Via CC, who noticed the sound of whining from the starboard side of the Good Ship Blogosphere rising to an ear-splitting crescendo:
As CC points out, the whine could use a little tweaking:
Quite frankly I can’t think of a more morally imposing policy than one that requires people who oppose abortion war to use their earned income to pay for the abortions ill-conceived nation-building endeavours of others, in other countries no less.
Dig it!:
Quite frankly I can’t think of a more morally imposing policy than one that requires people who oppose abortion atheists to use their earned income to pay for the abortions Houses of Superstition of others, in other countries a country where there is supposed to be separation of church and state no less.
Let’s go, suckah!!:
Quite frankly I can’t think of a more morally imposing policy than one that requires people who oppose abortions pot heads to use their earned income to pay for the abortions enforcement of draconian, atavistic drug laws of others, in other countries a supposedly modern and moderate nation no less.
I could play this game all day, but I have to go and earn money to support a whole shitload of policies I find morally repugnant.
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/silver/tny_ag_en_usoz_2.gif)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_usoz_2.gif)
Yup. I don’t like paying for all their deadly, morally bankrupt ca ca either. But yanno, they never see that part.
The pet projects that the Cons love are sacred cows.
But we already knew that.
No one is required to “pay for houses of superstition.” Churches don’t pay taxes. But taxpayers also don’t pay for churches.
Not collecting money from someone is not equal to paying them money.
The US is not a country where there is supposed to be separation of church and state, if it is the US you had in mind.
This was an imaginative and inventive post; well done.
Brian, I don’t know how to tell you this, but it’s not always about you and the USA. Especially on a Canada-based blog.
My “if it is the US you had in mind” shows that I recognized that. What in your post showed that you recognized that I recognized that? Hello…?
This is brilliant. Next time I hear that argument, I will immediately bring up the Catholic School system, not to mention that they get to have a stake in health care here in Alberta.
“But taxpayers also don’t pay for churches.”
Tax exempt status allows churches to accumulate property and wealth without being taxed for it, like everybody else is. OK, this is something else that churches and the filthy rich have in common. (Yoohoo, Rick Warren: the fat cat is that guy you see in the mirror. You pat yourself on the back for giving away money, but if your church paid taxes like everyone else, you’d also be giving away money, but without the accolades.)
The US has the most egregious cases of church leaders and their churches benefitting from tax exempt status with the blessing of the Prosperity Gospel.
If that was the case, Brian – that you recognized it <i?wasn't about the US – then your original comment was 100% gratuitous and irrelevant.
As, Dr. Prole pointed out. It isn’t about you… individually or collectively.
Now, don’t you have a few more turds to polish before turning in for the evening?
“that you recognized it wasn’t about the US”… No: recognized it might not be.
No, I don’t have any, but thanks for thinking of me.
“Tax exempt status allows churches to accumulate property and wealth without being taxed for it, like everybody else is.”
I know that, of course, but that is not the same as giving them money, any more than my not taking money from people I pass on the street equals paying them money.
“The US has the most egregious cases of church leaders and their churches benefiting from tax exempt status with the blessing of the Prosperity Gospel.”
Amen! The professional wrestlers of Christianity. (Professional wrestling ain’t wrestling, prosperity gospel ain’t Christianity.)
Brian
Tax exempt status means they have money they would not have if the taxpayer wasn’t picking up the slack for them, which IMHO is close enough for rock n roll.
Umm… it wasn’t terribly difficult to figure out it had nothing to do with the US. Does the USA have ‘Blogging Tories” with a Ning site?
Hint: first link goes to ‘canadiancynic’ who discusses ‘Blogging Tories’ and ‘Canadian taxpayers’; second link goes to ‘canadianconservatives.ning.com’ quoting a ‘Toronto’ Star article about ‘Canadian’ taxation. Did you even hover your cursor over the links, let alone click them, before puking up a hairball of a comment?
Usually an excellent idea to have some clue what’s being discussed before you comment. But maybe that’s just me.
You’re remarkably tedious. But again, maybe that’s just me.
I didn’t know what BT stood for. There are so many acronyms and web cutsies (GR8, and so on) I despair of remembering them all.
I do often hover on links to see what they link to, and sometimes follow them. Unfortunately, the links for this site are a pale blue, and I often don’t see the color differentiation.
Sorry I’m so tedious, Frank. We all have our crosses to bear, and I’m doing the best I can.
Thanks for confirming that you didn’t, as I suspected, clikc through the links and actually read anything. Yet, still compelled to natter away.
First paragraph of the first link (to Canadian Cynic):