Tell me it aint so!

Pete · Jan 27, 2011

When I read this I thought I don't believe it! But according to Snopes it appears fairly accurate. I'm gobsmacked.

<TABLE style="mso-cellspacing: 0cm; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm" class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR style="mso-yfti-irow: 0; mso-yfti-firstrow: yes"><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #f0f0f0; BORDER-LEFT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0cm; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; PADDING-LEFT: 0cm; PADDING-RIGHT: 0cm; BORDER-TOP: #f0f0f0; BORDER-RIGHT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-TOP: 0cm" vAlign=top> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com

ffice

ffice" /><o

></o

>
<o

></o

>
Subject: Dhimmitude -- What does it mean?<o

></o

>
Dhimmitude -- What does it mean? <o

></o

>
Obama used it in the health care bill. <o

></o

>
<o

></o

>
Now isn't this interesting? It was used in the health care law. <o

></o

>
Every day there's another revelation of what Obama and his fellow Democrats are doing to our country. <o

></o

>
<o

></o

>
Dhimmitude -- I had never heard the word until now. Type it into Google and start reading. Pretty interesting. It's on page 107 of the <o

></o

>
healthcare bill. I looked this up on Google and yep, it exists. It is a REAL word.<o

></o

>
<o

></o

>
Amish , scientologists, christian scientists and Muslims are exempt ...ARE EXEMPT ...from the requirements of the health care bill. I think I could become Amish a whole lot easier than muslim. <o

></o

>
Word of the Day: Dhimmitude <o

></o

>
Dhimmitude is the Muslim system of controlling non-muslim populations conquered through jihad. Specifically, it is the TAXING of non-muslims in exchange for tolerating their presence AND as a coercive means of converting conquered remnants to Islam. <o

></o

>
Obama Care allows the establishment of Dhimmitude and Sharia Muslim diktat in the United States. Muslims are specifically exempted from the government mandate to purchase insurance, and also from the penalty tax for being uninsured. Islam considers insurance to be "gambling", "risk-taking", and "usury" and is thus banned. Muslims are specifically granted exemption based on this.<o

></o

>
How convenient. So I, as a Christian, will have crippling IRS liens placed against all of my assets, including real estate, cattle, and even accounts receivables, and will face hard prison time because I refuse to buy insurance or pay the penalty tax. Meanwhile, Louis Farrakhan will have no such penalty and will have 100% of his health needs paid for by the de facto government insurance. Non-muslims will be paying a tax to subsidize muslims. Period. This is Dhimmitude.

Dhimmitude serves two purposes: It enriches the muslim masters AND serves to drive conversions to Islam. In this case, the incentive to convert to Islam will be taken up by those in the inner-cities as well as the godless Generation X, Y, and Z types who have no moral anchor. If you don't believe in Christ to begin with, it is no problem whatsoever to sell Him for 30 pieces of silver. "Sure, I'll be a muslim if it means free health insurance and no taxes. Where do I sign, bro?"

I recommend sending this post to your contacts. This is desperately important and people need to know about it -- quickly!

To check it out on Snopes click here: Health Insurance Exemptions http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/exemptions.asp <o

></o

>
Dhimmitude<o></o>

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia<o

></o

>
Jump to: navigation, search <o

></o

>
This article is about a neologism. For the Islamic legal concept, see Dhimmi.<o

></o

>
<TABLE style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #aaaaaa 1pt solid; BORDER-LEFT: #aaaaaa 1pt solid; MARGIN: auto auto auto 12pt; WIDTH: 100%; BACKGROUND: #fdfdfd; BORDER-TOP: #aaaaaa 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: #aaaaaa 1pt solid; mso-cellspacing: 2.2pt; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm" class=MsoNormalTable border=1 cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR style="mso-yfti-irow: 0; mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes"><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #aaaaaa; BORDER-LEFT: #aaaaaa; PADDING-BOTTOM: 6pt; PADDING-LEFT: 0cm; PADDING-RIGHT: 0cm; BACKGROUND: thistle; BORDER-TOP: #aaaaaa; BORDER-RIGHT: #aaaaaa; PADDING-TOP: 6pt">

