NYTimes columnist, Charles Blow, looks at the passage of California’s Prop 8 and takes the opportunity to slam those intolerant black women who attend church
Blacks are much more likely than whites to attend church, according to a Gallup report, and black women are much more likely to attend church than black men. Anyone who has ever been to a black church can attest to the disparity in the pews. [...]This high rate of church attendance by blacks informs a very conservative moral view. While blacks vote overwhelmingly Democratic, an analysis of three years of national data from Gallup polls reveals that their views on moral issues are virtually indistinguishable from those of Republicans. Let’s just call them Afropublicrats.
Marriage can be a sore subject for black women in general. According to 2007 Census Bureau data, black women are the least likely of all women to be married and the most likely to be divorced. Women who can’t find a man to marry might not be thrilled about the idea of men marrying each other.
Why, yes, Charles, it has nothing to do about questioning the wisdom of radically changing a fundamental public institution, it’s really about envy and petty jealousy. Black women gather after church mumbling among themselves “If I can’t get married I’m going to make sure no one else can.”
comparing the struggles of legalizing interracial marriage with those to legalize gay marriage is a bad idea. Many black women do not seem to be big fans of interracial marriage either. They’re the least likely of all groups to intermarry, and many don’t look kindly on the black men who intermarry at nearly three times the rate that they do [...]don’t debate the Bible. You can’t win. Religious faith is not defined by logic, it defies it. Instead, decouple the legal right from the religious rite, and emphasize the idea of acceptance without endorsement.
What anti-religious bigot Charles fails to state is that civil unions/domestic partnerships are “acceptance without endorsement” and that the same-sex marriage fanatics, especially in California, are specifically after endorsement, even if it means engaging in McCarthy-style blacklisting, intimidation and violence.
make it part of a broader discussion about the perils of rigidly applying yesterday’s sexual morality to today’s sexual mores. Show black women that it backfires
Again, same-sex marriage is not about sexual mores, it is about the radical redefinition of a public institution.
…pitch it as a health issue. The more open blacks are to the idea of homosexuality, the more likely black men would be to discuss their sexual orientations and sexual histories. The more open they are, the less likely black women would be to put themselves at risk unwittingly. And, the more open blacks are to homosexuality over all, the more open they are likely to be to gay marriage. This way, everyone wins.
Everyone wins? Oh, like eHarmony? How about churches losing their tax exemptions for the audacity of defending marriage?
I wonder if our new First Lady, Michelle June Cleaver Obama would agree with Charles Blow about The Problem of Black Women.
Comment by ThomasD on 11/29 @ 2:00 pm #
There is not a single thing I can think to say that would not be offensive to some such or someone another, so I’d like to say them all, but brevity prevents that.
Suffice to say that Mr. Blow seems to view the entire issue as one of black cock.
More seriously
According to the exit poll, 70 percent of all blacks said that they voted for the proposition. But 75 percent of black women did. There weren’t enough black men in the survey to provide a reliable percentage for them. However, one can mathematically deduce that of the raw number of survey respondents, nearly twice as many black women said that they voted for it than black men.
The key to that Twainian use of statistics being the raw number of survey respondents being offered as a misleading surrogate for the percentage of black men who voted against gay marriage. Also note the hidden redundancy – the number of male survey respondents was too low to generate a statistically valid percentage figure. So basically we have Mr. Blow(ing it out his ass) using faulty data to support his initial premise.
If one assumes the black women survey were an adequate representation of all black female voters then juding from their 75% vote against gay marriage we can easily conclude that approximately 65% of black male voters also voted alike. unfortunately for Mr. Blow that type of extrapolation leaves him with no argument, no article, and most importantly no check from the NYT.
Comment by ushie on 11/29 @ 2:06 pm #
Just about every Black woman I know would kick the crap out of Mr. BLow’s ass if she were to read his idiotic article.
Comment by R. Sherman on 11/29 @ 2:19 pm #
I de-cloak to note this observation, specifically “What anti-religious bigot Charles fails to state is that civil unions/domestic partnerships are ‘acceptance without endorsement’ and that the same-sex marriage fanatics, especially in California, are specifically after endorsement . . .” is absolutely spot-on.
Cheers.
Comment by ThomasD on 11/29 @ 2:20 pm #
One wonders how the black lesbian demographic (likely not insignificant among ever dwindling NYT readership) will respond to Mr. Blow’s assessment.
