He doesn't gloss over any steps in his description. I glossed over steps because I am working and don't have time (or memory) to type them all out. Again, as I suggested in my previous post, you should reserve your judgement until I find an example for you to listen to his opinion directly from him. Otherwise, the above happens, and we waste our time.
Step 1: Women want to be allowed to be educated, own property, have legal standing, etc. Step 2: Women want to vote Step 3: ??? Step 4:
I would consider most media members/political commentators/whatever to be content creators at this point. There is no way anyone who is receiving money for this cares about XYM Potato Head. But they get more impressions from pretending they do than from posting anything remotely ingenuous. Make Potato [Richards] Again!
It's neither, it's more akin to you going to a stranger and pushing them to do something. Regardless of whether they end up enjoying it or not, you pushing a stranger to do something after they say no, a lot, is not correct behavior.
I'm still looking for a clip of the piece I remember, which laid out the steps I mentioned in my post (not 100% sure I'll be able to find it), but this snippet from one of his episodes outlines how he thinks we get to the end step, which is the shutting down of churches and religious schools. It's a pretty short clip, so I recommend just listening to the entire thing for context (you could even find the entire episode, if you wanted). But if you want to cut it down further, the meat of the point can be found from the 1:10 mark to the 6:15 mark.
I think it is just more fearmonguering and slipperyslope arguments. His Bob Jones University reference is from 1976 after 6 years of warning, court cases and an 8-0 SCOTUS ruling due to a 1970 changing of the IRS code. And the SCOTUS ruling specifically said that this was for private schools only, and would not and could not have any bearing on churches. Beto O'Rourke lost his bid for the nomination AND his seat in the House. It is alarmist gobbledygook, imho. Same kind of crap that the gun lobby spouts.
Okay. What purpose does this post serve? If he's wrong that much, it shouldn't be difficult for you to point out 5-10 examples, or at least 2-3 that are specific to the discussion at hand. Let's talk about it.
You can call it fearmongering or "gobbledygook" all you want, but your justification for calling it that, so far, is pretty poor. I'm not sure what "6 years of warning" has to do with anything. You're claiming the SCOTUS ruling specifically said that it was for private schools only... Shapiro says that religious schools, specifically, will be a main target. O'Rourke is still a prominent political figure. I don't know if anything ever came of it, but at one point there was definitely talk of him being involved with the Biden administration in some capacity. And you heard the cheering (I believe it's included in that clip) that took place after he said what he said about removing tax exempt status from religious institutions. You can't shrug this off as him just saying something crazy that no one is on board with. It is gaining steam over time. How do you explain away the actions already being taken against the businesses he references? Also, just a quick note - I've been sifting through a lot of different clips to find what I'm looking for, so if I mention something in my post that wasn't actually in the clip, feel free to let me know.
I think Norris covered it. You won't accept the factual points he made. In regards to your next post, removing tax exempt status from religious institutions has nothing to do with shutting them down. It is not enshrined in the constitution that they do not pay tax, unless free speech entities and the press should also be tax exempt. Just another bullshit blurring of issues from him.
I've already responded to the points that he made. They were pretty weak, to be honest. What you are saying would make sense if removing tax exempt status was the last step. From the clip (did you listen to it?): It's not just about removing the tax exempt status from these institutions. It's about how you can treat the institutions upon removing that status from them. If he's wrong on this point, I'm all ears, but I haven't heard an argument against it from any of the 3 people who have posted in this thread since I posted the video, despite all 3 of you clearly "disagreeing" with him.
It's a book for children. The point of the book is to push kids to be open to trying new things. "You may not like that broccoli that your parents are trying to give you, but you should try it because you may end up liking it." That the character is pushing a "stranger" to do something is a distinction that a child young enough to be interested in the book would not be developed enough to recognize, let alone care about. The book accomplishes what it is intending to accomplish.
The first amendment is not contingent on tax exempt status. Spare me with the bullshit about not having heard an argument. You just won't accept one.
"I declare your argument invalid, therefore you have yet to make one" is such Shapiro nonsense, you really do sound like him.
You think that a child isn't old enough to understand the concept of stranger, but that they are old enough to understand the much harder concept of allegory? That... that's what you believe? That's your argument? Jesssseeesuss.
The kid doesn't have to grasp the concept of allegory alone if they have a parent sitting there with them, reading the book to them and outlining the connections for them. But you know this. You're twisting my words on the stranger piece. I didn't say the child isn't old enough to understand the concept of stranger. The book doesn't even state, directly, that the second person is a "stranger." In fact, the second person states within the first few pages of the book that he doesn't like the other dude (Sam), which suggests that he already knows Sam or has at least had past interactions with him.
Can you expand on this and how it disproves what Shapiro is saying about how losing tax exempt status would turn these institutions into LLC's and subject them to non-discrimination policies that could eventually shut them down? Break it down for me like I'm the idiot you claim I am.
You came in and basically said "What Norris said." Norris pointed out a number of things, and I'm not sure which one of them you think is such a good counterargument. I'll list them again so you can show me how stupid I am. 1. 6 years warning - no idea what this has to do with anything. 2. SCOTUS ruling about schools vs. churches - Shapiro calls out both in his points. 3. O'Rourke losing his bid for the presidency and his seat in the house - I assume he says this to point out that O'Rourke's view isn't representative of the party. The cheering after he said it suggests that he's not alone in his beliefs. That he was a candidate for President suggests some form of a substantial following. Which of these points disproves what Shapiro is saying? Explain it to me like I'm really stupid, please.