Part of a series of articles on<o

></o

>

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Discrimination<o

></o

>

</TD></TR><TR style="mso-yfti-irow: 1"><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #f0f0f0; BORDER-LEFT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.6pt; PADDING-LEFT: 12pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 12pt; BACKGROUND: thistle; BORDER-TOP: #f0f0f0; BORDER-RIGHT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-TOP: 0.6pt">

General forms<o

></o

>

</TD></TR><TR style="mso-yfti-irow: 2"><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #f0f0f0; BORDER-LEFT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.6pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; PADDING-LEFT: 0.6pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 0.6pt; BORDER-TOP: #f0f0f0; BORDER-RIGHT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-TOP: 0.6pt">

[show]General<o

></o

>

</TD></TR><TR style="mso-yfti-irow: 1; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes"><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #f0f0f0; BORDER-LEFT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; PADDING-LEFT: 0.75pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 0.75pt; BORDER-TOP: #f0f0f0; BORDER-RIGHT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-TOP: 0.75pt">Ageism · Caste · Classism
Colorism · Genism · Heightism
Linguicism · Lookism · Mentalism
Racism · Rankism · Religionism
Sexism · Sexualism
Speciesism · Weightism<o

></o

>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

</TD></TR><TR style="mso-yfti-irow: 3"><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #f0f0f0; BORDER-LEFT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.6pt; PADDING-LEFT: 12pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 12pt; BACKGROUND: thistle; BORDER-TOP: #f0f0f0; BORDER-RIGHT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-TOP: 0.6pt">

Specific forms<o

></o

>

</TD></TR><TR style="mso-yfti-irow: 4"><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #f0f0f0; BORDER-LEFT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.6pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; PADDING-LEFT: 0.6pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 0.6pt; BORDER-TOP: #f0f0f0; BORDER-RIGHT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-TOP: 0.6pt">

[show]Social<o

></o

>

</TD></TR><TR style="mso-yfti-irow: 1; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes"><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #f0f0f0; BORDER-LEFT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; PADDING-LEFT: 0.75pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 0.75pt; BORDER-TOP: #f0f0f0; BORDER-RIGHT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-TOP: 0.75pt">AIDS Stigma · Ableism
Adultism
Anti-albinism · Anti-fat bias
Anti-homelessness
Anti-intellectualism · Antisemitism
Audism · Biphobia
Cronyism · Elitism (academic)
Ephebiphobia · Gerontophobia
Heteronormativity · Heterophobia
Heterosexism · Homophobia
Leprosy stigma
Misandry · Misogyny
Nepotism · Pedophobia
Reverse discrimination · Sectarianism · Transphobia<o

></o

>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<o

></o

>

[show]Manifestations<o

></o

>

</TD></TR><TR style="mso-yfti-irow: 1; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes"><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #f0f0f0; BORDER-LEFT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; PADDING-LEFT: 0.75pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 0.75pt; BORDER-TOP: #f0f0f0; BORDER-RIGHT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-TOP: 0.75pt">Affrimative action · Blood libel
Disability hate crime
Economic · Eliminationism · Ethnic cleansing
Ethnic joke · Ethnocide · Employment
Forced conversion · Freak show
Gay bashing · Gendercide
Genocide (examples)
Hate crime · Hate speech
Homeless dumping · Housing · LGBT Hate Crime
Mortgage · Pogrom
Occupational segregation · Race war
Religious persecution
Trans-bashing · Witch hunt<o

></o

>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<o

></o

>

[show]Policies<o

></o

>

</TD></TR><TR style="mso-yfti-irow: 1; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes"><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #f0f0f0; BORDER-LEFT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; PADDING-LEFT: 0.75pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 0.75pt; BORDER-TOP: #f0f0f0; BORDER-RIGHT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-TOP: 0.75pt">Discriminatory
Age/Racial/Religious/Sex segregation
Age of Consent · Age of Majority
Age of Candidacy · Legal drinking age
Marriageable age · Voting age
Blood quantum · Apartheid
Ethnocracy · Cleanliness of blood
Jim Crow laws · Internment
Racial quota · Redlining
Ghetto benches · Jewish quota
Numerus clausus · Nuremberg Laws
Gender Apartheid · Gender roles
Gerontocracy
MSM blood donor controversy
Sodomy law · Ugly Law<o

