Messianic Jews say they are persecute...

Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel

There are 71939 comments on the Newsday story from Jun 21, 2008, titled Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel. In it, Newsday reports that:

Safety pins and screws are still lodged in 15-year-old Ami Ortiz's body three months after he opened a booby-trapped gift basket sent to his family.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newsday.

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#52526 May 15, 2013
ON HUGH:

What really surprises me about HUGH is his constant sexual talk and fervent desire to see me lose my virginity by getting a female to sit on my face followed by intercourse et al.

His pet agenda is fanatical Christian propaganda but for a man of religion he's surprisingly obsessed with perverse sexual acts and can't hold himself from making constant references to sex.

Hugh exhibits not the least common sense nor decency.

His manner of sexual talk gives me the creeps and makes me cringe since they're explicit in a very abnormal way.

He comes across as a sexual pervert.

His vibes reek of sexual perversion.

Once, I could not hold myself from gagging after being assaulted by his vibes whose stench was so bad - the typical smell of a man who's heavily into sexual perversions.

It's evident he's deep into abnormal sexual acts with a string of partners mainly young guys.

I can only imagine what he'll do to me - since I'm physically very attractive - if he ever manages to corner me when I'm in a defenseless state.

Hugh covers his perversity with layers of artificial polite manners and sweet talk about God. Shame.
former res

Cheshire, CT

#52527 May 15, 2013
Voluntarist wrote:
<quoted text>
Case law states that the 16th amendment gave congress no new taxing authority.
So again, you're only good with case law when you agree with it.

Case laws says the income tax is ok.

What say you now?
former res

Cheshire, CT

#52528 May 15, 2013
Voluntarist wrote:
<quoted text>
You either agree with the system or not if you are going to enforce law you have to do so fully.
The 16th amendment was not properly ratified, as per the US constitution, that is not up for interpreting.
Above you wrote: "You either agree with the system or not..."

The Supreme Court said the 16th was ratified and that is now the law of the land.

Get with the program.
former res

Cheshire, CT

#52529 May 15, 2013
Story of a loser - William Benson:

Benson appealed that decision, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit also ruled against Benson. The Court of Appeals stated:

Benson knew or had reason to know that his statements were false or fraudulent. 26 U.S.C.[section] 6700(a)(2)(A). Benson's claim to have discovered that the Sixteenth Amendment was not ratified has been rejected by this Court in Benson's own criminal appeal.... Benson knows that his claim that he can rely on his book to prevent federal prosecution is equally false because his attempt to rely on his book in his own criminal case was ineffective.[21]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_Si...
former res

Cheshire, CT

#52530 May 15, 2013
Voluntarist wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not answering the question.
Is it subsidized
are the prices fixed?
How is it funded?
Payroll taxes paid by most employees, employers, and people who are self-employed
Other sources, like income taxes paid on Social Security benefits, interest earned on the trust fund investments, and Medicare Part A premiums from people who aren't eligible for premium-free Part A

http://www.medicare.gov/about-us/how-medicare...

Are you asking about payments to providers?

All insurance providers cap these payments.

So the answer is yes.

You would rather provide blank checks?
Voluntarist

United States

#52531 May 15, 2013
First, the judiciary. Ah, the judiciary. The
inferior Federal courts, I'm not saying that
to be derogatory, that's the constitutional
term, right? The inferior courts ... say that
the invalidity of the "16th Amendment"
raises a "political question" which is not
justiciable, but belongs exclusively to
Congress. Well, that's rather a highly
questionable, you know, or even question-
begging conclusion. As many as you
probably know, the term "political
question", or even any words or phrases
that intimate that kind of a doctrine, do not
appear in the Constitution. The doctrine of
political questions is another of those rather
imaginative patterns that the courts have
cut from whole cloth in order to avoid
being confronted with issues that they
would rather not hear.

http://www.constitution.org/col/vieiraspeech....
Voluntarist

United States

#52532 May 15, 2013
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
So again, you're only good with case law when you agree with it.
Case laws says the income tax is ok.
What say you now?
No what I am saying is that if you want to use case law the very first case determined that the 16th amendment gave congress no new taxing power.
Voluntarist

United States

#52533 May 15, 2013
former res wrote:
Story of a loser - William Benson:
Benson appealed that decision, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit also ruled against Benson. The Court of Appeals stated:
Benson knew or had reason to know that his statements were false or fraudulent. 26 U.S.C.[section] 6700(a)(2)(A). Benson's claim to have discovered that the Sixteenth Amendment was not ratified has been rejected by this Court in Benson's own criminal appeal.... Benson knows that his claim that he can rely on his book to prevent federal prosecution is equally false because his attempt to rely on his book in his own criminal case was ineffective.[21]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_Si...
See below

