Lil' Red

I think this pretty much means the ban in its current form is dead. With the Supreme Court the way it is, I think the best Trump could hope for is a 4-4 ruling which leaves this ruling in place.

And McQuitty is 6'2.

I'm not sure he and Bannon wouldn't stage a false flag to try to seize more power. I'm well aware I'm in tin-foil territory here. I doubt they'd take that risk but I do think they might purposely make changes that make us more susceptible to terror attacks.

I disagree. The world became a much more dangerous place after January 20th.

I wonder why Bannon pulled this on him in the first place. I doubt he'd do this if he thought it would put him at risk of getting kicked to the curb.

Hahahahaha, I'd bet there are tons of good Sith jokes about the admin. Darth Bannon and his Apprentice Trump It's too bad Trump is not intelligent enough to be portrayed as Vader, otherwise a Palpatine/Vader relationship would be a pretty fitting comparison.

toughen up snowflakeI'm not the one who's being snowflaking for the past month about Trump sir......the guy I voted for won the election. Life is great Just curious, does it bother you how much Trump complains? He is literally the most thin-skinned person that I know of.

Link

To be fair, most of the tweets I see our mocking/criticizing the hashtag.

They started a program in 2013 to hire 10k veterans by 2018. They are currently ahead of schedule.

Link I don't like where this is headed. That last quote seems rather ominous.

Republic(an): Government with equality between its members. Democracy: Government by the majority vote. Ruling by way of majority vote, although it sounds nice, would imply that there is also a minority vote (its funny how they leave that part out of the dictionary)... Yet having a majority/minority vote implies a certain amount of inequality that I don't believe is Constitutional. Gay/lesbian rights, legalized pot, foreign policy/wars, and so on, should not be subject to a personal/emotional/special-interest's "majority/minority" vote it should be subject to the terms "Justice & Equality". In theory I would agree but I don't believe either party makes an effort to adhere to those philosophies.

In the absence of gerrymandering, yes.

Maybe she was referring to this

I'd like to know from our religious members: How is religious freedom "under threat?" Do you feel your religious freedoms are under threat? If so, how? I've heard that exact complaint from a former Priest of mine, privately of course.... He's a great guy, huge husker fan, we've hung out and watched Husker games together, he might even be a part of the Huskerboard.... I wouldn't use the words "under attack", but I would say that its open to interpretation. I'd be more curious to hear the views from someone like the Pope or from MLK or Gandhi if we could go back in time on the subject than to hear Trumps/Pence or anyone else in DC on the subject. I can't recall the exact complaint from that Priest, and personally I don't have a huge gripe on the matter, but from what I understand the idea behind "separation of Church and State" was originally designed to keep State-sponsored agendas and influence out of Churches, not Church influence out of Government like is enforced. Of course that's open to interpretation.... A Priest or Rabbi not being able to speak about politics from the pulpit seems almost hypocritical to me, Religion and Social government are interconnected in many ways - I mean we're in a "Politics & Religion" forum. In a utopian world, both Churches and Governments are ideally serving, improving, and securing the quality of life of others. Both offer tremendous social services to their communities, so on and so forth..... You would have a hard time convincing me that Reverend Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa, or any other local-level Rabbi's & Priest's haven't improved the standard of living for all walks of life, to not embrace and promote Government/Social opinions from people in those positions does seem off to me, I wouldn't call it an "attack", but it does seem off. I don't understand the IRS law fully, and I'm curious if the term "pulpit" carries over to the political arena - Because to allow corporate lobbyists and special interests to drive decisions in DC, but in tern limit the reach of voice from some truly great people, seems a bit backwards. Of course, its yet to be seen if changing that culture is a true intention of Trumps, and is something that I don't expect.... If you read about the founders, it's clear that they intended for the wall of separation to go both ways. Here's a quote from Jefferson who coined the "wall of separation" term that would seem to suggest he supports the Johnson Amendment: That's an excellent quote, thank you for sharing. To the idea of the separation going both ways, in a perfect world I would agree 100%, however I don't think its as simple as saying Church & State aren't allowed to influence one another - they influence each other regardless of intentions, and they always will. If a particular Politician who is running for office proposes new military/foreign policies, or say the "ban" of refugees for example, that conflict with the churches teachings, is it not the responsibility of that Priest or Rabbi to speak up and influence their congregation? - Before said politician is voted into office If the government enacts economic policy that in turn negatively effects the quality of life of a churches congregation, is it not the responsibility of the Minister to speak at the pulpit? If the government allows for laws and limits the race-integration of public schools and public places, is it not the responsibility of MLK or any Priest to preach to his congregation about politics and politicians? Edit, And furthermore, going back to what the Founding Fathers intended. They never intended for an IRS, it wasn't created until about 90 years after the Declaration was signed, so in regards to the Founding Fathers this law/rule is BS. The Johnson amendment only prevents ministers from endorsing candidates and assisting their campaigns. It does not prevent them from voicing their thoughts on political issues. So a minister is free to voice his concerns on all the issues you listed but I don't think he should be allowed to dictate which particular politician his congregation should vote for. Similarly, I don't think universities should be allowed to tell their students which politician to vote for which is also prevented by the Johnson Amendment. I don't think anyone would disagree that a Priest or Teacher should not have the ability to dictate how their congregation or student's votes. But to voice concern and opinion is fundamental to our freedom. That doesn't mean the congregation or students have to agree or vote that way, or that they have to vote at all. These people, ideally, are role models and ambassadors to human-equality, peace, and love. Promoting human kindness, education, and equality is part of their job descriptions..... They aren't celebrities at an award show, and if these genuine role models should not have an influence over societies view/opinion on politicians, why should movie stars? Why should Lebron James get to endorse a specific politician, but not a Priest or Minister? Its quite simple in my eyes. Also, I'll have to read up on the Johnson Amendment. I really don't know enough specifically about it to say much more. I've only been sharing my experience and philosophical view on the issue. Ministers, like LeBron, are allowed to make endorsements when they aren't serving as a minister. LeBron isn't allowed to make endorsements while involved with NBA activities and games. The Johnson Amendment also prevents churches from making advertisements and coordinating field efforts for candidates. If repealed, churches and charities could potentially function somewhat like tax-exempt Super PACs.

I'd like to know from our religious members: How is religious freedom "under threat?" Do you feel your religious freedoms are under threat? If so, how? I've heard that exact complaint from a former Priest of mine, privately of course.... He's a great guy, huge husker fan, we've hung out and watched Husker games together, he might even be a part of the Huskerboard.... I wouldn't use the words "under attack", but I would say that its open to interpretation. I'd be more curious to hear the views from someone like the Pope or from MLK or Gandhi if we could go back in time on the subject than to hear Trumps/Pence or anyone else in DC on the subject. I can't recall the exact complaint from that Priest, and personally I don't have a huge gripe on the matter, but from what I understand the idea behind "separation of Church and State" was originally designed to keep State-sponsored agendas and influence out of Churches, not Church influence out of Government like is enforced. Of course that's open to interpretation.... A Priest or Rabbi not being able to speak about politics from the pulpit seems almost hypocritical to me, Religion and Social government are interconnected in many ways - I mean we're in a "Politics & Religion" forum. In a utopian world, both Churches and Governments are ideally serving, improving, and securing the quality of life of others. Both offer tremendous social services to their communities, so on and so forth..... You would have a hard time convincing me that Reverend Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa, or any other local-level Rabbi's & Priest's haven't improved the standard of living for all walks of life, to not embrace and promote Government/Social opinions from people in those positions does seem off to me, I wouldn't call it an "attack", but it does seem off. I don't understand the IRS law fully, and I'm curious if the term "pulpit" carries over to the political arena - Because to allow corporate lobbyists and special interests to drive decisions in DC, but in tern limit the reach of voice from some truly great people, seems a bit backwards. Of course, its yet to be seen if changing that culture is a true intention of Trumps, and is something that I don't expect.... If you read about the founders, it's clear that they intended for the wall of separation to go both ways. Here's a quote from Jefferson who coined the "wall of separation" term that would seem to suggest he supports the Johnson Amendment: That's an excellent quote, thank you for sharing. To the idea of the separation going both ways, in a perfect world I would agree 100%, however I don't think its as simple as saying Church & State aren't allowed to influence one another - they influence each other regardless of intentions, and they always will. If a particular Politician who is running for office proposes new military/foreign policies, or say the "ban" of refugees for example, that conflict with the churches teachings, is it not the responsibility of that Priest or Rabbi to speak up and influence their congregation? - Before said politician is voted into office If the government enacts economic policy that in turn negatively effects the quality of life of a churches congregation, is it not the responsibility of the Minister to speak at the pulpit? If the government allows for laws and limits the race-integration of public schools and public places, is it not the responsibility of MLK or any Priest to preach to his congregation about politics and politicians? Edit, And furthermore, going back to what the Founding Fathers intended. They never intended for an IRS, it wasn't created until about 90 years after the Declaration was signed, so in regards to the Founding Fathers this law/rule is BS. The Johnson amendment only prevents ministers from endorsing candidates and assisting their campaigns. It does not prevent them from voicing their thoughts on political issues. So a minister is free to voice his concerns on all the issues you listed but I don't think he should be allowed to dictate which particular politician his congregation should vote for. Similarly, I don't think universities should be allowed to tell their students which politician to vote for which is also prevented by the Johnson Amendment.

I'd like to know from our religious members: How is religious freedom "under threat?" Do you feel your religious freedoms are under threat? If so, how? I've heard that exact complaint from a former Priest of mine, privately of course.... He's a great guy, huge husker fan, we've hung out and watched Husker games together, he might even be a part of the Huskerboard.... I wouldn't use the words "under attack", but I would say that its open to interpretation. I'd be more curious to hear the views from someone like the Pope or from MLK or Gandhi if we could go back in time on the subject than to hear Trumps/Pence or anyone else in DC on the subject. I can't recall the exact complaint from that Priest, and personally I don't have a huge gripe on the matter, but from what I understand the idea behind "separation of Church and State" was originally designed to keep State-sponsored agendas and influence out of Churches, not Church influence out of Government like is enforced. Of course that's open to interpretation.... A Priest or Rabbi not being able to speak about politics from the pulpit seems almost hypocritical to me, Religion and Social government are interconnected in many ways - I mean we're in a "Politics & Religion" forum. In a utopian world, both Churches and Governments are ideally serving, improving, and securing the quality of life of others. Both offer tremendous social services to their communities, so on and so forth..... You would have a hard time convincing me that Reverend Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa, or any other local-level Rabbi's & Priest's haven't improved the standard of living for all walks of life, to not embrace and promote Government/Social opinions from people in those positions does seem off to me, I wouldn't call it an "attack", but it does seem off. I don't understand the IRS law fully, and I'm curious if the term "pulpit" carries over to the political arena - Because to allow corporate lobbyists and special interests to drive decisions in DC, but in tern limit the reach of voice from some truly great people, seems a bit backwards. Of course, its yet to be seen if changing that culture is a true intention of Trumps, and is something that I don't expect.... If you read about the founders, it's clear that they intended for the wall of separation to go both ways. Here's a quote from Jefferson who coined the "wall of separation" term that would seem to suggest he supports the Johnson Amendment:

Link

Link