25 Mistakes So Colossal, They Became History Lessons

Politics overriding experts. No surprise, "plus ça change plus c'est la même chose".

You'd think we had tales of warning about such things... Oh wait. Grecian mythology!

Directly responsible for the rise of MAGA and the beginning of the end of America IMO.

Careful, when they see superlatives like 'worst' they clearly take it as a challenge and try to top it.

[1] Thomas is known for accepting "undisclosed luxury gifts" (i.e. bribes) from Republican donors, some of whose were interested parties in cases being discussed by the Supreme Court. Republican donor Harlan Crow gifted $100k in undisclosed properties to Thomas, and Thomas himself admitted to soliciting those gifts in exchange of his presence on the Court (https://afj.org/article/justice-thomas-quid-pro-quo-renews-calls-for-resignation/). He failed to recuse himself from a case where his wife had been found acting on the interests of an involved party, actively contacting White House officials and lawmakers to overturn the 2020 election results (because of course he is a corrupt judge AND a traitor)

[4] John Roberts is the mastermind behind the overturning of Roe Vs. Wade, and the unchecked expansion of presidential immunity. He has been a strong supporter of Alito and Thomas, repeatedly shutting down any initiative to implement effective codes of conduct and ethical reviews on the corrupt colleagues.

[3] Scalia was another one found accepting luxury gifts and expensive trips by Republican supporters. In 2004, while he was considering a case involving D**k Cheney, he accepted from Cheney a full-expense-paid hunting trip, and in exchange supported a ruling that prevented energy companies, including Cheney's, to have to disclose their massive and extensive lobbying activities in the Bush's White House. He also accepted a trip to the "King Salmon Lodge" luxury fishing resort in Alaska from Paul Singer (see other comment), him too in exchange for his vote on the Elliott-Argentina settlement.

[2] Alito has also been found at fault in nondisclosure of luxury gifts from corporate donors, including $100k in private flights from republican billionaire Paul Singer from Elliott Management, that at the time had no less than 10 pending cases before the Supreme court and was ultimately awarded a $2.4 BILLION payout at the expense of the Argentinian government. Basically the fund willfully bought high-risk bonds worth a total of $600M at a 80% discount because they were highly volatile and at high risk of default. Then, when they defaulted in the financial crash of the country, Singer started an aggressive campaign to illegally recoup the full value of the bonds plus interested, actively hampering the recovery of the Argentinian economy through what was called "financial terror*sm". The contribution from the Supreme Court has been seen as worrisome and borderline illegal precedent both in political, jurisprudential and financial circles. Alito is also a traitor for supporting the 2020 election overturn

[5] Anthony Kennedy -for a change- kept a facade of legality, but was a staunch supporter of financial deregulation, pro uncontrolled gun ownership, union busting and anti-labor laws (Janus v. AFSCME), pro-discrimination and anti-equality initiatives (Trump v. Hawaii)

So this has prevented Trump from trampling on free speech? Really? Let me say that again. Really?

The real goal was oil and heroine and anyone that thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.

That's how I feel too. The tax exemptions don't inherently bother me since I grew up in a small congregation that used any funds that didn't go to basic stuff like the mortgage and electric bill or buying Bibles and whatnot to stuff like our pantry and clothing stash that we handed out when people came asking for help. We even had a homeless member pf the congregation that lived for a long time in the church basement and paid "rent" by doing chores around the property. It's when churches start getting politically involved and the mega churches that are the problem.

Tax the political fundraisers too while you're at it

How about when they take money from the government (for their 'charitable' work or to pay for student education)? They should lose tax exempt then.

Okay, so it's apparent you're either not from the US, or if you are, don't have a good understanding of the limitations of that tax exempt status. So, to clarify, the tax exempt status that Churches have, only exists so long as certain conditions are met. In particular, a number of federal laws in place make it clear that any political involvement by a church, defined in the law as donating to, advertising for, or instructing their members in the way to vote (Essentially any support for only one single candidate), automatically invalidates the tax exempt status for a church. This does not prevent its members from supporting their candidate of choice, but churches legally can not take a stance on politics. Here's more detail on the law: https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/charities-churches-and-politics#:~:text=Currently%2C%20the%20law%20prohibits%20political,to)%20any%20candidate%20for%20public

As a Christian, I agree. In most cases, we still do jobs and get paid like everyone else, and God said to help people.

In England, the Charity Commission law states that “Charities must never support political parties. They cannot make political donations or give other financial support or resources. This is because it is a fundamental principle of charity law that it cannot be within the purposes of any charity to promote the interests of a political party. Some charities operate trading subsidiaries. Although the situation regarding political funding law is more complex, under charity law it is not permissible for these bodies either to make donations to political parties.”

Is that related to that Genius invention of capitalism to separate the money from their owners as people and give it an own personality, so they can get rich by paying themselves enormous wages while their organisation still do not make any money?

thanks for the reminder to all that texas was a debacle in its journey to statehood. the mexican government allowed americans to homestead there but there were contingencies. then, after the alamo incident some political idiot went to congress claiming 'american blood spilled on american soil' which was a lie. hence, the war and chase that led to texas.

They knew.

We burned the white house down when the Americans went rogue in 1812. And 1867 was when we became the DOC, by the way

There was even a self-serving name for it - Manifest Destiny.

Last four words there seem un-necessary, these days.

So they made it more like a normal border crossing? That's a big deal.