Posted on 12/28/2011 5:06:26 PM PST by floridarunner01
When was it mentioned in my comment that clergy permanently lose their freedom of speech?
A far better plan is for Bachmann and Santorum to drop out and endorse Perry.
He is surging, not fading and he has the organization and money to stay in.
I apologize if I’ve misinterpreted your comment.
You seemed to imply that the churches that those pastors worked for should lose their tax exempt status. However, there is no indication in the linked news story that those people, who happen to be pastors, are using the church resources for politics.
So, either:
A) I’ve misinterpreted what “Howz about” implies.
B) You know more details of the situation than I do.
C) You believe that churches can/should lose their tax exempt status for the things that their clergy do and say on their own time. In which case, it seems to me that clergy wouldn’t have freedom of speech.
(By “permanently” I meant “when outside of work”. From my understanding of the rules, the churches can’t advocate politics nor can the pastors advocate politics while representing the church. But pastors are free to advocate politics on their own time just like anyone else. If my understanding is in error, I would appreciate learning more.)
Bachmann and Santorum do not have executive experience.
Santorum lost his Senate seat in a landslide. He should go back to Pennsylvania and work towards winning the Governorship of that state.
Bachmann should also return to Minnesota and run for governor of that state.
It isn’t so much that I don’t support Conservative candidates as I don’t support a candidate that will have a serious learning curve. We already have one of those and it isn’t working at all.
Neither do Gingrich or Paul. I guess that leaves Ronmey, Perry, and Huntsman. Based on that, it looks like I'll have to vote for Huntsman.
Newt Gingrich, as Speaker of the House, was only two heartbeats away from the Presidency.
He is more than qualified.
Being Speaker of the House and 3rd in line to the presidency isn’t executive experience? I’d say the Constitution considered that position to be an extremely good qualifier for a presidential candidate. He ran a chamber of over 500 members. He had to make that machine work. What part of “running something” doesn’t equal “executive experience?”
You are suggesting that they get executive experience -- like Gov. Rick Perry. You make a good point.
Two words: Speaker Nancy Pelosi and she made it "work" for her.
Answer: No.
And while not an Executive position, it did showcase a tragic flaw in Gingrich's ability to lead. After only four years with his Party still in power, his own members mutinied and forced him out. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of his ability to lead.
Gingrich may have worked well with President Clinton, but he did not cut taxes, and he did not create a surplus as he is claiming. He only exacerbated the weakness that Republicans are best known for.
The government shutdown is a prime example of this. Not even John Boehner has shown as much weakness as Gingrich did that day.
As a small child he witnessed his father beating and abusing Newt's mother. She divorced him, remarried, and Newt was adopted by his step dad. Later he was sexually molested by a high school teacher. Yeah, the one he married.
This man was carrying a troubled emotional burden while serving in Congress but he sought counseling, joined AA and eventually turned his life around after a religious conversion.
What I've found shocking is the enormous number of so-called Christians here at Free Republic who are nothing of the sort.
Christians are not better than other people. They forgive others, ask forgiveness for themselves, and try to lead a better life by not sinning further. I'm not disgusted with Newt Gingrich, who I believe has honestly changed his life. I'm disgusted with the bigots who claim they are Christian but do not put it into daily practice.
“...After only four years with his Party still in power, his own members forced him out...”
Oh yeah, and many of those Republicans are still in Congress. They are part of the ongoing problem of business as usual in Washignton, D.C. Under a Republican president, they added over $3 trillion to the federal deficit, shunned conservative policy in favor of Beltway influence-peddling, and so damaged the GOP brand that we lost the majority Gingrich had worked years to forge.
Do you really think I give a damn that Newt’s fabulous colleagues think his reemergence would be a disaster for Republicans? No. The elections of 2010 were NOT a merit promotion; the Republicans were the only alternative in town!
Newt Gringrich is pro-life, pro-2nd Amendment and loves America and understands its citizens. As a historian, he thoroughly knows the U.S. Constitution and our nation's history.
He allied himself with Ronald Reagan to build the Reagan Coalition, the Religious Right, and the Republican majority (together the Reagan Revolution) which directly led the downfall of the Soviet Union, the Contract with America, government reforms, less government, tax cuts, a balanced budget, and the great, long-standing Reagan economy.
Washington is broken, it doesn't work the way it is supposed to and Newt said, if elected, he will work to change the way Washington does business. You better believe the elitists who suck money off of government contracts are terrified he will be elected.
He knows where the bodies are buried.
He knows where the skeletons are hidden.
He knows about the hidden tract ways and byways by which influence peddling moves.
When a middle-clsss citizen is elected to Congress and returns home 20 years later a multi-millionaire, it is due to corruption in government. And that influence pedaling corruption may even be legal!
We have to change Washington in order to get our nation back on the right track.
Nothing you will say, which I believe is biased and flat-out wrong, has any effect on my belief that Newt Gingrich is the only candidate with true leadership ability who can and will change Washington, D.C. He isn't perfect. Who is? But I believe at this time, at this juncture in in nation's pathway, he can lead this country away from the abyss of socialism and will right the ship of state.
Wow, you gotta be kidding...
So you think paying taxes leads to loss of freedom of speech?
That comes as quite a shock to the 51% of us that ACTUALLY pay taxes to support the nanny-government and the 49% teat-suckers that don’t pay taxes.
Sheesh...
That's not the issue. The issue is changing the taxes collected based on what someone says, in order to discourage them from saying it.
What was the point of your original post? If the point was to say "all religious organizations should pay taxes", I can respect that regardless of if I agree with it. However, if your point was to punish people you disagree with by singling out non-profit organizations they work for, without any reason to believe that the organization is involved; then you've got to be kidding me if you don't see how that's a loss of freedom of speech.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.