Obama's Tantrum

[Paperview]

you need a good dose of what I call edjicashun. churches arent 501C(3)'s

edjicashun:

"The IRS Internal Revenue Code section 508(c) sets out that churches are automatically recognized as tax-exempt under 501(c)(3), and the IRS does not require churches to apply for tax-exempt status if they meet the following criteria:

The organization must be organized and operated exclusively for religious, educational, scientific, or other charitable purposes,

The net earnings may not inure to the benefit of any private individual or shareholder,

No substantial part of its activity may be attempting to influence legislation,

The organization may not intervene in political campaigns, and

The organization’s purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental public policy.

Additionally, some churches with a parent organization may be tax-exempt if the parent organization has a group ruling and it includes the specific church on its list of affiliated organizations.
Why would a church want to apply for 501(c)(3) status?

While churches may be automatically recognized as tax-exempt, there are several reasons why many churches apply for tax-exemption.

Having 501(c)(3) status allows churches the ability to guarantee that tithes, offerings, and donations are tax deductible to donors, because there is written proof from the IRS that the church is a registered charity.

Many states do not automatically guarantee sales tax exemption without a 501(c)(3) letter from the IRS.

Bulk mailing rates and most grants will not be extended to your church or ministry without 501(c)(3) status.


Applying for tax-exempt status may also desirable for churches that are not affiliated with a larger denomination. In some states, churches that have obtained 501(c)(3) status are automatically exempt from state taxes as well.

Note that as a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt entity, churches are mandated to comply with various 501(c)(3) requirements, as well."

church tax exempt status

 

[BitterPill]

Link

Over and over again he asked why using the term "radical Islamist" matters. It matters because it would be reassurance that the President cares about defending America and defeating our enemies. It would tell us that the President means business. Like George Bush, who stood on the rubble of the World Trade Center and said that the people who did this would hear from us soon, said with obvious heart-felt emotion, in contrast to Obama's cold, bloodless pronouncements.

No, the only time the President gets emotional is when he's talking about himself and trying to defend his policies from well deserved criticism. How embarrassing that his policies have turned out to be obvious failures! And it really gets his ire up.

No, every time America is attacked by radical Islamists the President and other leftists jump to defend Muslims. Let me say that again: Every time America is attacked by radical Islamists the President and other leftists jump to defend Muslims. That's their first priority, their first impulse. Can you see what's wrong with that? Do they care about America? Do they love America? Do they want to defend Americans? Do they really?

Tell us that you care about America, Mr. President. Tell us that you are more angry at our Islamist enemies who are killing our friends, neighbors, and fellow citizens than you are at Republicans and Donald Trump.

Return Of The Reverse Beetlejuice Doctrine: Say ‘Radical Islamic Terrorism’ Three Times​

 

[BitterPill]

Why did the mafia make it off limits to kill police officers?

Only clean ones.

Right now we are the police that do nothing when one of our own are killed, thereby giving the bad guys free reign to kill again.

Huh?

 

[Vern]

It matters because it would be reassurance that the President cares about defending America and defeating our enemies. It would tell us that the President means business.

"if only he used this special phrase then I could trust him".

See, its statements like this that prove President Obama is doing a great job. If he wasn't, you wouldn't have to create such ridiculous narratives. there is nothing he can do to ever get the approval of deluded partisans like you. And fyi, this is just one of the clear and repeated warnings about 9-11 that bush ignored.

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report.pdf

In July 2001, an FBI agent in the Phoenix field office sent a memo to FBI headquarters and to two agents on international terrorism squads in the New York Field Office, advising of the “possibility of a coordinated effort by Usama Bin Ladin” to send students to the United States to attend civil aviation schools.The agent based his theory on the “inordinate number of individuals of investigative interest” attending such schools in Arizona.

 

[BitterPill]

"if only he used this special phrase then I could trust him".

See, its statements like this that prove President Obama is doing a great job. If he wasn't, you wouldn't have to create such ridiculous narratives. there is nothing he can do to ever get the approval of deluded partisans like you. And fyi, this is just one of the clear and repeated warnings about 9-11 that bush ignored.