></o

>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<o

></o

>

[show]Other forms<o

></o

>

</TD></TR><TR style="mso-yfti-irow: 1; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes"><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #f0f0f0; BORDER-LEFT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; PADDING-LEFT: 0.75pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 0.75pt; BORDER-TOP: #f0f0f0; BORDER-RIGHT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-TOP: 0.75pt">Genetic
Linguistic · Pregnancy
Supremacism<o

></o

>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<o

></o

>

[show]Related topics<o

></o

>

</TD></TR><TR style="mso-yfti-irow: 1; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes"><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #f0f0f0; BORDER-LEFT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; PADDING-LEFT: 0.75pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 0.75pt; BORDER-TOP: #f0f0f0; BORDER-RIGHT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-TOP: 0.75pt">Assimilation
Bigotry
Eugenics · Oppression
Prejudice
Religious intolerance
Stereotypes
Xenophobia
Template: Anti-Cultural sentiment
Template: Religious persecution<o

></o

>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

</TD></TR><TR style="mso-yfti-irow: 5; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes"><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #f0f0f0; BORDER-LEFT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.6pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; PADDING-LEFT: 0.6pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 0.6pt; BORDER-TOP: #f0f0f0; BORDER-RIGHT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-TOP: 0.6pt">

<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" /><v:shapetype id=_x0000_t75 stroked="f" filled="f" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" o

referrelative="t" o:spt="75" coordsize="21600,21600"><v:stroke joinstyle="miter"></v:stroke><v:formulas><v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"></v:f></v:formulas><v

ath o:connecttype="rect" gradientshapeok="t" o:extrusionok="f"></v

ath><o:lock aspectratio="t" v:ext="edit"></o:lock></v:shapetype><v:shape style="WIDTH: 13.5pt; HEIGHT: 20.25pt" id=ecxPicture_x0020_2 alt="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/ff/Disclogo1.svg/18px-Disclogo1.svg.png" type="#_x0000_t75" o:spid="_x0000_i1025"><v:imagedata o:href="cid:FA8EAB0305814508BBB4EC14185D2FBA@ROWPC" src="file:///C:\Users\ADMINI~1\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.png"></v:imagedata></v:shape><o

></o

>

</TD><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #f0f0f0; BORDER-LEFT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0cm; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; PADDING-LEFT: 2.4pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 2.4pt; BORDER-TOP: #f0f0f0; BORDER-RIGHT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-TOP: 0cm">Discrimination portal<o

></o

>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

This box: view · talk · edit<o

></o

>

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Dhimmitude is a neologism first found in French denoting an attitude of concession, surrender and appeasement towards Islamic demands. It is derived by adding the productive suffix -tude to the Arabic language adjective dhimmi, which literally means protected and refers to a non-Muslim subject of a sharia law state.<o

></o

>
Dhimmitude has several distinct, but related meanings depending on the author; its scope may be historical only, contemporary only, or both. It may encompass the whole system of dhimma, look only at its subjects (dhimmis), or even apply <o

></o

>

Gravy · Jan 27, 2011

Not true Pete -

Dhimmitude” and the Muslim Exemption
May 20, 2010

<SCRIPT type=text/javascript src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/250/addthis_widget.js?pub=xa-4a95703e019aeec6"></SCRIPT>


Q: Will Muslim Americans be exempt from the mandate to have health insurance?
A: The Muslim faith does not forbid purchasing health insurance, and no Muslim group has ever been considered exempt under the definitions used in the health care law.

FULL QUESTION
Are Muslims exempted from the new health care law? Is any of the following chain e-mail true?

Word of the Day: Dhimmitude
Dhimmitude is the Muslim system of controlling non-muslim populations conquered through jihad. Specifically, it is the TAXING of non-muslims in exchange for tolerating their presence AND as a coercive means of converting conquered remnants to islam.
The ObamaCare bill is the establishment of Dhimmitude and Sharia muslim diktat in the United States . Muslims are specifically exempted from the government mandate to purchase insurance, and also from the penalty tax for being uninsured. Islam considers insurance to be "gambling", "risk-taking" and "usury" and is thus banned. Muslims are specifically granted exemption based on this.

