President Donald J. Trump

[creepygreenlight]

Yeah that happens, can't recall which of the early call-ins it is, Mish Shedlock or Howard Bloom, one of those two I think.

Thanks.  I guess Noory is still trying to impress the executives in Los Angeles...

[Jojo]

https://youtu.be/FhZYNnwRxas

Geez, I worried this would happen.  What, what, what was she thinking.  So sad.  However, I haven't noticed this type of thing prosecuted in all my life, has anyone?
Fourteen

[Jojo]

IMHO, you can't force a church to marry homosexuals if it goes against their beliefs and you can't force bakers to bake wedding cakes for gay couples if they don't believe in a same-sex wedding ceremony. It would have been interesting if civil unions had become the norm because I think most people would would have gone along with civil union cakes. Now if the same bakers would not sell any cake to a gay couple then I believe there may be grounds for the gay couple to sue.

The Muslim faith also demands a Muslim takeover of the state by the "church."  I am not saying all Muslims believe that but those who believe in Sharia do.  Fundamentalist Islam really isn't compatible with our Constitution.  Every country in the Middle East conforms their govt. to Islamic beliefs.  That is not allowed here.

As for, the women and pants reference.  If a Muslim ladieswear boutique sells women's pants then they are shooting themselves in the foot not to mention it is stupid to carry pants if you don't want women to try them on and buy 'em. 

Good point about civil unions and gays being sold any type of cake.

But, Muslim women are not allowed to wear pants I guess.  So, there wouldn't be any in the ladies' boutiques.  I was thinking a young lady might want a pair, and would be refused to try them on in the store that sells them (presumably to men).

Also, even if their entire premise is not compatible with the Constitution, I fear what would happen if we respected their religious beliefs to the extent just short of what you said.  But anyhow.

Fourteen

[21st Century Man]

Yeah that happens, can't recall which of the early call-ins it is, Mish Shedlock or Howard Bloom, one of those two I think.

Howard Bloom is an idiot.

[Jojo]

Thanks.  I guess Noory is still trying to impress the executives in Los Angeles...

Did he say last night Coast stocks went down $300 per share?  I wonder if that's a big drop; sounds like it.  What's their call number or whatever?

Bye for now.
Fourteen

[starrmtn001]

https://youtu.be/Uu_CIi3wHe0

[21st Century Man]

Good point about civil unions and gays being sold any type of cake.

But, Muslim women are not allowed to wear pants I guess.  So, there wouldn't be any in the ladies' boutiques.  I was thinking a young lady might want a pair, and would be refused to try them on in the store that sells them (presumably to men).

Also, even if their entire premise is not compatible with the Constitution, I fear what would happen if we respected their religious beliefs to the extent just short of what you said.  But anyhow.

Fourteen

Well, we let the Amish do their thing so I imagine we would respect a religion to a degree that is I think we should.  Above all, we have religious liberty to worship (or not) as we please.  That is a fundamental building block of this country. Interesting question to think about is would (or should) a cult be granted the same rights as a legitimate religion?

[Metron2267]

https://youtu.be/FhZYNnwRxas

Double booked with Peter Fonda perhaps?

[Metron2267]

Geez, I worried this would happen.  What, what, what was she thinking.  So sad. 

Same as Peter Fonda and all the rest of the Hollyweirdos...

However, I haven't noticed this type of thing prosecuted in all my life, has anyone?
Fourteen

Only against the "little guy"...

Look what Al Sharpton got away with:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPWQ4oVP-3Q

Or not...tee hee...

Dude was about 3 extra zip codes.

[starrmtn001]

https://youtu.be/X12_p19QSdY

[Metron2267]

Did he say last night Coast stocks went down $300 per share?  I wonder if that's a big drop; sounds like it.  What's their call number or whatever?

Bye for now.
Fourteen

Uh...what?

Premiere is a subsidiary of I Heart Radio:

https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/ihrtq
KEY DATA
OPEN
$0.30
DAY RANGE
0.3 - 0.3
52 WEEK RANGE
0.25 - 2
MARKET CAP
$26.51M
SHARES OUTSTANDING
31.9M
PUBLIC FLOAT
29.31M
BETA
N/A
REV. PER EMPLOYEE
$347.02K

..which is basically a "penny stock", so no $300 drop...

Coast's call in # is at:

https://www.coasttocoastam.com/pages/contact

[Metron2267]

Interesting question to think about is would (or should) a cult be granted the same rights as a legitimate religion?

If they can prove actual non-profit status and a flock that worships...if not...Hello Jonestown!

http://www.nonprofitlawblog.com/starting-a-nonprofit-what-is-religious-under-501c3/

A “religious” purpose is one of the seven exempt purposes specified in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”). However, unlike with the terms “charitable,” “educational,” and “scientific,” the term “religious” is not defined in the Treasury Regulations, in large part due to constitutional issues. IRS guidance explains “nder the First Amendment, the Service cannot consider the content or sources of a doctrine alleged to constitute a particular religion, and cannot evaluate the content of a doctrine an organization claims is religious. This does not apply to rites or practices that violate federal, state or local law.”