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report.pdf

In July 2001, an FBI agent in the Phoenix field office sent a memo to FBI headquarters and to two agents on international terrorism squads in the New York Field Office, advising of the “possibility of a coordinated effort by Usama Bin Ladin” to send students to the United States to attend civil aviation schools.The agent based his theory on the “inordinate number of individuals of investigative interest” attending such schools in Arizona.

The part I find most appalling is that if these Reverse Beetlejuicers get their way, there will be war against Islam which is precisely what the terrorists want.

 

[roughdraft274]

I'll address whatever when you go down the quote route, which I noticed you declined to do.

Of course, it's my fault that you couldn't answer an easy question when you are shown to be wrong. Pathetic.

 

[roughdraft274]

If it's "intelligent" to be afraid of using the proper terms...

silly terms that get us nowhere.

 

[Vern]

The part I find most appalling is that if these Reverse Beetlejuicers get their way, there will be war against Islam which is precisely what the terrorists want.

You might find this interesting. it seems President Obama's tactic of not pandering to conservatives had OBL thinking of changing al queda's name.

this letter, Bin Laden regrets that his organization’s original name, “Qa’ida al-Jihad”, has come to be known as simply “al-Qa’ida.” The abridgement, he writes, “reduces the feeling of Muslims that we belong to them, and allows the enemies to claim deceptively that they are not at war with Islam and Muslims.” Rather, the United States could claim that it was at war only with the al-Qaida organization, which it depicted as “an outside entity from the teachings of Islam.” Bin Laden complains that Obama has “repeatedly” made this argument. Therefore, he concluded, if al-Qaida adopted a new name, which included a reference to Islam, “it would be difficult for him to say” that he wasn’t at war with Islam.


....Along the same lines, Bin Laden is upset that his enemies “have largely stopped using the phrase ‘the war on terror’ in the context of not wanting to provoke Muslims, because they felt that saying the war on terror could appear to most people to be a war on Islam, especially after they unjustly spilled the blood of innocent Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Osama Bin Laden’s papers: He wished Obama would continue Bush’s “war on terror.�

Its so nice to have a leader who does whats right instead of caving to a mob let alone inflaming the mob.

 

[katzgar]

edjicashun:

"The IRS Internal Revenue Code section 508(c) sets out that churches are automatically recognized as tax-exempt under 501(c)(3), and the IRS does not require churches to apply for tax-exempt status if they meet the following criteria:

The organization must be organized and operated exclusively for religious, educational, scientific, or other charitable purposes,

The net earnings may not inure to the benefit of any private individual or shareholder,

No substantial part of its activity may be attempting to influence legislation,

The organization may not intervene in political campaigns, and

The organization’s purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental public policy.

Additionally, some churches with a parent organization may be tax-exempt if the parent organization has a group ruling and it includes the specific church on its list of affiliated organizations.
Why would a church want to apply for 501(c)(3) status?

While churches may be automatically recognized as tax-exempt, there are several reasons why many churches apply for tax-exemption.

Having 501(c)(3) status allows churches the ability to guarantee that tithes, offerings, and donations are tax deductible to donors, because there is written proof from the IRS that the church is a registered charity.

Many states do not automatically guarantee sales tax exemption without a 501(c)(3) letter from the IRS.

Bulk mailing rates and most grants will not be extended to your church or ministry without 501(c)(3) status.


Applying for tax-exempt status may also desirable for churches that are not affiliated with a larger denomination. In some states, churches that have obtained 501(c)(3) status are automatically exempt from state taxes as well.

Note that as a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt entity, churches are mandated to comply with various 501(c)(3) requirements, as well."

church tax exempt status

a church is a 508(c)(1)(A)

 

[LowDown]

"if only he used this special phrase then I could trust him".

See, its statements like this that prove President Obama is doing a great job. If he wasn't, you wouldn't have to create such ridiculous narratives. .

Sorry, but the President's policies are manifestly a failure. That is everywhere evident. That he won't say the name is just a symptom of why he is failing. If the President in his heart wanted to protect Americans and punish America's enemies then he'd have no trouble uttering that phrase. But he doesn't so he can't.

 

[LowDown]

Return Of The Reverse Beetlejuice Doctrine: Say ‘Radical Islamic Terrorism’ Three Times​

Huh. You didn't even read my post.