⬐ Click to expand/collapse the full text ⬏ <SCRIPT language=JavaScript type=text/javascript>expand(document.getElementById('eet1840156160'));expand(document.getElementById('eetlink1840156160'))</SCRIPT>How convenient. So I John Smith, as a Christian, will have crippling IRS liens placed against all of my assets, including real estate, cattle, and even accounts receivables, and will face hard prison time because I refuse to buy insurance or pay the penalty tax. Meanwhile, Louis Farrakhan will have no such penalty and will have 100% of his health needs paid for by the de facto government insurance. Non-muslims will be paying a tax to subsidize muslims. Period. This is Dhimmitude.
Dhimmitude serves two purposes: it enriches the muslim masters AND serves to drive conversions to islam. In this case, the incentive to convert to islam will be taken up by those in the inner-cities as well as the godless Generation X, Y and Z types who have no moral anchor. If you don’t believe in Christ to begin with, it is no problem whatsoever to sell Him for 30 pieces of silver. "Sure, I’ll be a muslim if it means free health insurance and no taxes. Where do I sign, bro?"
I recommend sending this post to your contacts. This is desperately important and people need to know about it - quickly.

FULL ANSWER
In our article "More Malarkey About Health Care," we wrote that some religious groups may indeed be considered exempt from the requirement to have health insurance. The law defines exempt groups using the definition from 26 U.S. Code section 1402(g)(1), which describes the religious groups currently considered exempt from Social Security payroll taxes. Eligible sects must forbid any payout in the event of death, disability, old age or retirement, including Social Security and Medicare.
Since we posted our article, we’ve obtained a list through the Freedom of Information Act of all the groups that have successfully applied for exemptions from payroll taxes. (We have posted the Excel file here.) The overwhelming majority of them are explicitly Anabaptist — that is, Mennonite, Amish or Hutterite. Those that don’t specify their denomination are still explicitly Christian. Having gone through the list, we can say with certainty that no Muslim group, and indeed no non-Christian group, has ever qualified for an exemption under the statute used to define exempt religious groups in the health care law.
Nor are they likely to want to, says Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which opposes discrimination and defamation against Muslims. "I’ve never even heard it brought up as an issue," Hooper told us. "I have health insurance. We give health insurance to our employees. Every Muslim group I know of does the same thing." Hooper told us that he has seen some Muslims raise religious objections to life insurance, but not health insurance, and that, in fact, providing health coverage is very much in line with Islamic ideals of social justice.
As for "dhimmitude," it’s a politically charged academic concept, not a tenet of Muslim faith. The term was coined by scholar Bat Ye’or to describe the condition of the "dhimmis," protected non-Muslims living in Muslim empires starting in the 7th century. Dhimmi populations, Ye’or says, were allowed by their lands’ Muslim conquerors to keep property and practice their faith, as long as they paid a poll tax. It is Ye’or’s assertion that the condition of dhimmitude still persists in countries under shari’a law, and that, furthermore, it is spreading worldwide. In particular, she says, Europeans are accepting a state of dhimmitude and moving toward becoming "Eurabia." This position is controversial, and Ye’or is not secretive about her political commitments. For instance, she is a vocal supporter of Geert Wilders, the Dutch politician who was once banned from the United Kingdom because of his inflammatory anti-Islam views. For the e-mail to present "dhimmitude" as an established Muslim value rather than a scholarly concept from an author with open political commitments is misleading.

Or try this:-

Fact Check: Insurance law does not exempt Muslims

FACT: Person can apply for exemption if he is a religious sect member.