501(c)(3) religious organizations include churches, conventions and associations of churches, integrated auxiliaries of churches, nondenominational ministries, interdenominational and ecumenical organizations, and other entities whose principal purpose is the study or advancement of religion. The IRS has recognized 501(c)(3) exemption for religious organizations conducting primarily the following activities:

Publishing a newspaper primarily devoted to news, articles, and editorials relating to church and religious matters; and
Conducting weekend religious retreats, open to individuals of diverse Christian denominations, at a rural lakeshore site at which the participants may enjoy the recreational facilities in their limited amount of free time and that charges no fees.
Since 501(c)(3) of the Code requires that organizations must be organized and operated exclusively for one or more exempt purposes, religious organizations may be disqualified if they promote a substantial nonexempt purpose. For example, religious organizations conducting primarily the following activities have been held not to be exempt under 501(c)(3):

Publishing literature having little connection to the religious beliefs of the organization and for profit motives; and
Operating a religious retreat facility where religious activities are not required and only incidental to recreational and social activities.

[starrmtn001]

https://youtu.be/X12_p19QSdY

[Metron2267]

The shirt!

Where We Go 1 We Go All!

[Metron2267]

Howard Bloom is an idiot.

100% agree!

[21st Century Man]

If they can prove actual non-profit status and a flock that worships...if not...Hello Jonestown!

http://www.nonprofitlawblog.com/starting-a-nonprofit-what-is-religious-under-501c3/

A “religious” purpose is one of the seven exempt purposes specified in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”). However, unlike with the terms “charitable,” “educational,” and “scientific,” the term “religious” is not defined in the Treasury Regulations, in large part due to constitutional issues. IRS guidance explains “nder the First Amendment, the Service cannot consider the content or sources of a doctrine alleged to constitute a particular religion, and cannot evaluate the content of a doctrine an organization claims is religious. This does not apply to rites or practices that violate federal, state or local law.”

501(c)(3) religious organizations include churches, conventions and associations of churches, integrated auxiliaries of churches, nondenominational ministries, interdenominational and ecumenical organizations, and other entities whose principal purpose is the study or advancement of religion. The IRS has recognized 501(c)(3) exemption for religious organizations conducting primarily the following activities:

Publishing a newspaper primarily devoted to news, articles, and editorials relating to church and religious matters; and
Conducting weekend religious retreats, open to individuals of diverse Christian denominations, at a rural lakeshore site at which the participants may enjoy the recreational facilities in their limited amount of free time and that charges no fees.
Since 501(c)(3) of the Code requires that organizations must be organized and operated exclusively for one or more exempt purposes, religious organizations may be disqualified if they promote a substantial nonexempt purpose. For example, religious organizations conducting primarily the following activities have been held not to be exempt under 501(c)(3):

Publishing literature having little connection to the religious beliefs of the organization and for profit motives; and
Operating a religious retreat facility where religious activities are not required and only incidental to recreational and social activities.

I'm really not interested in what the Treasury says.  Last thing I remember in the Constitution, a person is free to worship as one chooses regardless of tax status. Where does a cult end and a religion begin?  Yeah, it is easy to distinguish between Jim Jones, Heaven's Gate and other death cults but what about the other cults? We still have arguments over Mormonism and especially Scientology .   I'm interested in this purely from a Constitutional perspective.  I don't give a damn what some fuckin' tax code says. No offense.

[ACE of CLUBS]

I mean I'm sure it's some hyper rare classic Indian 4 that's worth about the entire year's fish harvest in Newfie-land...

Dream on fuktard ...... it was a POS. Almost enough to put you off motorcycles forever.

Time to buy Hardley-Davidson stock ?   

[PaulAtreides]

Proof please - PROOF NOW, you lying millennial toe-sucker.

The proof is out there - but unlike every other POTUS, Trump won't release his tax returns.  Then there were those comments from Don Jr. The Stupid.

[Metron2267]

I'm really not interested in what the Treasury says.  Last thing I remember in the Constitution, a person is free to worship as one chooses regardless of tax status. Where does a cult end and a religion begin?  Yeah, it is easy to distinguish between Jim Jones, Heaven's Gate and other death cults but what about the other cults? We still have arguments over Mormonism and especially Scientology .   I'm interested in this purely from a Constitutional perspective.  I don't give a damn what some fuckin' tax code says. No offense.

OK, let's parse the root document then:

https://usconstitution.net/consttop_reli.html
Religion makes only one direct and obvious appearance in the original Constitution that seems to point to a desire for some degree of religious freedom. That appearance is in Article 6, at the end of the third clause:

[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
This statement is simple and straight-forward, and applies to all offices in the entire United States, both state and federal.