Comment by daleyrocks on 11/29 @ 2:23 pm #
Well, Mr. Blow is a graphics editor so it’s not like he shouldn’t know what he’s talking about or anything.
Comment by Mikey NTH on 11/29 @ 2:35 pm #
I forget- when exactly did Ward and June Cleaver – two adults that love each other and strive to make a good life together and raise their children to be decent humans – become the word for all that is wrong?
Where are ye, Fred MacMurray? Our nation turns its lonely eyes to thee…
Comment by Mossberg500 on 11/29 @ 2:45 pm #
Is Mr. Blow his real name? He’s be a big hit on eSodomy!
Comment by Mossberg500 on 11/29 @ 2:48 pm #
He’
sd be a big hit on eSodomy!Comment by happyfeet on 11/29 @ 3:02 pm #
A very conservative moral view is I think what we used to call a moral view. It’s funny how that works. I hate that word struggles most of all. Like they were all oppressed. They’re not. Nothing a six-pack of yoo-hoo and a civil union won’t fix right up anyway.
Comment by happyfeet on 11/29 @ 3:04 pm #
oh. Also this is me not clicking on the link to the New York Times cause I always feel so cheap when I do that.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 11/29 @ 3:10 pm #
‘Round about 1969, I believe.
Comment by Pellegri on 11/29 @ 3:51 pm #
Ugh.
Just ugh. Can I punch this dude in the face?
Comment by Salt Lick on 11/29 @ 4:18 pm #
There is evidence that gays might find occasional allies in the black community (and white community, too) if they didn’t go bat-shit crazy over the “marriage” issue:
Once religious and educational differences are controlled, blacks remain more disapproving of homosexuality but are moderately more supportive of gay civil liberties and markedly more opposed to antigay employment discrimination than are whites.
Comment by Ken on 11/29 @ 4:19 pm #
From what I understand homosexuality in the black community is a very big issue and is highly frowned upon, much more so than in the average white population. Blacks are far less willing to come-out due to the overall stigma associated with it within their family, church and community. No surprise then when they voted overwhelmingly against same-sex marriage.
Comment by happyfeet on 11/29 @ 4:34 pm #
Black women what I have seen are very good about taking care of their moms. I see it over and over again. It’s nice.
Comment by Drew on 11/29 @ 5:15 pm #
I know I’m supposed to take this stuff for granted, but two questions:
1. How is marriage a “public institution”?
2. Why is exempting religious organizations from taxation a good idea?
Comment by Darleen on 11/29 @ 5:41 pm #
Drew
1. Marriage statutes describe privileges and obligations according to state sanctioned contract. One is under no obligation to partake and is free to set up any other contractual relationship they like, it just cannot be called “marriage”. Akin to joining the (public institution} military … it’s voluntary, there are obligations and privileges that come with service and there are parameters/standards for joining that not everyone will meet. Both institutions serve the public welfare without interfering with individuals.
2. Is this where you want to say you wish to strip society of all non-profits? Or just be selective about stripping ones with religious bases?
Comment by wesley on 11/29 @ 5:51 pm #
“Is this where you want to say you wish to strip society of all non-profits?”
I don’t want “to strip society of all non-profits?” But I do think “non-profits” should pay taxes.
Comment by Darleen on 11/29 @ 5:56 pm #
But I do think “non-profits†should pay taxes.
Then you want to ban non-profits. Stop acting like Obama when he said he was “for” nuclear energy but only when some way of absolutely no waste can be found (as in “never”, effectively killing any new nuclear plants.)
Comment by Rob Crawford on 11/29 @ 6:24 pm #
I think non-profits should adhere to stricter standards of accounting and disclosure than publicly-traded companies. Because it’s pretty damned clear there’s a lot of dirt to clean up in the non-profit sector.
And, man, do the “debating” tactics of “wesley” seem familiar. The refusal to actually take a position, the dodging of making a real point…
Comment by wesley on 11/29 @ 6:29 pm #
“Then you want to ban non-profits.”
I don’t see how “non-profits” paying taxes leads to banning them.
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 11/29 @ 6:33 pm #
Because it’s pretty damned clear there’s a lot of dirt to clean up in the non-profit sector.
I have to say that it just doesn’t seem right that (e.g.) Harvard is sitting on a $36 billion endowment.