Posted: May 15, 2010 - 11:40pm

<IFRAME style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; WIDTH: 310px; HEIGHT: 287px; OVERFLOW: hidden; BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none" src="http://www.facebook.com/plugins/likebox.php?href=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FFLTimesUnion&width=310&colorscheme=light&connections=10&stream=false&header=true&height=287" frameBorder=0 allowTransparency scrolling=no></IFRAME>

By Carole Fader
Many Times-Union readers want to know:
A forwarded e-mail starts off with "Word of the Day: Dhimmitude, the Muslim system of controlling non-Muslim populations conquered through jihad." The e-mail goes on to say that ObamaCare is the establishment of Dhimmitude in the U.S. and that Muslims are "specifically exempted from the government mandate to buy insurance and from the penalty tax for being uninsured." Is this true?
The definition of Dhimmitude is accurate, according to various Islamic sources, but the e-mail carries other claims a little too far - at least for now.
First, you can search the entire health care law - the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (go to thomas.loc.gov, click on H.R. 3590, text of legislation and select version 7) - but you won't find any mention of Muslim or Islam. That's because there is no specific mention of any religion in the law.
There is, however, an exemption section that allows an individual to apply for an exemption from the tax "if he is a member of a recognized religious sect or division thereof and is an adherent of established tenets or teachings of such sect or division by reason of which he is conscientiously opposed to acceptance of the benefits of any private or public insurance ... ."
MSNBC reported that the exemption originally was meant for Old Order Amish and Old Order Mennonites, who do not buy insurance because they believe God has directed them to take care of their own. The Amish traditionally have not participated in government-run programs such as Social Security (self-employed Amish are exempted from the tax and do not collect benefits) or Medicare.
But could the section of the act be used to grant Muslims an exemption?
The fact-finding groups FactCheck.org and Snopes.com point out that there has been no determination which religious groups' members might qualify for the exemption. The health care law itself uses as its exemption definition Title 26 U.S. Code section 1402(g)(1), which defines the religious groups considered exempt from Social Security payroll taxes. Eligible sects must have established tenets that forbid any "payment in the event of death, disability, old-age, or retirement or makes payments toward the cost of, or provides services for, medical care (including the benefits of any insurance system established by the Social Security Act)." The groups also must be approved by the Social Security commissioner.
FactCheck.org, however, says that it has yet to find any cases in which members of religious groups other than the Old Order Amish were successful in claiming the exemption. In fact, the federal government and the courts have been very strict on such exemptions in the past, even among some Amish, FactCheck.org notes.
For instance, the Supreme Court found in 1982 that a member of the Old Order Amish claiming an exemption was subject to payroll tax for his employees because 1402 (g) applies only to the self-employed. And in two cases where self-employed individuals claimed a religious opposition to Social Security but weren't members of approved sects, they were also ordered to pay the tax, FactCheck.org reports.
The Christian Science Church, a religious group with restrictions on health care use, has stated publicly that members will be subject to the insurance requirement, according to FactCheck.org.
Islam does have a tradition of banning insurance products because they "involve an element of uncertainty, gambling and the charging of interest, which are prohibited by the Koran," according to a Times of London article quoted by Snopes.com. But Muslims don't have a history of spurning Social Security, which they consider a form of caring for those unable to meet their own needs than as something that involves gambling or uncertainty, Snopes.com reports.
So while it is possible that a Muslim could be exempted from purchasing insurance, we'll have to wait to see what develops in the exemption arena before that part of the law takes effect in 2014.

Read more at Jacksonville.com: Fact Check: Insurance law does not exempt Muslims | jacksonville.com

JeffYoung · Jan 27, 2011

Pete, get a grip and read the whole Snopes entry.

Amazing what smart people fall for.

Ron Earp · Jan 27, 2011

Damn, they left out Pastafarians. What gives?:shrug:

Jim Craik · Jan 27, 2011

Analysis: This text contains an astounding array of inaccuracies and exaggerations. Let's start with the main proposition:

Are Muslims "specifically exempted from the government mandate to purchase insurance, and also from the penalty tax for being uninsured," as claimed in the message? No. There is no provision specifically exempting Muslims from mandated health insurance in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. Neither the word "Muslim" nor the word "Islam" appears anywhere in the bill (nor, for those who keep asking, does the word "Dhimmitude").

Pete, It aint so!

Here is a hint, when you see the word "Obamacare" rest assured that the writer has an agenda, and the truth may not be well represented.

Neither the word "Muslim" nor the word "Islam" appears anywhere in the bill (nor, for those who keep asking, does the word "Dhimmitude" or the word "Obamacare".

