defending Hillary Clinton now?

I am also an engineer, no stranger to the electro-mechanical world where indeed, logic and facts are the basis for all operations. I also agree with you that "human feeling" has a way of warping reality but that's because the "human circuit" is vastly more complicated than the primitive circuits in the electro-mechanical world. There's been a lot of study in cognitive science that underlines this observation.

I was a little surprised however, that you chose to reinforce your statement about human feelings warping reality with those two examples - that "Epstein didn't kill himself" and that "Adam Schiff lied about knowing [the] whistleblower." I mean, I agree they are without factual basis, but they seem to fit your narrative.


I don't know who you are actually referring to or how you think I'm involved, but I have noticed a general sentiment on the right that blames the left for subjecting America to international law, which in my opinion is a massive misunderstanding of U.S. foreign policy.

To start with, the U.S. Constitution itself sets the rule that any international agreement ratified by the U.S. is considered the law of the land. That being said, the U.S. has been signing (and therefore subjecting America to) international agreements as a means to propagate American influence world wide for as long as America has been considered a superpower.

Part of what made America a superpower in the first place was the wealth of natural resources at our disposal and this gave us an unfair advantage under these agreements which were otherwise promoted as politically "fair" and better alternatives to war. If you have ever tried to play poker with people who have hundreds of dollars to bet when you only have $5. You might have some idea of how that works. You can play by the same rules but that doesn't prevent someone with more chips from enjoying an unfair advantage.

This was the basis for a new world order called the liberal order that took over where imperialism left off. All of a sudden wars went "cold" and that's because advantages were better found in the market than on the battlefield which made war a backup plan rather than a primary strategy. As George Bush Jr, said... "wars don't happen between democracies". That was basically a Republican president's plug for the same liberal order promoted by every president from FDR to Obama.

The problem for the American working class today is that we have since reached most of our critical resource peaks which means our natural advantage in these market-promoted agreements is lost to the developing world which has yet to reach their peaks therefore offering more growth potential, therefore better investment opportunities. Now all of a sudden these international agreements don't seem like such a good idea to the American worker. Getting back to the poker analogy, it means it's later in the game and we don't have as many chips anymore, so the game isn't as fun and we want to leave the table that we ourselves set.

An interesting pattern to notice today is that in all those developed countries that joined in the American-led liberal order, made up all it's rules and enforced them, reached their resource peaks and lost market advantage are now suffering from an outbreak of right-wing populism because the people don't want to play that game anymore.

So accuse whomever you want of "moving away from our sovereignty"... I'm just letting you know that I've given this enough thought to disagree with you.

I get it. My posts piss you off. You don't know how to counter the argument so you revert to insults. That's OK... I'm not offended, I understand. In fact it's pretty funny. But, let me just point out that while you point to broad generalizations about people who think they're smart, a better indication of how smart YOU are is in your ability to counter an argument.

Yes, I will always fight for the people, for freedom and for democracy.