Comment by wesley on 11/29 @ 6:34 pm #
“And, man, do the “debating†tactics of “wesley†seem familiar. The refusal to actually take a position, the dodging of making a real point…’
Here’s my position on “non-profits”. I live in a city where 30% of the land is occupied by “non-profit” health companies. These “non-profits” generate billions in revenue but don’t pay any property taxes. I think the “non-profits” are just scams so the suckers are left holding the tax bag.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 11/29 @ 6:36 pm #
There it is again, the same damned refusal to either get or make a point.
In the unlikely case “wesley” is even interested in facts, the whole purpose of declaring an organization to be a “non-profit” is that it is then tax exempt. If you make them pay taxes, there’s no difference between them and for-profit organizations. Therefore, removing their tax-exempt status is effectively banning them, because you’d have eliminated their very reason for existence.
Comment by wesley on 11/29 @ 6:37 pm #
Is ACORN “non-profit”?
Comment by urthshu on 11/29 @ 6:38 pm #
OK, Wesley – in that case, do you think those HMOs should be able to lobby government? If they do, do you think they should be stripped of their non-profit status?
Comment by Sdferr on 11/29 @ 6:39 pm #
When Michelle says struggles hf, it comes out shtruggles, which is another one of those things about her besides that she’s so interested in some peoples struggles that it can give a person the creeps. She’s got that high horse lefty funk-a-diddy going on.
Comment by wesley on 11/29 @ 6:39 pm #
“If you make them pay taxes, there’s no difference between them and for-profit organizations.”
Why should there be a difference? And why is government doing this picking of winners(non-profit) and losers(for profit)?
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 11/29 @ 6:40 pm #
If you make them pay taxes, there’s no difference between them and for-profit organizations.
Hmm… not necessarily. You could exempt them from paying taxes on the assets that they actually distribute, while assessing taxes on undistributed assets and real estate.
Comment by wesley on 11/29 @ 6:43 pm #
“OK, Wesley – in that case, do you think those HMOs should be able to lobby government? If they do, do you think they should be stripped of their non-profit status?”
Yes HMOs can lobby the government because it is a constitutional right. No they shouldn’t be strip of any legal rights they have for exercising a constitutional right.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 11/29 @ 6:44 pm #
And they do nothing for those “billions in revenue”? They just “generate” that cash flow?
Uh-huh. What a pitiful life you must lead, if that’s the way you think.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 11/29 @ 6:46 pm #
Do you understand the implications of “non-profit”?
Comment by Darleen on 11/29 @ 6:48 pm #
The power to tax is the power to destroy and the Founding Fathers had some real experiences that lead them to exempt religions from taxation.
SBP
while assessing taxes on undistributed assets and real estate.
I have a bit of a problem with that because it can easily lead to coveting politicians/developers confiscating such places like St. Patrick’s Cathedral in NYC because of its prime location.
I grew up in So. Cal where, prior to Prop 13, the property tax code was used to destroy people who found themselves in the way of developers.
Comment by wesley on 11/29 @ 6:50 pm #
“And they do nothing for those “billions in revenueâ€Â? They just “generate†that cash flow?”
The steel plant down the road generates billions too. But they pay taxes.
“Uh-huh. What a pitiful life you must lead, if that’s the way you think.”
No just asking why there is this thing called “non-profit” that allows for an organization to push costs onto other taxpayers. To me this “non profit” scam is so much “rent seeking”.
Wiki:
In economics, rent seeking occurs when an individual, organization or firm seeks to make money by manipulating the economic and/or legal environment rather than by trade and production of wealth.
Comment by urthshu on 11/29 @ 6:50 pm #
Thx, wesley. Drew originally asked why having religious bodies be tax-exempt was ‘a good idea’. I wanted to check what you thought about non-religious entities being involved with politics, is all.
Comment by wesley on 11/29 @ 6:53 pm #
“The power to tax is the power to destroy and the Founding Fathers had some real experiences that lead them to exempt religions from taxation.”
Where in the Constitution are religions exempt from taxation?
Comment by Rob Crawford on 11/29 @ 6:57 pm #
And take a profit from their earnings, alphie… er, “wesley”.
Comment by wesley on 11/29 @ 7:02 pm #
“And take a profit from their earnings, alphie… er, “wesleyâ€Â.”
As opposed to:
“While they are able to earn a profit, more accurately called a surplus, such earnings are retained by the organization for its future provision of programs and services, and are not owned by nor distributed to individuals or stake-holders.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_profit
Comment by Makewi on 11/29 @ 7:08 pm #
“Where in the Constitution are religions exempt from taxation?”