THANKS FOR ADDING TO THE MISS-INFORMATION AND HATE! We just don't get enough of that around here.

Big-Foot · Jan 27, 2011

Ron Earp said:
Damn, they left out Pastafarians. What gives?:shrug:

And the Frisbeeterians!!!! :lipsrsealed:

JeffYoung · Jan 27, 2011

Hey, you prove you qualify as a religion under the tax code and you Pastafarians/Frisbeetarians are good to go!

I've actually done that once. You guys need a lawyer? Got some band of folks up in themountains qualified as a 501(c)(3). Can't remember what they worshipped....

Jim Craik · Jan 27, 2011

Here is a another great example of how Convervatives just make stuff up to further their cause.

(From CITYPAGES)

Michele Bachmann likes to lecture Americans about how they're just not as smart as she is when it comes to understanding the importance of the Founding Fathers and their principles.
But speaking to a group of anti-taxers in Iowa, she got her history wrong.
In extolling the notion that "all men are created equal," she said of immigrants that, "It didn't matter the color of their skin, it didn't matter their language, it didn't matter their economic status. Once you got here, we were all the same. Isn't that remarkable?"
But the white, male founders didn't consider African slaves fully human. Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and many more of the founding fathers actually owned slaves.
"We also know that the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States," Bachmann said.

She forgot the Civil War!

What a load of crap! She obviously knows nothing about history or the "Founding Fathers"

I know she did not read this or find it in a history book, she just made it up.

Are you fellow concervatives OK with these lies! Anything to further the cause, anything to make Obama look bad?

Does she think her audiance is that dumb?

Ron Earp · Jan 27, 2011

JeffYoung said:
I've actually done that once. You guys need a lawyer? Got some band of folks up in themountains qualified as a 501(c)(3). Can't remember what they worshipped....

Is it really that hard? It shouldn't be. As far as the law stands the "All-knowing-all-powerful-invisible-inactive man in the sky" isn't much different from the "Flying Spaghetti Monster that wants you to drink beer and dress like a pirate" is it?

Jim Craik · Jan 27, 2011

"Flying Spaghetti Monster that wants you to drink beer and dress like a pirate" 

Ron, I have one of those, he lives in my attic.

Howard Jones · Jan 27, 2011

Let it now be reveiled to all who stand in wonder!!!!!!! I AM the BEER DRINKING SPAGHETTI MONSTER.

My moms Italian and I drink lots of beer. Therefor I declare myself GOD of the BDSM's and herefor reject Obamacare as an afront to my(our) believes. Long live the everlasting ice and free running tap. I promise to all who worship me and my keg that so long as the beer flows so does our faith in God! That would be me, and please send your contributions (coors light silver bulets 30 packs) to my compound as soon as possible. Me bless you and all the thirsty heathens who remain to be converted.

Yata yata yata...............could someone send some chips too....maybe a little salza..... the 24 hours of Daytona is comming up and that would be our annual super duper totally rad day of worship.

blaa blaa blaa..... me bless you!

Veek · Jan 27, 2011

Actually, if you want the Pastafarians/Frisbeetarians to be exempt from the health care law you need to heavily contribute to the Democrat party like the SEIU and the other exempted unions. I think they've given about 730 exemptions so far (and climbing).

Jim, you're right about the Civil War, it happened, as did the Emancipation Proclamation - thank you, Republican president Abe Lincoln - as were the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments - thank you, Republican Party. You also seem to forget the Civil Rights Act - passed by Republicans over strenuous Democrat opposition - would never have been passed as the law of the land if it was up to the Democrats in congress.

By the way, a little point in history. The Constitution actually says “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”

Note how the original Constitution referred to slaves: not as “three-fifths” of a person, but as “other Persons,” period. Slaves, according to the original Constitution, were full-fledged persons. The (Northern) majority in congress AND ABOLITINISTS wanted to limit the southern representation in congress by undercounting the slaves for purposes of apportionment. That way there would not be a southern majority in congress to thwart abolition initiatives. So the 3/5 rule was actually ANTI-Slavery. The southerners bought off on the compromise to get lower taxes.

