URGENT: Please Sign White House Petition to "Protect Americans from Dangerous Cults: Modify USC Title 26 § 501 Tax Exemption Requirements"

by ABibleStudent 130 Replies latest members politics

• 

  ABibleStudent

  Band on the Run - May I ask what you think happens if you get five million signatures? We don't have that type of democracy. Are you trying a ballot iniative? Federal law is involved. Very curious. The bottom line is nothing will happen until you get Senators and Congresspeople to vote to restrict only JWs from taking advantage of tax exemption. Besides the actual vote, you need to move it forward within each body.

  Hi Band on the Run, The White House petition needs only 25,000 signatures (not 5 million) for the White House Staff to review this petition and respond to it. It is very unlikely that a law will be enacted because of this petition. Since this is an election year and Mitt Romney is a Mormon, may be the White House staff researching dangerous cults might lead to some interesting debates that might educate Americans about dangerous cults. Enacting a law to protect Americans from dangerous cults is not the only positive outcome from collecting 25,000 signatures - educating Americans about dangerous cults is another. Unlike JWs who are indoctrinated to view situations with only two outcomes, I like to think of multiple outcomes.

  This week gay marriage was a hot topic because of Biden. Does you know Biden (rhetorical question)? Imagine if Mitt Romney and Obama exchanged remarks about Mormon shunning doctrines. Imagine how the news media might react. Would the WTBTS like the President saying that shunning policies are abhorent and damaging to individuals and society shown in Spanish, Korean, Chinese, and other non-English news media?

  People are free to express there opinions. I choose to express my opinions in a positive way that hopefully produces positive benefits. Some other posters to this thread choose to express their opinions that promote inaction and probably have never actively supported anything in their lives except false doctrines by a dangerous cult. I would rather be thought of as a person "who promoted protecting Americans from dangerous cults and lost" than "who was a JW and would not try to change the WTBTS".

  Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,

  Robert
• 

  Band on the Run

  This is faux work for the White House staff. A high school intern probably runs the show. It is meaningless. Such petitoins will never bind the administration or the opposition. Someone never listened in history class.
• 

  ABibleStudent

  Band on the Run - This is faux work for the White House staff. A high school intern probably runs the show. It is meaningless. Such petitoins will never bind the administration or the opposition. Someone never listened in history class.

  Hi Band on the Run, I would rate doing nothing and writing on this thread is more meaningless. Since you don't know me and I do not self-promote myself you, are you ASSuming again?

  Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,

  Robert
• 

  Band on the Run

  ASSuming yourself? YOur friends and you need to use smutty language. Grow up.
• 

  JeffT

  I would rate doing nothing and writing on this thread is more meaningless. Since you don't know me and I do not self-promote myself you, are you ASSuming again?

  This is even more laughable than most of what you've posted. You make an ASSUMPTION that because we aren't following you we're doing nothing, then accuse us of making assumptions about you and follow it all with a statement that you're not promoting yourself. The sad part is I think you really believe that.
• 

  ABibleStudent

  Band on the Run - ASSuming yourself? YOur friends and you need to use smutty language. Grow up.

  Hi Band on the Run, I apologize if your feelings were hurt. I was trying to shock you into realizing that you write condescending and arrogant statements in your posts that assume a lot about me and other posters. Would you prefer that I write to you like another poster did in the thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/scandals/225198/2/Will-the-IRS-Investigate-the-Watchtower-Society ? Do you remember writing the following in the aforementioned thread? I have more respect for people, who follow their own advice, than those who do not.

  Band on the Run - Society needs people to stake out bold ideas. It also needs consensus builders. I was more distressed by your observation that we are still WT brainwashed if we don't join your bandwagon than your actual position. When once is emotionally affected, it is all too easy for us to read what we want to read. This field has been surprising to me. The consensus is clearly moving to more accomodation of religion, not less. There was some hope that a Democratic president might reverse this trend. Obama believes in funding faith-based programs even more than George W. Bush did. This shocked many commentators. He actually strengthened the program and increased funding.

  What has your experience been when people do not ask clarifying questions and instead make assumptions? My experience has been that people make fools of themselves when they assume too much. I was trying to express my observations about your writing in a gentle way instead of a confrontation manner as you may remember experiencing in the aforementioned thread.