It doesn’t. However the foundation for the tax exempt status comes from the special status afforded to churches (read religion) in the 1st amendment. Historically, the first tax exempt move for churches was made by Congress in 1798.
Comment by wesley on 11/29 @ 7:15 pm #
“Historically, the first tax exempt move for churches was made by Congress in 1798.”
Well it is good to see Congress pandering early on. But I think if you belong to a religious organization that owns property then you as a shareholder should pay taxes on that property that you own with others.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 11/29 @ 7:19 pm #
Yes, “wesley”, there is a difference there. The owners of the steel plant take the profits and do with them as they please — while the non-profit must use any surplus “for its future provision of programs and services”. It’s in the very bit you cited, so you clearly didn’t miss it.
Maybe you just didn’t understand it.
Oh, well, you just go on believing non-profits are some scam intended to cheat you. The rest of us will go on living as adults.
Comment by Makewi on 11/29 @ 7:20 pm #
Yes wesley. Nice that you ignore the reason behind what you call pandering.
In 1894, Congress passed the first income tax on corporations but exempted from the tax those “corporations, companies, or associations organized and conducted solely for charitable, religious or educational purposes.” source
Comment by Rob Crawford on 11/29 @ 7:21 pm #
“Shareholder”? WTF are you talking about?
Oh, well, “Trollhammer! Take him away!”
Comment by urthshu on 11/29 @ 7:22 pm #
>>But I think if you belong to a religious organization that owns property then you as a shareholder should pay taxes on that property that you own with others.
Fascinating. So what do you think about congregations which have properties that the church members have built over the generations? If the church leadership adopts policies that the members abhor – should the church leadership be able to kick out the members and take the church? Whose property is it, do you think?
Comment by Rob Crawford on 11/29 @ 7:23 pm #
I wouldn’t bother with “wesley” anymore, urthshu. It’s another alphie pseudonym.
Comment by urthshu on 11/29 @ 7:24 pm #
Doesn’t bother me, Rob. Honestly.
Comment by Darleen on 11/29 @ 7:26 pm #
wesley is just another anti-religious bigot like Mr. Blow.
my, I am so surprised.
Comment by wesley on 11/29 @ 7:27 pm #
“Oh, well, you just go on believing non-profits are some scam intended to cheat you. The rest of us will go on living as adults.”
Not to cheat me but to cheat us. The government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers as far as tax policy. Indeed, the use of government to pick winners and losers is occurring right now with the bailout. Just ask the main man for tax policy Charley Rangel. OUTLAW man.
Comment by urthshu on 11/29 @ 7:32 pm #
>>wesley is just another anti-religious bigot like Mr. Blow.
You know, I don’t really think this is the case. What I do think is that wesley hasn’t belonged to any real-world church, so possibly he views religion in an ideal sense, rather than anything applied.
Comment by wesley on 11/29 @ 7:32 pm #
“while the non-profit must use any surplus “for its future provision of programs and servicesâ€Â. It’s in the very bit you cited, so you clearly didn’t miss it.”
So what is to prevent the board of such a concern to raise their remuneration yearly to reflect the “surplus”? You know “future provision of programs and servicesâ€Â
Comment by wesley on 11/29 @ 7:38 pm #
“corporations, companies, or associations organized and conducted solely for charitable, religious or educational purposes.â€Â
Well that may have been a “good” intention at the time. But I think using the tax code or the government in general to do social engineering is stupid. Tie it back to this post with black women and the black family per Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
Comment by Darleen on 11/29 @ 7:40 pm #
urthshu
IMO, ‘wesley’ is like Biden or Obama … they really believe that “charity” begins and ends with the government. Thus, they give little, if any, from their own pockets.
The existence of religious members who give money, time and effort far in excess really irks them. So bad-mouthing the godbotherers and aggitating for their destruction is part and parcel of their dogma.
Comment by wesley on 11/29 @ 7:41 pm #
““Shareholderâ€Â? WTF are you talking about? ”
If I attend a church weekly and put money in the collection plate weekly, yea I would feel to be a shareholder in some way. Because I have voluntarily elected to spend my time and money in this organization.
Comment by Darleen on 11/29 @ 7:43 pm #
If I attend a church weekly and put money in the collection plate weekly, yea I would feel to be a shareholder in some way
Hmmmm… I give to the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation each year, but a funny thing is, I don’t have any stock certificates that show I own a “share.”
putz
Comment by wesley on 11/29 @ 7:45 pm #
“Fascinating. So what do you think about congregations which have properties that the church members have built over the generations? If the church leadership adopts policies that the members abhor – should the church leadership be able to kick out the members and take the church? Whose property is it, do you think?”