There is one other direct bow to religion in the original Constitution, and it is a bit obtuse. The Presidential Oath of Office is codified in the Constitution in this way:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Finally, the Constitution refers to the year that the Convention created the document as "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven." Some have argued that the use of the term "Lord" in this way is indicative of something, but it is indicative of nothing more than a standard way of referring to years in that time period.
Again, the reference might be obtuse, but it is the inclusion of language in the oath that allows an incoming President to swear or affirm the oath.

[Metron2267]

Dream on fuktard ...... it was a POS. Almost enough to put you off motorcycles forever.

Well what YEAR was it then?

Here's a hint, many older bikes had nuances riders today can't grasp, like a jockey clutch, stick shift, etc...

Grade an Indian by it's year and peers, or stfu you braggart fool.

Time to buy Hardley-Davidson stock ?   
[/quote]

Time to short it at least...

http://shortsqueeze.com/shortinterest/stock/HOG.htm
Short Interest (Shares Short)
17,610,400
Short Interest Ratio (Days To Cover)
11.3
Short Percent of Float
10.40 %
Short % Increase / Decrease
-8 %
Short Interest (Shares Short) - Prior
19,081,900

[Metron2267]

The proof is out there -

No, I want YOUR proof of the alleged Russian claims.

Put up or SHUT UP!

but unlike every other POTUS, Trump won't release his tax returns.  Then there were those comments from Don Jr. The Stupid.

Iow - you got nuttin!

[Jackstar]

unlike every other POTUS, Trump won't release his tax returns

1. "every other POTUS"

Are you sure about that, Maud'Dib?

2. "won't release"

Haven't they been released to the IRS? Seems like you're entitled to a long tall glass of "shut the fuck up and mind your own fucking business," Counselor, and not much more.


Pour it yourself.

[21st Century Man]

OK, let's parse the root document then:

https://usconstitution.net/consttop_reli.html
Religion makes only one direct and obvious appearance in the original Constitution that seems to point to a desire for some degree of religious freedom. That appearance is in Article 6, at the end of the third clause:

[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
This statement is simple and straight-forward, and applies to all offices in the entire United States, both state and federal.

There is one other direct bow to religion in the original Constitution, and it is a bit obtuse. The Presidential Oath of Office is codified in the Constitution in this way:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Finally, the Constitution refers to the year that the Convention created the document as "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven." Some have argued that the use of the term "Lord" in this way is indicative of something, but it is indicative of nothing more than a standard way of referring to years in that time period.
Again, the reference might be obtuse, but it is the inclusion of language in the oath that allows an incoming President to swear or affirm the oath.

I bring you back to this.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Original intent is very important when it comes to this clause.  The FF (no not the Fantastic Four) believed everybody should be able to worship as they desired.  If they wanted to worship Odin, Apollo, Diana, Freddie Mercury or Jehovah, they should have that freedom.  I'm not bitching at you personally.  I'm just interested in this discussion and I'm even more interested in how a strict constructionist judge would distinguish between a cult and a religion.

[Jackstar]

The proof is out there

What, no video?

[starrmtn001]

https://youtu.be/-08btBlq8v0

Link to sign the petition.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/expulsion-maxine-waters-remove-her-congress

[Jackstar]

I bring you back to this.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

A core tenet of my religion is that all taxation is theft. Have fun worming out of that one.

[Dr. MD MD]

What, no video?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FvV_tFcI_V0

[Jackstar]

OK Google, Alex Jones Pavlov training video"

You can probably take it from here.

[Dr. MD MD]

You can probably take it from here.

Here, have another:


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ObUzNvov-v0

[Metron2267]

1. "every other POTUS"

Are you sure about that, Maud'Dib?

No doubt he gets his fake news here:

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/history-mandates-presidential-candidates

No law requires presidential candidates to release their tax returns, but history does. President Obama’s re-election campaign is pressuring their Republican challenger Mitt Romney ...

(same as it ever was)

...PolitiFact found only seven presidential or vice president candidates since 1976 have refused to release any tax returns.

And we all know that anything that happened before 1976 is irrelevant, right?

https://www.efile.com/1040-federal-income-tax-forms-for-every-tax-year-and-tax-return-history/

Presidents of the United States make their tax returns a matter of public record. However, the practice of releasing returns as president or when running for office didn't become commonplace until the late 1960's. In the run-up to the 1968 presidential election, George Romney (the governor of Michigan at the time) released 12 years of his returns from 1955-1966 after being pressed by reporters. This set the precedent for presidential candidates to release their tax returns. Every president from Richard Nixon onward has made their tax returns public. The only exception was Gerald Ford, who kept his tax returns private.

Of course the leftards always set a precedent when it's a Republican running...

2. "won't release"

Haven't they been released to the IRS? Seems like you're entitled to a long tall glass of "shut the fuck up and mind your own fucking business," Counselor, and not much more.


Pour it yourself.

Uh huh!