  Peace be with you and everyone, who you know, Peace be with you and everyone, who you know,

  Robert
• 

  ABibleStudent

  JeffT - This is even more laughable than most of what you've posted. You make an ASSUMPTION that because we aren't following you we're doing nothing, then accuse us of making assumptions about you and follow it all with a statement that you're not promoting yourself. The sad part is I think you really believe that.

  Hi JeffT, How is asking a question of Band on the Run making an assumption? I capitalized the first three letters of assume to shock Band on the Run to realize that her posts make assumptions which may give readers a different impression of her than she would like. Maybe you should read the thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/scandals/225198/1/Will-the-IRS-Investigate-the-Watchtower-Society to learn how another poster perceives Band on the Run’s writing.

  Hopefully, I am not bullying anyone into signing the White House petition. If other posters feel that I have bullied them, I will write that I am sorry that they felt intimidated or bullied by my posts. As I have written to you before, I will show as much respect to you as you show for me. Do you want me to remind you of how you have made confrontational and misleading statements in your last and other posts about the White House petition? (Hint: this is a question. I am not assuming anything.)

  Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,

  Robert
• 

  Band on the Run

  Sic Temper wrote an irrational, personal nasty post. He attacked me personally. I respond and still respond to attack the content of what I write. Some people do not know their subject matter. Attacking people with ASS...... is their way of scoring debate points. I feel it explodes in their face. Personal attacks are not attacking ideas or facts.

  No one has posted anything to prove me wrong. I doubt anyone will. The ASS....... was not incidental. Sign petitions. I don't care. Don't relate this spurious version of the First Amendment. People who rarely agree politically agree on the fact that A Bible Student's plan is unconst'l and unAmerican at its core. I feel A Bible Student did not do his homeowork or, without expertise, misread some cases.

  Also, I strongly believe the personal attacks keep repeating b/c it bumps the thread. Anyone who would write what Sic Temper wrote to me is a fool.

  Let us see case citations and analysis, discuss American and European history. I provide and it is mocked.
• 

  Sic Semper Tyrannis

  I'm glad you are still thinking about me. Now I know that something I said in there must have hit a nerve.

  A Bible Student clarified it perfectly. You are only after self-promotion, and every argument you present is always pre-faced with "I'm a lawyer, so I know what I am speaking about..." or the even more pretentious "As a constitutional law expert, I'd advise you to look up [insert caselaw here]...". I'm sorry you interpreted my criticism of that as a personal attack. I was attacking your transparent method of intellectual intimidation, where 90% of your argument is backed up by inflated claims of legal knowledge and prowess. You provide case citations and random references to US and British history, but you fail to apply the principle. You assume that just by quoting such subjects that the reader will be awed by your apparent knowledge and concede the point, and make you the winner by default.

  It's perfectly fine to quote caselaw if you absolutely must. But you leave it at that. Apply the principle involved and explain to us in detail why that supports your claim. All I hear from you is to "look it up" or an invitation to have a debate on it which you well know will not be taken up on. This is an ex-JW board, not a law blog. Demonstrate exactly why you think you are uniquely qualified to tell us this information instead of just listing off resume points.

  But don't take it personal. You just called me a fool, and I couldn't care less because I know it's just a knee-jerk reaction from you because I called you out on a few points. Move on, and keep trying to tell us what you are trying to say in an unpretentious and balanced manner. Please try expressing yourself that way. It will move the discussion along a lot more smoothly.
• 

  Band on the Run

  I do have expertise in a field that you do not. Refute my claims. I encourage you to do so. Short of refuting claims, personal attacks are unnecessary. This my little area of expertise. Expertise that you lack. It is not as though I was the only stating this is blatantly unconst'l and unreal in political terms. I will not dumb down for you.

  If I am a fraud, prove me a fraud. Refuse my case citations and analysis.

  This whole subject of tax exemption is a joke. Sign whatever silly petitions you like. The First Amendment gives you the right to be ignorant.

  I do believe I stick in a trigger in you when you cannot refute me on the merits. There is no grand principle to apply. The reasoning behind the petition is seriously flawed. You can't pull rights you never possessed out of a hat.

  YOu did not call me on a single point. Instead, you showed your arrogance and mean spirit.

  If there is one area where I know something in this confusing world, it is this one. Why do my politcal opponents agree with me? Tough luck.