 

[Paperview]

a church is a 508(c)(1)(A)

Ahem:

"Section 508(c)(1)(A) provides that churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches are excepted from the general rule of section 508(a).

Section 508(a) provides that organizations described in section 501(c)(3) and organized after October 9, 1969, are required to apply formally for recognition of their tax-exempt status. Thus, section 508(c)(1) simply relieves churches from applying for a favorable determination letter regarding their exempt status as required by section 508(a).

Nothing in section 508(c)(1) relieves a church from having to meet the requirements of section 501(c)(3). In fact, it is clear that when the Commissioner determines that an organization is not entitled to an exemption as a church, as is the case for IBT, its contributors must prove the church’s right to an exemption under section 501(c)(3) in order to be entitled to a deduction for their contributions. "

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/508
[h=1]26 U.S. Code § 508 - Special rules with respect to section 501(c)(3) organizations[/h]

 

[BitterPill]

Sorry, but the President's policies are manifestly a failure. That is everywhere evident. That he won't say the name is just a symptom of why he is failing. If the President in his heart wanted to protect Americans and punish America's enemies then he'd have no trouble uttering that phrase. But he doesn't so he can't.

'Say it three times, and terrorists magically disappear.'

 

[BitterPill]

Huh. You didn't even read my post.

You only know that due to your pervasive omniscience. Stop showing off.

 

[katzgar]

Ahem:

"Section 508(c)(1)(A) provides that churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches are excepted from the general rule of section 508(a).

Section 508(a) provides that organizations described in section 501(c)(3) and organized after October 9, 1969, are required to apply formally for recognition of their tax-exempt status. Thus, section 508(c)(1) simply relieves churches from applying for a favorable determination letter regarding their exempt status as required by section 508(a).

Nothing in section 508(c)(1) relieves a church from having to meet the requirements of section 501(c)(3). In fact, it is clear that when the Commissioner determines that an organization is not entitled to an exemption as a church, as is the case for IBT, its contributors must prove the church’s right to an exemption under section 501(c)(3) in order to be entitled to a deduction for their contributions. "

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/508
[h=1]26 U.S. Code § 508 - Special rules with respect to section 501(c)(3) organizations[/h]

you are the one that said churches are 501 (c) 3's. your games are just plain inane.

 

[Paperview]

you are the one that said churches are 501 (c) 3's. your games are just plain inane.

Start at the beginning: http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...as-tantrum-post1065968153.html#post1065968153

 

[LowDown]

'Say it three times, and terrorists magically disappear.'

So are you telling us that the President is vigorous and effective in his defense of Americans and his punishment of our enemies? How so?

It seems to me that he's mainly concerned that we don't get mad at ordinary Muslims.

It doesn't seem to take much to radicalize ordinary Muslims. The New York Times tells us that Christians and guns are to blame. The pervasive presence of radical Imams and other radicals the world over, including in the US itself, has nothing to do with it by their lights.

And the President does nothing about it.

 

[BitterPill]

So are you telling us that the President is vigorous and effective in his defense of Americans and his punishment of our enemies? How so?

It seems to me that he's mainly concerned that we don't get mad at ordinary Muslims.

It doesn't seem to take much to radicalize ordinary Muslims. The New York Times tells us that Christians and guns are to blame. The pervasive presence of radical Imams and other radicals the world over, including in the US itself, has nothing to do with it by their lights.

And the President does nothing about it.

Like Osama.

I'm not a fan of terrorist propagandists, so you'll have to forgive me if I'm a bit short with you in the future.

 

[JackA]

Link

Over and over again he asked why using the term "radical Islamist" matters. It matters because it would be reassurance that the President cares about defending America and defeating our enemies. It would tell us that the President means business. Like George Bush, who stood on the rubble of the World Trade Center and said that the people who did this would hear from us soon, said with obvious heart-felt emotion, in contrast to Obama's cold, bloodless pronouncements.

No, the only time the President gets emotional is when he's talking about himself and trying to defend his policies from well deserved criticism. How embarrassing that his policies have turned out to be obvious failures! And it really gets his ire up.

No, every time America is attacked by radical Islamists the President and other leftists jump to defend Muslims. Let me say that again: Every time America is attacked by radical Islamists the President and other leftists jump to defend Muslims. That's their first priority, their first impulse. Can you see what's wrong with that? Do they care about America? Do they love America? Do they want to defend Americans? Do they really?