Jim Craik · Jan 27, 2011

Veek,

The Civil Rights Act was started by Kennedy and signed by Johnson

The bill was supported by a majority of Democrates and Republicans. A large group of souther Democrats held a filibuster to try and kill the bill but Johnson worked out a compromise that allowed its passage. To say that this was a Republican bill and not mentioning Kennedy and Johnson is disengenuious.

It should be noted that just as "Republicans" in Lincolns time, southern "Democrates" in Kennedys time really have no bearing on todays party make-up.

Veek,

What do you make of the original post?
What do you think of Bachmanns history lesson?

JeffYoung · Jan 27, 2011

It is actually. The problem is that many "fringe" religions start to look like businesses to the IRS, who wants to tax them (and deny them 501(c)(3) non-profit tax free status).

The IRS has gone after a lot of religions, includinge Scientologists. Lost that one, not sure how honestly based on what little I know of their pyramid "auditing" scheme. In Germany for example, I'm pretty sure they are treated like a business and are not considered a religition.

Like a lot of things in the US though, if you are white, middle aged, and put the word "Jesus" somewhere in your documents, you are likely to be viewed as a religion even if you are making a bazillion dollars selling shit (prosperity theology! God wants those who have a personal relationship with Jeebus to be rich!).

On the other hand, if you are a different color, or like to wear robes and chant eastern sayings, or require psychedelics to talk to God, or if you worship a mass of pasta with eyes and think pirates and global warming have something to do with each other, the IRS will probably try to nail your ass.

Ron Earp said:
Is it really that hard? It shouldn't be. As far as the law stands the "All-knowing-all-powerful-invisible-inactive man in the sky" isn't much different from the "Flying Spaghetti Monster that wants you to drink beer and dress like a pirate" is it?

Pete · Jan 27, 2011

JeffYoung said:
Pete, get a grip and read the whole Snopes entry.

Amazing what smart people fall for.

Didn't fall for it Jeff, hence the header, tell me it aint so.

Veek · Jan 27, 2011

Jim Craik said:
Veek,

The Civil Rights Act was started by Kennedy and signed by Johnson

The bill was supported by a majority of Democrates and Republicans. A large group of souther Democrats held a filibuster to try and kill the bill but Johnson worked out a compromise that allowed its passage. To say that this was a Republican bill and not mentioning Kennedy and Johnson is disengenuious.

It should be noted that just as "Republicans" in Lincolns time, southern "Democrates" in Kennedys time really have no bearing on todays party make-up.

Veek,

What do you make of the original post?
What do you think of Bachmanns history lesson?

Actually Jim,

I don't agree that things "have no bearing on todays party make-up" congress is very much related to the politics of the '60s.

Just to set the record straight, after 54 days of filibuster, Senators Everett Dirksen (R-IL), Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), Hubert Humphrey (D-MN), and Mike Mansfield (D-MT) introduced a substitute bill that they hoped would attract enough Republican swing votes to end the filibuster. The compromise bill was weaker than the House version in regard to government power to regulate the conduct of private business, but it was not so weak as to cause the House to reconsider the legislation (sound familiar?).
The "Southern Bloc" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and one Republican Senator led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage. Said Russell: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states." On the morning of June 10, 1964, the late Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) completed a filibustering address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier opposing the legislation. Until then, the measure had occupied the Senate for 57 working days, including six Saturdays.
A day earlier, Democratic Whip Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, the bill's manager, concluded he had the 67 votes required at that time to end the debate and end the filibuster. With six wavering senators providing a four-vote victory margin, the final tally stood at 71 to 29. Never in history had the Senate been able to muster enough votes to cut off a filibuster on a civil rights bill. And only once in the 37 years since 1927 had it agreed to cloture for any measure.
To me, the heros are Dirksen, Humphrey, Kuchel and Mansfield. They stood their very unpopular (at the time) ground and fortunately changed history.

President Johnson (the one that sent our troops to Vietnam) then signed it into law.
I think a lot of what President Kennedy wanted to do, Johnson-not so much.

While I'm pretty conservative, I think Michelle Bachmann is an idiot. So I don't pay much attention to her.

Dalton · Jan 27, 2011

To avoid thread drift, perhaps we should start another one for Howard, who has now outed himself as the evil, beer drinking, spaghetti eating monster. Repent and save your soul, brother.

