Jump to content

Saskatoon looks to tie tax exemption status to your woke score


Recommended Posts

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

1. Yeah, that's false.  You overstate your case giving the impression that you have no case.
2. Neither of which are true... unless you have a cite from a real non-crazy source...
3. I said it was a conspiracy theory, which it is because of what you think it's doing.  

You can't back up what you say because there are no URLs pointed to your strange paranoid thoughts...

1. No it's not false. I personally know the guy who offered accounting services for the convoy. Had nothing to do with organizing or parking vehicles.. had his account shut down for a month. Banks also refused to open one under threat from the federal government... so you are clearly clueless

2. Both points are true. I gave you a link to Blackrock, a major investing firm. Once again denying reality and expecting to be taken serious. 

3. You claim its a conspiracy theory because you support the cause then weasel around by re wording it but never addressing the substance of it... 

Plain as day you are being either intentionally misleading or have no clue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

A professor spoke at a city government meeting...and you're losing iit and crying persecution... please lie down and do some deep breathing.

No, you are off base again.  This is an example of another attempt to remove the tax exemption of churches by anti- Christian atheists.  This is just another part of the heathen direction Canada has been heading for decades.  Haven't they already done something like this in Inuvik?  Churches are not a money-making or a for-profit business.  They depend on donations by people who have already paid taxes on their donations.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, blackbird said:

No, you are off base again.  This is an example of another attempt to remove the tax exemption of churches by anti- Christian atheists.  This is just another part of the heathen direction Canada has been heading for decades.  Haven't they already done something like this in Inuvik?  Churches are not a money-making or a for-profit business.  They depend on donations by people who have already paid taxes on their donations.

Yet he won't answer the question on why just churches? Why not Universities? 

Professors make students purchase a book they wrote as class material. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, West said:

I'm sure you'd love to join that one... ?

Ouch what a zinger ?

You didn't answer though.  If nobody is allowed decide who and what gets charitable status, then you'd support NAMBLA being a designated charity, right?  That's what your logic would dictate, so you must feel that way.  Please correct me if I'm wrong, but if that's the case then your earlier statement was pretty dumb.  Either way, you've demonstrated your foolishness once again.  ?‍♂️

Edited by Moonbox
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Ouch what a zinger ?

You didn't answer though.  If nobody is allowed decide who and what gets charitable status, then you'd support NAMBLA being a designated charity, right?  That's what your logic would dictate, so you must feel that way.  Please correct me if I'm wrong, but if that's the case then your earlier statement was pretty dumb.  Either way, you've demonstrated your foolishness once again.  ?‍♂️

You comparing NAMBLA to a religion that roughly 66% of Canadians adhere to?

We know what you are doing and it's not surprising. Resorting to such comparisons is disgusting but suspected from someone with no argument. 

And no I don't think the government should target a major religious group. That behavior is repugnant tho it sounds like you are on board with it. 

Edited by West
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, West said:

You comparing NAMBLA to a religion that roughly 66% of Canadians adhere to? 

Nope, I'm trying to show you why your logic sucks (as usual).  You said we can't selectively choose which charities get favorable tax treatment based on our political views.  The NAMBLA example was meant to show you the absurdity of that statement.  

66% of Canadians don't "adhere" to Christianity.  That number is outdated to start, then most of those who do say they're "Christian" either seldom or never pray or attend Church services.  That's why all the Churches are closing, though this point doesn't actually matter.  

Saying "We are a Christian organization" does not automatically qualify you as a charity for obvious reasons.  Just like you wouldn't want to give charitable status to NAMBLA, you'd similarly reject the status for Christian Church of Old Men Spending Time Alone with Young Boys.  

 

 

Edited by Moonbox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Nope, I'm trying to show you why your logic sucks (as usual).  You said we can't selectively choose which charities get favorable tax treatment based on our political views.  The NAMBLA example was meant to show you the absurdity of that statement.  

66% of Canadians don't "adhere" to Christianity.  That number is outdated to start, then most of those who do say they're "Christian" either seldom or never pray or attend Church services.  That's why all the Churches are closing, though this point doesn't actually matter.  

Saying "We are a Christian organization" does not automatically qualify you as a charity for obvious reasons.  Just like you wouldn't want to give charitable status to NAMBLA, you'd similarly reject the status for Christian Church of Old Men Spending Time Alone with Young Boys.  

 

 

You are using an extreme example when we are talking about ending tax status to a mainstream institution. So no your example isn't even close to what we are talking about just a sorry excuse to justify your warped world view.

In this case they are 100% trying to decide that churches should not get breaks based on their views... therefore the nonsense about NAMBLA is a sorry attempt to link the two together which is dishonest and disturbing 

Why you are bringing up child pornography and pedophilia when talking about religious institutions charitable status and the left wing trying to leverage that so that they comply with wokeism is very telling about how seriously I can take you. 