I don’t know the answer to your questions. If you are interested in this topic keep an eye on what has been happening to the Episcopal church in America where the conservatives are leaving and trying to say that they the local church own the property.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 11/29 @ 7:47 pm #
Nah, Darleen, “wesley” just can’t comprehend that a hospital can still be a net benefit to the community while not paying property taxes.
And that it’s not a burden on “us” that someone else has traded the inability to take profits for the “privilege” of not being punished for owning property.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 11/29 @ 7:50 pm #
Ya know, alphie tended to go for these obvious examples of category errors, too. It’s like the difference between purchasing shares and giving to charity never occurred to “wesley”.
Makes me wonder how “wesley” regards a panhandler he slips some cash to — as a slave?
Comment by wesley on 11/29 @ 7:54 pm #
“wesley is just another anti-religious bigot like Mr. Blow.”
That is not true. I just think that the “church” Baracky went for 20 years didn’t have to pay taxes and yet The Messiah’s new “church” known as the “gym” does. I think everyone should pay taxes. Otherwise it becomes a game of “rent seeking”.
Comment by urthshu on 11/29 @ 7:55 pm #
>>If you are interested in this topic keep an eye on what has been happening to the Episcopal church in America where the conservatives are leaving and trying to say that they the local church own the property.
I do. Its the reason I’d asked. The Diocese recently took over a church around here. Luckily, the congregation formally dissolved themselves prior to it, so lees of a fuss.
Generous move, really. I wouldn’t have done it.
Comment by urthshu on 11/29 @ 7:57 pm #
Oh, BTW – the conservatives aren’t leaving so much as trying to have a say in where the ECUSA is going [to Hell in a handbasket]. They’re being tossed out for noncompliance – dissent, if you will.
Comment by urthshu on 11/29 @ 7:59 pm #
I would like the goverment to be taxed at the highest percentages. I keep hearing that if want less of something you should tax it….
Comment by Darleen on 11/29 @ 7:59 pm #
weaselly
The gym pays no taxes, no for-profit business does.
But you’d have the government treat non-profits/charities as if the voluntary donations they receive are the equivalent of delivering a product at a set price to customers.
you are definitely a bigot.
Comment by wesley on 11/29 @ 8:05 pm #
“IMO, ‘wesley’ is like Biden or Obama … they really believe that “charity†begins and ends with the government. Thus, they give little, if any, from their own pockets.”
I think you are missing my point. I don’t want a slime ball like Chuck Rangel using the tax code to reward people he likes or dislikes.
The tax code is where in 75,000 pages favors are handed out from idiot solar and wind projects to “non profits”. What I’m saying is you or your organization own a property you pay property taxes like your next door neighbor. The police, fire, and ambulance at this time stop at both. But only one is pay for the service.
Comment by Makewi on 11/29 @ 8:06 pm #
Well that may have been a “good†intention at the time. But I think using the tax code or the government in general to do social engineering is stupid. Tie it back to this post with black women and the black family per Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
It’s still a good intention. Charity, education, and religion are all useful tools in strengthening the society as a whole. Charity helps those who need; Education makes the society smarter and more productive; and Religion helps with the reinforcement of morality. These are societal foundations, not attempts to “engineer”.
Comment by wesley on 11/29 @ 8:12 pm #
Darleen,
“The gym pays no taxes, no for-profit business does.”
Gyms are “non profit” now too?
“But you’d have the government treat non-profits/charities as if the voluntary donations they receive are the equivalent of delivering a product at a set price to customers.
you are definitely a bigot.”
I’m a bigot for thinking that using the tax code to do social engineering is wrong? I be Classical Liberal I be OUTLAW.
Comment by Darleen on 11/29 @ 8:16 pm #
Gyms are “non profit†now too?
fuckwit, every for profit business figures in what taxes they’ll have to pay then SETS THE PRICE OF THEIR PRODUCT OR SERVICES accordingly.
religions/charities/non-profits operate on VOLUNTARY DONATIONS.
Comment by Darleen on 11/29 @ 8:17 pm #
you are a bigot because you want to use the tax code to destroy religion by your disengenuous line of “tax the non-profits!”
putz
Comment by wesley on 11/29 @ 8:18 pm #
“It’s still a good intention. Charity, education, and religion are all useful tools in strengthening the society as a whole. Charity helps those who need; Education makes the society smarter and more productive; and Religion helps with the reinforcement of morality. These are societal foundations, not attempts to “engineerâ€Â.”
If you use government to impose those “goals” it is engineering much like designing something say a toilet. Why is it government needs to bless everything? The gays need marriage, the “non profits” need their tax STATUS, the blacks need “affirmative action”, the greasy labor thugs need “card check”, and NPR needs to keep Roy Kroc’s endowment from the tax man.
Comment by Darleen on 11/29 @ 8:19 pm #
in essense, business “income” taxes are really VAT taxes. It is the consumer of the product that is paying them.
IMHO all income taxes, business and individual, should be abolished and a national sales tax instituted.
Comment by Darleen on 11/29 @ 8:22 pm #
The government, by allowing a private sphere of charity/religion/non-profits to operate without undue government interference is not imposing “social engineering.”
Your hostility to religion is duely noted.
Comment by urthshu on 11/29 @ 8:24 pm #
>>I be Classical Liberal I be OUTLAW
ROTFLOL
No no, you seem to want the gov to tax everybody they possibly can. Got money? Give it up! Maybe render bodies for the gold in them, who knows?
Classical liberalism wouldn’t have any of that shit. That is teh retoddid funneh youo made
Comment by wesley on 11/29 @ 8:49 pm #
“The government, by allowing a private sphere of charity/religion/non-profits to operate without undue government interference is not imposing “social engineering.â€Â
Where in the Constitution is the federal government given any ability to allow stuff not spelled out in the Constitution? A faithful reading would say that that is given to the states.
Comment by wesley on 11/29 @ 8:53 pm #
“No no, you seem to want the gov to tax everybody they possibly can. Got money? Give it up! Maybe render bodies for the gold in them, who knows? ”
Yes I do so the idiots who don’t pay federal taxes get to enjoy to the pleasure. Mostly those folks are Obama supporters. Pay you taxes be patriotic says Joey Hairplugs.
Comment by wesley on 11/29 @ 8:55 pm #
Darleen,
The caps lock hurt:
“religions/charities/non-profits operate on VOLUNTARY DONATIONS.”
So does Walmart. Unless there is an Arkansas mafia making you give money there.
Comment by urthshu on 11/29 @ 8:58 pm #
LOL good night, folks
Comment by badanov on 11/29 @ 9:00 pm #
Churches which engage in fundraising involving the sale of something ( such as a bake sale ) must report the profits for the purposes of income taxes, so that means churches do pay tax when they gain income derived from profit.
Comment by wesley on 11/29 @ 9:14 pm #
“Churches which engage in fundraising involving the sale of something ( such as a bake sale ) must report the profits for the purposes of income taxes, so that means churches do pay tax when they gain income derived from profit.”
Darleen,
Read the above. It gets stupid quick(I mean using the tax code to justify your existence). It is like happyfeet’s friend who wanted to teach. How cheap can you do it and will people recognize your paperwork. This stuff is brought to you by people who want only their “friends” to succeed. So I’m tired of the “Charley Rangel” game. Pay your taxes and tell the idiots to lower everyone’s taxes.
Comment by Darleen on 11/29 @ 9:15 pm #
weaselly
You don’t get to go into Walmart and pick up a tv priced at $150, stick a fiver on the counter and walk out with it,
unless you’re looking to spend a night in jail.
You can attend church services and the guy next to you can drop $5 or 50 in the plate and you don’t have to put in anything. No one is going to toss you out of the church.
Comment by wesley on 11/29 @ 9:25 pm #
“weaselly
You don’t get to go into Walmart and pick up a tv priced at $150, stick a fiver on the counter and walk out with it,
unless you’re looking to spend a night in jail.
You can attend church services and the guy next to you can drop $5 or 50 in the plate and you don’t have to put in anything. No one is going to toss you out of the church.”
Salmin Rushdie would disagree. The experience of Walmart and the experience of “church” are equally free at this time pre-Obama. Try taking out the cup of “my blood” sans payment?
Comment by wesley on 11/29 @ 9:45 pm #
Darleen,
I’m a bigot because I don’t think that George Soros et al are allowed to use the sacred “tax code” written by that Moses Chuck Rangel to do the bidding of his sycophants?