Jim Craik · Jan 27, 2011

Veek,

Thanks, it look like it was just as hard to get stuff done back then. I really think a filibuster should require talking just like the old days.

Anyway, thanks for the answers.

JeffYoung · Jan 27, 2011

Let's try setting the record straight-straight.

First, to compare the Democractic and Republican parties of the 50s and 60s to those of today is impossible.

In the 50s/60s/70s:

Democrats: Party of the poor in the midwest and the South.

Republicans: Party of moneyed banking interests in the Northeast and far West, plus AFrican-Americans (who voted for the party of Lincoln).

It's stunning to look at electoral maps up until the Reagan revolution. Complete reverse of today. South then: Democrat. Now: Republican. Northeast and Far West then: Republican. Now: Democrat.

What happened? The Republican's "Southern Strategy." They realized that the poor/middle class and in some cases racist folks in the south were becoming less and less able to identify themselves with either the moderate wing of the Republican party or the liberal side of the Democractic party that was increasingly gaining power. So, the Republicans seized on this to essentially convert the average southern white male from staunchly Democrat to staunchly Republican in less than 20 years.

So, all of those Southern democrats you point out as being opposed to the Civil RIghts Act would undoubtedly be Republicans now. Jesse Helms? Racist, segregationest Democrat turned Republican. Strom Thurmond? Same. And many, many others.

You've also got Lyndon Johnson wrong. Totally conflicted, very interesting character. Totally corrupt Southern Democrat from Texas who had some sort of transmorgification in office into quite possibly the most liberal President of the post-war era. Totally behind Civil Rights (although he would use the n-word frequently -- typical Johnston contradiction). War on Poverty. The Great Society. Medicare. The biggest expansion of the social safety net since the New Deal.

You do have some reading on history to do, and then we can talk more.

Veek said:
Actually Jim,

I don't agree that things "have no bearing on todays party make-up" congress is very much related to the politics of the '60s.

Just to set the record straight, after 54 days of filibuster, Senators Everett Dirksen (R-IL), Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), Hubert Humphrey (D-MN), and Mike Mansfield (D-MT) introduced a substitute bill that they hoped would attract enough Republican swing votes to end the filibuster. The compromise bill was weaker than the House version in regard to government power to regulate the conduct of private business, but it was not so weak as to cause the House to reconsider the legislation (sound familiar?).
The "Southern Bloc" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and one Republican Senator led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage. Said Russell: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states." On the morning of June 10, 1964, the late Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) completed a filibustering address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier opposing the legislation. Until then, the measure had occupied the Senate for 57 working days, including six Saturdays.
A day earlier, Democratic Whip Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, the bill's manager, concluded he had the 67 votes required at that time to end the debate and end the filibuster. With six wavering senators providing a four-vote victory margin, the final tally stood at 71 to 29. Never in history had the Senate been able to muster enough votes to cut off a filibuster on a civil rights bill. And only once in the 37 years since 1927 had it agreed to cloture for any measure.
To me, the heros are Dirksen, Humphrey, Kuchel and Mansfield. They stood their very unpopular (at the time) ground and fortunately changed history.

President Johnson (the one that sent our troops to Vietnam) then signed it into law.
I think a lot of what President Kennedy wanted to do, Johnson-not so much.

While I'm pretty conservative, I think Michelle Bachmann is an idiot. So I don't pay much attention to her.

Jim Craik · Jan 27, 2011

Lyndon Johnson,

What an incredibly complicated being. He came so close to being the greatest ever, and might well have been with out Viet Nam. So close yet so far. I think he as a person and we as a nation just missed a golden opertunity. So very sad.

So many wasted lives, so many wasted dreams.

Tell me it aint so!

Pete McCluskey.

Graham

Jeff Young

Ron Earp

Jim Craik

Randy V

Moderator-Admin

Jeff Young

Jim Craik

Ron Earp

Jim Craik

Howard Jones

Pat

Jim Craik

Jeff Young

Pete McCluskey.

Pat

Dalton Veitch

Jim Craik

Jeff Young

Jim Craik

Similar threads