Tell us that you care about America, Mr. President. Tell us that you are more angry at our Islamist enemies who are killing our friends, neighbors, and fellow citizens than you are at Republicans and Donald Trump.

Evidently, you don't know what a tantrum is. Google "Trump temper tantrum" and up will pop links by the pages, with pics, of your 70 year old juvenile demonstrating the word's meaning.

 

[LowDown]

Evidently, you don't know what a tantrum is. Google "Trump temper tantrum" and up will pop links by the pages, with pics, of your 70 year old juvenile demonstrating the word's meaning.

I don't like Trump any better, but Obama is your guy.

 

[LowDown]

Like Osama.

I'm not a fan of terrorist propagandists, so you'll have to forgive me if I'm a bit short with you in the future.

Yes, we finally got Osama. And we've picked off several other leaders. And they are still attacking, still hurting us. The biggest attack since 9-11, they say. Have I missed something?

Crushing ISIS in the Levant is the only chance I can see of shutting them down. Obama's plan is to withdraw the remaining US troops from the area by the end of this year. So, there you have it.

 

[Wiggen]

It's not the use of the term itself that's troubling. It's the strict avoidance of using the term that's troubling. If Obama had a coherent policy for dealing with radical Islamists this could be overlooked. He doesn't. He's too busy targeting guns, American Christians, the GOP, Fox News and Trump.

You forgot members of ISIS, Al Quaeda, and other radicals around the world. But then you would, wouldn't you?

 

[iguanaman]

Link

Over and over again he asked why using the term "radical Islamist" matters. It matters because it would be reassurance that the President cares about defending America and defeating our enemies. It would tell us that the President means business. Like George Bush, who stood on the rubble of the World Trade Center and said that the people who did this would hear from us soon, said with obvious heart-felt emotion, in contrast to Obama's cold, bloodless pronouncements.

No, the only time the President gets emotional is when he's talking about himself and trying to defend his policies from well deserved criticism. How embarrassing that his policies have turned out to be obvious failures! And it really gets his ire up.

No, every time America is attacked by radical Islamists the President and other leftists jump to defend Muslims. Let me say that again: Every time America is attacked by radical Islamists the President and other leftists jump to defend Muslims. That's their first priority, their first impulse. Can you see what's wrong with that? Do they care about America? Do they love America? Do they want to defend Americans? Do they really?

Tell us that you care about America, Mr. President. Tell us that you are more angry at our Islamist enemies who are killing our friends, neighbors, and fellow citizens than you are at Republicans and Donald Trump.

Bush lied when he stood on the rubble and promised reprisal. Just few months later he said he did not care about getting Bin Laden and invaded a country that had nothing to do with it.. Is that what you want from a President?
You also got it backwards, every time radicals attack us there are reprisals and threats against peaceful Muslims by those that wish to stir hatred towards all Muslims. When Obama and others defend those peaceful Muslims who make up the vast majority of them, thats when we hear calls that they must not "love America". Just admit you want a war on all Muslims and are in agreement with ISIS that it is inevitable. Don't worry, ISIS is on your side with this and will do everything in their power to make it so.

 

[Wiggen]

So are you telling us that the President is vigorous and effective in his defense of Americans and his punishment of our enemies? How so?

It seems to me that he's mainly concerned that we don't get mad at ordinary Muslims.

It doesn't seem to take much to radicalize ordinary Muslims. The New York Times tells us that Christians and guns are to blame. The pervasive presence of radical Imams and other radicals the world over, including in the US itself, has nothing to do with it by their lights.

And the President does nothing about it.

I'm sure if you and others of your persuasion were willing to volunteer to go to Syria and Iraq and take care of the problem, nobody would stand in your way. Maybe you can get General Trump - after all he did go to boarding school which in his words is just like being in the military - to lead you. :lamo

 

[LowDown]

Bush lied when he stood on the rubble and promised reprisal. Just few months later he said he did not care about getting Bin Laden. Is that what you want from a President?

We invaded Afghanistan going after Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Going after a specific person was less important than destroying the organization's effectiveness, I believe is what Bush meant.