If you could include a finding of facts that would be better , thanks.
All you are including is opinions.
Voluntarist

United States

#52534 May 15, 2013
former res wrote:
Story of a loser - William Benson:
Benson appealed that decision, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit also ruled against Benson. The Court of Appeals stated:
Benson knew or had reason to know that his statements were false or fraudulent. 26 U.S.C.[section] 6700(a)(2)(A). Benson's claim to have discovered that the Sixteenth Amendment was not ratified has been rejected by this Court in Benson's own criminal appeal.... Benson knows that his claim that he can rely on his book to prevent federal prosecution is equally false because his attempt to rely on his book in his own criminal case was ineffective.[21]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_Si...
As I posted above, the court decided that it was a political question, so the court didn't have to address the merits.
Voluntarist

United States

#52535 May 15, 2013
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
Above you wrote: "You either agree with the system or not..."
The Supreme Court said the 16th was ratified and that is now the law of the land.
Get with the program.
Where did the supreme court and when did they make this determination?
Voluntarist

United States

#52536 May 15, 2013
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
How is it funded?
Payroll taxes paid by most employees, employers, and people who are self-employed
Other sources, like income taxes paid on Social Security benefits, interest earned on the trust fund investments, and Medicare Part A premiums from people who aren't eligible for premium-free Part A
http://www.medicare.gov/about-us/how-medicare...
Are you asking about payments to providers?
All insurance providers cap these payments.
So the answer is yes.
You would rather provide blank checks?
So it's a fixed rigged system and uses stolen money to fund it, you are proud?
Voluntarist

United States

#52537 May 15, 2013
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
How is it funded?
Payroll taxes paid by most employees, employers, and people who are self-employed
Other sources, like income taxes paid on Social Security benefits, interest earned on the trust fund investments, and Medicare Part A premiums from people who aren't eligible for premium-free Part A
http://www.medicare.gov/about-us/how-medicare...
Are you asking about payments to providers?
All insurance providers cap these payments.
So the answer is yes.
You would rather provide blank checks?
are their payouts higher or lower than conventional insurance companies?
Voluntarist

United States

#52538 May 15, 2013
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
Why? I dont see any harm done.
"...On the IRS mess, the day closed with the release of the inspector general’s report on the improper review of applications by Tea Party-related groups for tax-exempt “social welfare” status. The report blamed “inadequate management” for the review process, which began under Bush-appointed leadership, and it reads like everyone’s worst nightmare of incompetent government. But it finds no evidence that anyone higher than middle management was responsible for the review. Moreover, although it’s clear that groups with Tea Party or Patriot in their names came in for more scrutiny and delay than most liberal groups, more than two-thirds of the groups flagged for review had nothing to do with the Tea Party. And none of the conservatives were denied tax-exempt status, though many faced long delays. Ironically, the only group that saw its status denied (for 10 of its chapters) was Emerge America, which works to elect Democratic women to office..."
http://www.salon.com/2013/05/15/two_scandals_...
IRS approved liberal groups while Tea Party in limbo
WASHINGTON -- In February 2010, the Champaign Tea Party in Illinois
received approval of its tax-exempt status from the IRS in 90 days, no
questions asked.
That was the month before the Internal Revenue Service started
singling out Tea Party groups for special treatment. There wouldn't be
another Tea Party application approved for 27 months.
In that time, the IRS approved perhaps dozens of applications from
similar liberal and progressive groups, a USA TODAY review of IRS data
shows.
As applications from conservative groups sat in limbo, groups with
liberal-sounding names had their applications approved in as little as
nine months. With names including words like "Progress" or
"Progressive," the liberal groups applied for the same tax status and
were engaged in the same kinds of activities as the conservative
groups. They included:
• Bus for Progress, a New Jersey non-profit that uses a red, white and
blue bus to "drive the progressive change." According to its website, its
mission includes "support (for) progressive politicians with the
courage to serve the people's interests and make tough choices." It got
an IRS approval as a social welfare group in April 2011.
• Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment says it fights
against corporate welfare and for increasing the minimum wage. "It
would be fair to say we're on the progressive end of the spectrum,"
said executive director Jeff Ordower. He said the group got tax-exempt
status in September 2011 in just nine months after "a pretty simple,
straightforward process."
• Progress Florida, granted tax-exempt status in January 2011, is
lobbying the Florida Legislature to expand Medicaid under a provision
of the Affordable Care Act, one of President Obama's signature
accomplishments. The group did not return phone calls. "We're busy
fighting to build a more progressive Florida and cannot take your call
right now," the group's voice mail said.
Like the Tea Party groups, the liberal groups sought recognition as
social welfare groups under Section 501(c)(4) of the tax code, based
on activities like "citizen participation" or "voter education and
registration."

