Godless

Members
  • Content Count

    2485
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Godless last won the day on March 29 2019

Godless had the most liked content!

About Godless

  • Rank
    Senior Member - somehow haven't been banned yet
  • Birthday 10/13/1985

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Minnesota
  • Interests
    craft beer, good food, and loud music
  • Religion
    atheist

Recent Profile Visitors

3037 profile views
  1. Godless

    Songs that Don't Make Sense

    I recently learned that this song was originally written by the British to mock the colonists, who ended up embracing it and revising it into an anti-Brit anthem.
  2. Godless

    Songs that Don't Make Sense

    Oh, it makes perfect sense. He's just a terrible human being.
  3. Let's see how Bloomberg's first debate is going... I've been Team Warren since 11/9/16. You love to see it.
  4. And they're EVEYWHERE! The other day I took one of those online questionnaires to see where my stance on major issues compared with the candidates. A Bloomberg ad popped up while the results were loading. 😳 The conundrum is that a Sanders nomination will make moderate Dems more likely to sit out the election, but Bloomberg may do the same for black and farther left voters. He really is the closest thing to Trump that the Dems could put on the ticket, and I think he may be the one blue candidate that many of us would struggle to vote for, even more so than Hillary. If Bloomberg wins the nomination, then a case could be made that the party is broken and needs to be reset. The same was true for the GOP when Trump won the nomination, and it'll be interesting to see how that party copes with the post-Trump identity crisis that is bound to happen.
  5. Bloomberg is basically a Trump that might actually act and talk smart/presidential. This could really go either way for the Dems. It could be good because I think he would be a big hit with swing voters and moderate Republicans who like Trump's economic policies but not much else about him. He could also sink the Dems because I find it hard to believe that Bernie bros and black voters would show up to vote for him. A Bloomberg win in the primaries would also further the narrative that the DNC is corrupt and that nominations can simply be bought by the highest bidder.
  6. Godless

    How did we get here?

    I don't think you need a degree in psychology to see that Trump is a narcissist. Sociopath is a strong accusation, and I don't think anyone here is qualified to make that assessment. Personally, I think a sociopathic president would have us months-deep in a full-blown ground war by now. This whole affair has been difficult to watch. The House did the right thing by starting the impeachment proceedings (Mueller basically put the ball in their hands with his report), but I feel like they moved too fast and failed to use and enforce subpoena powers. It's like subpoenas don't mean anything anymore, and that problem pre-dates Trump. The GOP was never interested in holding a fair Senate trial. The burden was on the House to present a stronger case. Before the election, I said that a Trump victory might destroy the GOP. I haven't changed my mind. A day will come, in one year or five, when Trump will no longer be president. That day will be a reckoning for the GOP. They'll have to face what they turned themselves into for the sake of their dear leader's approval/endorsement. And whenever a Dem gets back to the White House, there will be some dangerous precedents in place for what an executive can get away with.
  7. A great idea in theory, but I fear that it would only encourage more corruption and corporate money influencing politics. If the taxpayers won't pay politicians, they'll find someone who will.
  8. Godless

    Baghdad embassy attack and response

    I was under the impression that Trump was at Mar-a-lago the day of the strike, as well as the days leading up to it. So the first scenario is probably more accurate.
  9. Godless

    Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker

    I get what you're saying, but this is a 9-part saga. I think it was always intended for some of the old characters to stay relevant throughout. Otherwise, why link this trilogy to the others at all? I'm glad the saga is over. The spinoff stories have become more interesting to me than the Skywalker story arc. It actually started to feel like the saga was holding up progress in exploring other parts of the SW universe. Rogue One was fantastic, but even that movie was strongly tied to the trilogies. I look forward to seeing what Disney does with the franchise moving forward.
  10. Godless

    Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker

    The baby isn't literally Yoda. It's the same species. But since no one seems to know the name of that species, everyone is just calling it "baby Yoda". The show takes place shortly after the fall of the Empire.
  11. Godless

    Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker

    Just saw it this morning. It's a very satisfactory end to the saga, and the best of the new trilogy imo. I was a little late getting to the theater, so I missed the previews. Caught the very end of the "Onward" trailer. Looks interesting. Definitely looking forward to the new Top Gun.
  12. Godless

    Financial Whistleblower

    Your original statement was: "if [contributors] feel they were deceived or fraud was involved that is something they can have the government investigate." My response was based on the assumption that the whistleblower is a tithe-paying member of the church who feels that he needs some clarification on how his tithing money is being used. I don't know anything. I'm saying let's find out. Maybe this whistleblower got his garments in a bunch over nothing. Or maybe he's on to something. I'll admit that I have a general distrust of religious institutions sitting on large sums of tax-free money. And yes, the statement is also true if you remove the bolded portion. It's nothing personal against your church. I'm an equal-opportunity skeptic. As I said, if everything is kosher, I'm happy to let it go. Not really. I think you can call it hoarding when the number hits twelve digits. And again, my issue isn't that they have that money, it's that they paid no taxes on it and, according to Nielsen, haven't touched it in over 20 years. If the IRS is okay with those circumstances, then I'm willing to accept that. Wrong choice of words. I meant "premise". I thought that "pretext" was similar in definition, but it turns out I was wrong. It was not my intention to imply ill intent. Really, any kind of non-vague explanation for why they have that amount of tax-free money saved up. $100B is an insane amount of money for a non-profit organization to be sitting on. No, that about sums it up. Yes, ultimately we need to let the IRS do their job. I have a very hard time believing that such an immense amount of money was accumulated within the limits of our 501c tax laws, but as I said, I stand ready to admit that I was wrong. And yes, I distrust religious institutions. FWIW, I distrust yours slightly less than most.
  13. Godless

    Financial Whistleblower

    It seems that this is exactly what happened. Nothing wrong with hoarding money, except when you're hoarding it tax-free and telling people it's being used for charity. If the individual or organization is operating under 501c, then proof of compliance is necessary. I feel this way about all charities, btw, not just religious ones. I'm saying it's a bad look from a PR standpoint. My rainy day fund was taxed. Again, the fact that the church has all of this money saved up is not the issue, it's that it accumulated this money under the pretext of charity. Perhaps further investigation will find that, yes, the church has a documented project that these funds are being earmarked for, as you alluded to earlier. If this is the case, then I will gladly retract my objections. Again, I believe that transparency is necessary for ANY organization that collects money tax-free for charitable puposes. I'm sure we're all familiar with the controversy surrounding the Clinton and Trump foundations. I'm not saying that the church is operating under such nefarious conditions, but hopefully it'll shed some light on my fixation on transparency. The fact that there serms to be a widespread public distrust of your church is certainly unfortunate, but I don't see that alone as a reason for not disclosing the purpose for untaxed funds. See JAG's post above. He nailed it perfectly. Ultimately, that's my view as well. Doesn't mean we can't have this debate while we wait for more information. As I said, I'm prepared for the possibility that the church has a satisfactory explanation. But on the surface, it's not a good look. I look forward to learning more. Again, I'm 100% okay with whatever an individual or organization chooses to do with money that it has paid taxes on. I don't trust any organization, religious or otherwise, that has accumulated $100B in tax-free revenue without stating its purpose.
  14. Godless

    Financial Whistleblower

    I'm sure there's a taxable rate that could land the church somewhere between bankruptcy and $100B. I'm not saying that non-charitable assets should be taxed into oblivion, simply that "rainy day funds" with no clear charitable purpose should not be tax exempt. It leaves a great deal of room for fraud and abuse. Understable. I'm not against something like that, but I believe that transparency is important. So the response to public distrust of your organization is to shirk transparency and plan your new projects in secret? Looks like that's going well for you.
  15. Godless

    Financial Whistleblower

    Imagine if the Red Cross collected billions of dollars, tax free, under the premise of charity and just sat on it rather than using it for charitable purposes. Would you be okay with that?