“you are a bigot because you want to use the tax code to destroy religion by your disengenuous line of “tax the non-profits!â€Â
Comment by wesley on 11/29 @ 10:21 pm #
“you are a bigot because you want to use the tax code to destroy religion by your disengenuous line of “tax the non-profits!â€Â
Darleen,
Who is using the “tax code” to eliminate competitors but the”non profits”?
Comment by maggie katzen on 11/29 @ 10:26 pm #
competitors?
Comment by happyfeet on 11/29 @ 10:28 pm #
oh. It was that crazy old bitch Joan Kroc what done it.
Comment by happyfeet on 11/29 @ 10:29 pm #
Hopefully they invested it stupid.
Comment by maggie katzen on 11/29 @ 10:30 pm #
well, our local Salvation Army Thrift shop does have a nice new space. but, I think it’s because whoever owns the old space is tearing the shopping center down.
Comment by maggie katzen on 11/29 @ 10:31 pm #
It’s nice cause they plug the tv’s in so you know they work.
Comment by happyfeet on 11/29 @ 10:32 pm #
That’s nice but you have to worry about roaches. Ok that’s my mom talking in my head. I hate it when she does that.
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 11/29 @ 10:36 pm #
How is your mom, happyfeet? I remember you said she was sick the other day.
Comment by happyfeet on 11/29 @ 10:42 pm #
Thank you – I haven’t heard today. She’s been hanging in there. Pneumonia. She says she’s feeling better but she’s still very symptomatic and she tends to talk a good game so it’s hard to tell and they extended her stay which is not good really. So yesterday it was tomorrow she’d be going home.
Comment by Merovign on 11/29 @ 10:53 pm #
At first I wasn’t going to say wesley was alphie. I just figured it was some dolt that read Atlas Shrugged, didn’t understand a word of it, but decided to apply it to his life anyway.
Then came the whole “Salman Rushdie would disagree that baptists wouldn’t hunt you down for not putting more than $5 on the plate” thing, and I figure it’s either alphie or someone similarly suffering from chronic dissociation from reality.
It really has a way with not using words properly, doesn’t it?
Comment by Drew on 11/29 @ 10:54 pm #
Hey, thanks for taking my questions seriously Darleen.
And I’d rather ban all taxes before I banned non-profits; if I can’t do the former I’ll take the latter in compromise.
Comment by happyfeet on 11/29 @ 10:59 pm #
I’ve kind of been skipping the wesley. He’s not really value-added. I miss buttons. I’ve thought about going to check and see if he went back to that Ace’s place but then I think well what if he is what are you gonna do start going over there and reading him there? No. buttons was ephemeral I guess. Like the seasonal pumpkin ice cream my stupid Trader Joe’s still hasn’t gotten any of.
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 11/29 @ 11:01 pm #
I hope she’s feeling better soon.
Comment by wesley on 11/29 @ 11:02 pm #
“#Comment by maggie katzen on 11/29 @ 10:26 pm #
competitors?”
Are there FOR PROFIT hospitals out there? If not why not?
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 11/29 @ 11:04 pm #
Salman Rushdie would disagree that baptists wouldn’t hunt you down for not putting more than $5 on the plate
Bizarro World, to be sure.
Comment by happyfeet on 11/29 @ 11:05 pm #
Thanks, Spies – I’m set to go home end of December – after Christmas – so I’ll get to check on her then.
Comment by maggie katzen on 11/29 @ 11:06 pm #
cause health care is a right.
Comment by happyfeet on 11/29 @ 11:06 pm #
omg wesley is dumb
Comment by wesley on 11/29 @ 11:09 pm #
Yes do skip my interest in the “non profit” thing. “Non profit” is another term for ” Yea well Charley Rangel made me “free”". You folks are about as OUTLAW as my truant kid from the public schools ie not so much. Hey Darleen: my raising a topic for discussion doesn’t equal bigot unless you’ve an in with the Daily Kos.
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 11/29 @ 11:09 pm #
Are there FOR PROFIT hospitals out there?
Yes. Lots of them.
Idiot.
Comment by parsnip on 11/29 @ 11:09 pm #
What a pity it is that John McCain has forever tied the Republican party to identity politics.
Making posts like this one pure irony.
Comment by wesley on 11/29 @ 11:11 pm #
“#Comment by happyfeet on 11/29 @ 11:06 pm #
omg wesley is dumb”
Name calling = Kos or TNR
Comment by happyfeet on 11/29 @ 11:12 pm #
I’m sorry wesley it’s just that was a really dumb thing to say and I was startled.