http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/2158831

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#52539 May 15, 2013
Voluntarist wrote:
<quoted text>
IRS approved liberal groups while Tea Party in limbo
WASHINGTON -- In February 2010, the Champaign Tea Party in Illinois
received approval of its tax-exempt status from the IRS in 90 days, no
questions asked.
That was the month before the Internal Revenue Service started
singling out Tea Party groups for special treatment. There wouldn't be
another Tea Party application approved for 27 months.
In that time, the IRS approved perhaps dozens of applications from
similar liberal and progressive groups, a USA TODAY review of IRS data
shows.
As applications from conservative groups sat in limbo, groups with
liberal-sounding names had their applications approved in as little as
nine months. With names including words like "Progress" or
"Progressive," the liberal groups applied for the same tax status and
were engaged in the same kinds of activities as the conservative
groups. They included:
• Bus for Progress, a New Jersey non-profit that uses a red, white and
blue bus to "drive the progressive change." According to its website, its
mission includes "support (for) progressive politicians with the
courage to serve the people's interests and make tough choices." It got
an IRS approval as a social welfare group in April 2011.
• Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment says it fights
against corporate welfare and for increasing the minimum wage. "It
would be fair to say we're on the progressive end of the spectrum,"
said executive director Jeff Ordower. He said the group got tax-exempt
status in September 2011 in just nine months after "a pretty simple,
straightforward process."
• Progress Florida, granted tax-exempt status in January 2011, is
lobbying the Florida Legislature to expand Medicaid under a provision
of the Affordable Care Act, one of President Obama's signature
accomplishments. The group did not return phone calls. "We're busy
fighting to build a more progressive Florida and cannot take your call
right now," the group's voice mail said.
Like the Tea Party groups, the liberal groups sought recognition as
social welfare groups under Section 501(c)(4) of the tax code, based
on activities like "citizen participation" or "voter education and
registration."
http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/2158831
"And none of the conservatives were denied tax-exempt status, though many faced long delays..."

Like I said, what was the harm? Did they have to pay their taxes in the interim? No.

Much ado about nothing.
Voluntarist

United States

#52540 May 15, 2013
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
"And none of the conservatives were denied tax-exempt status, though many faced long delays..."
Like I said, what was the harm? Did they have to pay their taxes in the interim? No.
Much ado about nothing.
Liberal groups got their recognition much faster.
former res

Cheshire, CT

#52541 May 15, 2013
Voluntarist wrote:
<quoted text>
No what I am saying is that if you want to use case law the very first case determined that the 16th amendment gave congress no new taxing power.
You don't get to pick and choose WHICH case law to follow.

Doesn't work that way.
former res

Cheshire, CT

#52542 May 15, 2013
Voluntarist wrote:
<quoted text>
So it's a fixed rigged system and uses stolen money to fund it, you are proud?
Yes, together with Soc Sec, lifted many seniors out of poverty and gave them healthcare. Two great programs -- big successes. Well worth paying for.
former res

Cheshire, CT

#52543 May 15, 2013
Voluntarist wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did the supreme court and when did they make this determination?
would that information convince you if I found it?

why bother?
former res

Cheshire, CT

#52544 May 15, 2013
Voluntarist wrote:
<quoted text>
are their payouts higher or lower than conventional insurance companies?
I bet you know.

Wonderful program.

It's a keeper.

In fact, Medicare for all is the way to go.
Voluntarist

United States

#52545 May 15, 2013
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't get to pick and choose WHICH case law to follow.
Doesn't work that way.
Sure let's start from the beginning, what facts do you rely on that the constitution and code are applicable to me?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 7 min Jacques Ottawa 191,947
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 8 min TSM 1,250,545
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 13 min TRD 70,136
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 18 min PEllen 99,878
Ask Amy 7-1-15 26 min PEllen 2
Dear Abby 7-1-15 28 min PEllen 1
News Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 34 min Luke 52,007
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages