there are some really ugly, blind, and hate-filled people in this world. some of them are patriotic, some of them are not. human nature is a b**** that way.
This is what you left out of your wikipedia definition of an NPO. Second paragraph after the one YOU cited. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-profit_organization Most experts consider the legal and ethical restrictions on the distribution of profits to owners or shareholders as what fundamentally distinguishes NPOs from commercial enterprises. The use of the term "not-for-profit" rather than "nonprofit" has been debated within the field. While there are definitive preferences for one term or the other, there is no broad consensus. NPOs generally do not operate to generate profit, a characteristic widely considered to be defining of such organizations. So what am I not making sense about?
NPOs don't operate for the purpose of generating profits - but they certainly engage in profit-generating activities. Goodwill, for example, takes donated goods and sells them at their stores. And they pay employees - the large non-profits pay their top executives 6 or 7 figure salaries. What they don't do is work to generate profits for their owners - their employees are compensated, they do buy and own land, etc. The profits they generate are used in conjuction with their mission. I don't know anything about the Wright house purchase (I also don't understand it's relevance to anything), but I'm not sure what your argument is. It may or may not be unethical depending on the circumstances, but I don't think anything you've said suggests either case.
He gets a million dollar home through his church in the name of God and doesn't get TAXED for it. He makes money and doesn't get taxed for it because he's hiding under the NPO umbrella. Maybe churches and NPO's can buy houses for the poor people too.
maybe you can stop arguing for the sake of it, from the freakin irs For income tax purposes, a licensed, commissioned, or ordained minister is generally treated as a common law employee of his or her church, denomination, or sect. There are, however, some exceptions such as traveling evangelists who may be treated as independent contractors. If you are a minister performing ministerial services, you are taxed on wages, offerings, and fees you receive for performing marriages, baptismals, and/or funerals. quit while you are behind
When the church pays Wright, he pays taxes on that. If the church gives him a house, he will have to pay tax on that (as a gift). Is that what the church is doing (I have no idea)? And if so, is your problem with it really about taxes? What on earth are you talking about?
I'm so sure he doesn't use tax loopholes just like the big bad corporations and upper white class people do right? Because Wright is an HONORABLE American. Quit jocking Wright's strap Pgabs! Wright is definetly not a SAINT!
It's high time to tax the Idiot Wright's church as well as all the churches, synagogues and mosques that engage in politics, whether for Democrats, Republicans or some other party. Period.
I am unaware of any current MoveOn.Org ads. I am referring to the whole genre spawned by organizations spearheaded by people like Ariana Huffington, George Soros, and other far, far left. Their hate-filled attack ads are as shrill or more shrill as any you will find from the far, far right. Both are wrong and both sadden me because ultimately they severely reduce the number of persons who might have been outstanding politicians.
What is Politics and what is Religion? Is Abortion a political issue. . or a religious one? To some it is both . . .If a preacher preaches on it . . . would you want them taxed? OR Would you want all Churches taxes Regardless. Rocket River
During Church, dry humping a podium and saying that Bill Clinton is 'ridin dirty' IS political, wouldn't you think? That's what Obama's spiritual mentor did... in front of children... in God's House... JUDGMENT
What does this have to do with anything? You're now mad at Wright because he might use the same tax loopholes available to others? Do you have any idea what your argument even is at this point? Would you mind stating it in a few sentences for the rest of us? You've gone from point to point after being shown everything you said is incorrect, and now you're down to "he might use legal tax loopholes like white people". What on earth are you talking about?
It depends on the context. If Wright said that to bring up a very public figure acting in an immoral manner, then no...it is spiritual. It is a life lesson. If he said it in a political context to denounce Clinton and to encourage others to vote for the opponent, it is political. JURY STILL OUT
I really don't have a dog in this hunt, because I'm agnostic, but I will say that, with all due respect, that you are being rediculous with this argument. The same argument could be made against any White minister of a large congregation with fluffed up, lacquered hair, doing the Sunday preaching gig, living in a big house, having a wife dressed to the nines, nice cars, trips to Vegas. Who cares? Unless you put the hammer down on that crap, on ALL of them, including the one in Houston that is so popular, singling out the Goofus Wright is absurd. And what's with the "Whitey" crap? Is it that time of the month? Impeach Bush.
It's too bad judoka started this thread, basing it on such offensive grounds - that supporters of the leading candidate care more about "personality" than issues when what is really clear, especially given that both candidates share issue based positions pretty much exactly, is that he himself bases his support on the personality of the trailing candidate -- and then took a couple days off of posting. Of course the idea that Obama fans here or elsewhere base their support on "personality" has NEVER been true. And maybe that's why judoka (and Deckard and The Cat and bnb) stops posting every time I bring this up. The issues for Obama and Clinton are pretty much exactly the same, whomever you favor. The only major difference now, apart from all the political differences I have already pointed out and gotten no response on, is that Obama is on the verge of winning and Clinton can only win by destroying him. Let me repeat that. Her ONLY chance of winning would be to utterly destroy the leading Democratic candidate. Judoka and anyone else who still favors Clinton now: Listen close. She had a more than fair shot at the nomination. In fact she came into this race with every advantage. And if she hasn't fully lost, she is still losing badly. And her only path to possible victory is to divide the party like it hasn't been since 1980, when our nominee lost as a result of the divide. When we get to a point like this, if you ACTUALLY care about the ISSUES, you unite behind the person who's winning. If you can't do that, that's fine. And if you don't want to vote for the winner, that's fine too. But don't you DARE lecture me for threatening not to vote for the sore loser. If you cared as much as you say you do about Iraq or judges or whatever, you would stop supporting the candidate who is waging an intra-party holy war and you would do it NOW. As one of Clinton's own pledged super delegates did when he switched sides and wrote this letter http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-j-andrew/on-my-switch-from-clinton_b_99621.html). And he's not just any super -- he's a former head of the DNC that was appointed by Bill Clinton. Don't lecture me about the stakes in this election when you continue to support the person who most damages our eventual nominee. And especially don't start a thread doing that and then disappear for two days. That's a foul, man.
Yet you post a thread in Hangout asking the burning question, "What is your favorite Dylan song?" and haven't posted in it for over 3 days! It resides on page 5... moldering. Bereft. Neglected. Where is the justice? How DARE you! Bob deserves better!!! Impeach Bush.