Edited by West
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, West said:

Why you are bringing up child pornography and pedophilia when talking about religious institutions charitable status and the left wing trying to leverage that so that they comply with wokeism is very telling about how seriously I can take you. 

That's exactly what I asked myself about you when I saw this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, West said:

Where did I do such a thing? 

Oh right, I forgot you never actually read past the headline or you'd know what I'm talking about now.  BTW who and where are the lefties in the story that you accused of calling out pedophiles?

It still hasn't dawned on you what a trap you've set for yourself here has it? What's really phenomenal is that some people actually have your back.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, West said:

1. No it's not false. I personally know the guy who offered accounting services for the convoy. Had nothing to do with organizing or parking vehicles.. had his account shut down for a month. Banks also refused to open one under threat from the federal government... so you are clearly clueless

2. Both points are true.  

3. You claim its a conspiracy theory because you support the cause  

1. So, in other words, an organizer.  The person who handles the books is an organizer.  You are clearly clueless. Parking vehicles ?  Not so important.
2. False.
3. There is no 'cause'.  It's just a free society functioning... You look for Communists everywhere, even in corporations.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. So, in other words, an organizer.  The person who handles the books is an organizer.  You are clearly clueless. Parking vehicles ?  Not so important.
2. False.
3. There is no 'cause'.  It's just a free society functioning... You look for Communists everywhere, even in corporations.

1. No not an organizer any more than convoy lawyers were organizers.

2. What's false and why is it false? 

3. It's plain as day. Nothing free about companies forcing medical procedures. Maybe next they'll force women to take the pill or men to have vasectomies

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/19/2022 at 8:43 AM, blackbird said:

This is just a group of lefty, progressives who hate God, churches, and Christians.

There's something in the story West posted that clearly identifies this group of lefty progressives?  Or is the association inferred more like the association the OP and his defenders have established between pedophiles and the right-wing?

BTW I think the association that you're implying exists between the right-wing and religion is spot on.  I just wish conservatism would plummet the way religious observance has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/20/2022 at 9:43 AM, West said:

1. No not an organizer any more than convoy lawyers were organizers.

2. What's false and why is it false? 

3. It's plain as day. Nothing free about companies forcing medical procedures. Maybe next they'll force women to take the pill or men to have vasectomies

1. Well by the time the lawyers were involved, they were already in jail and the parade was done so ... no.  
2. Someone who controls the finances is part of the organization, it's just a fact.
3. That's just a bad analogy.  

Your friend has poor judgement in the least for offering to run the finances for an illegal organization.  He/she will be lucky if they're not drummed out of their profession.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Well by the time the lawyers were involved, they were already in jail and the parade was done so ... no.  
2. Someone who controls the finances is part of the organization, it's just a fact.
3. That's just a bad analogy.  

Your friend has poor judgement in the least for offering to run the finances for an illegal organization.  He/she will be lucky if they're not drummed out of their profession.

1. Uh no. The lawyers were involved in negotiations since the day they got there. Requested a liason with the city which was denied and had to seek it out through Peckfords contacts. 

2. No sir not at all. I have sat on several non profit boards over the years and we always have  Accountants from a separate firm. Even still there was absolutely nothing illegal by setting up a non-profit board and he's face exactly zero criminal charges for his role of providing accounting services... just had the government freeze his accounts without any sort of due process or even legitimate rationale 

3. Not at all. Companies forced the pseudovax in no small part because sick time costs them money. Questionable government isolation requirements are why they chose the vaxx passes.. so they could just as easily for vasectomies or birth control so they don't have to pay out parental leave benefits

Edited by West
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, West said:

1. Uh no. The lawyers were involved in negotiations since the day they got there. Requested a liason with the city which was denied and had to seek it out through Peckfords contacts. 

2. No sir not at all. I have sat on several non profit boards over the years and we always have  Accountants from a separate firm. 

3. Not at all. Companies forced the pseudovax in no small part because sick time costs them money. Questionable government isolation requirements are why they chose the vaxx passes.. so they could just as easily for vasectomies or birth control so they don't have to pay out parental leave benefits

1. Ok, well good point then..  I don't see them as organizers and they don't charge mob lawyers (unless the lawyers break the law as Trump's do) but their accountants get in lots of trouble.
2. It's a lot looser when you're talking about a criminal enterprise like this.
3. Bad analogy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Ok, well good point then..  I don't see them as organizers and they don't charge mob lawyers (unless the lawyers break the law as Trump's do) but their accountants get in lots of trouble.
2. It's a lot looser when you're talking about a criminal enterprise like this.
3. Bad analogy.

Lol... criminal enterprise. You are a joke. 

He's been charged with exactly 0 crimes so nice try

 

And no not a bad analogy at all. Companies used to he able to fire people over having kids. Then we realized it's barbaric mich like the nonsensical vaccine passports.

Edited by West
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...