Comment by wesley on 11/29 @ 11:13 pm #
“#
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 11/29 @ 11:09 pm #
Are there FOR PROFIT hospitals out there?
Yes. Lots of them.
Idiot.”
And “not for profit” hospital are tax free why?
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 11/29 @ 11:14 pm #
And “not for profit†hospital are tax free why?
Because they aren’t operated to make a profit.
Idiot.
Comment by happyfeet on 11/29 @ 11:15 pm #
Cause there are laws what nurture community hospitals so people in odd places can still get medical care.
Comment by happyfeet on 11/29 @ 11:19 pm #
Hospitals are different than bowling alleys and nail salons.
Comment by wesley on 11/29 @ 11:19 pm #
SBP
Why shouldn’t the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center with a logo on The United States Steel building in downtown Pittsburgh pay taxes? This scam goes on and on. Just ask the Rooney’s who own the Pittsburgh Stealers and are trying to get away from the Obama capital gains. Yea lot of “non profit” stuff going on here.
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 11/29 @ 11:20 pm #
I think wesley is after a world where private hospitals have been taxed out of existence and dirty little socialists like him get to decide when and if you get treatment. Because having life and death power over other people gives dirty little socialists like him raging boners.
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 11/29 @ 11:20 pm #
Why shouldn’t the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center with a logo on The United States Steel building in downtown Pittsburgh pay taxes?
Because they don’t make a profit.
Idiot.
Comment by happyfeet on 11/29 @ 11:23 pm #
Because it’s just sort of stupid for operations what get government funding to turn around and pay it back in taxes I think. I know the world is a confounding place but some of this is very yielding if you’re patient.
Comment by wesley on 11/29 @ 11:25 pm #
hf, sbp, darleen
Say what you will. It is all about “rent seeking”. Your little nickle and dime thing no big deal. UPMC a “non profit” owns alot of this city. It is a accounting scam. So is ACORN et al.. Ask Soros
Comment by B Moe on 11/29 @ 11:26 pm #
What I don’t understand is why the government don’t pay taxes? You know how much land and buildings they own? Fucking lots, that is how much! If they paid their fair share the rest of us prolly wouldn’t have to pay hardly any.
Let them pay their own taxes, if they need money that bad, is what I say.
Comment by happyfeet on 11/29 @ 11:27 pm #
Well to some extent yeah non-profits are out of control but Baracky’s not gonna do jack but exacerbate it cause he’s the dirtiest socialistest rent-seeker ever elected.
Comment by wesley on 11/29 @ 11:28 pm #
“Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 11/29 @ 11:20 pm #
Why shouldn’t the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center with a logo on The United States Steel building in downtown Pittsburgh pay taxes?
Because they don’t make a profit.”
Dude ease up:
“While they are able to earn a profit, more accurately called a surplus, such earnings are retained by the organization for its future provision of programs and services, and are not owned by nor distributed to individuals or stake-holders.”
Wiki for what is worth>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_profit
Comment by maggie katzen on 11/29 @ 11:30 pm #
ahem.
Comment by wesley on 11/29 @ 11:33 pm #
I’m sorry if I have upset folks. I think it may be better if I go back and discuss OUTLAW jeans. Good evening and go steelers.
Comment by maggie katzen on 11/29 @ 11:34 pm #
no, it’s successful and smart about the services it provides. It also employs a lot of people and contributes to the community.
Comment by B Moe on 11/29 @ 11:35 pm #
So what you are proposing then Wesley is like a windfall non-profit tax on anything these hospitals manage to save away for the future?
And this really seems like a reasonable idea to you?
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 11/29 @ 11:37 pm #
While they are able to earn a profit, more accurately called a surplus, such earnings are retained by the organization for its future provision of programs and services
And?
I see from their annual report that they provided $228 million in uncompensated care and gave another $60 million to other charitable causes.
I also see that the city budget for Pittsburgh was $436 million.
So, this “greedy” hospital gave away an amount of services which were equivalent to well over half the city’s budget.
Idiot.
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 11/29 @ 11:42 pm #
Also, I see that this hospital pioneered transplant surgery and the polio vaccine, trains medical students (hence the “University of Pittsburgh” part), and spends $400 million a year on medical research.
Comment by wesley on 11/29 @ 11:53 pm #
“#
Comment by maggie katzen on 11/29 @ 11:34 pm #
UPMC a “non profit†owns alot of this city. It is a accounting scam.
no, it’s successful and smart about the services it provides. It also employs a lot of people and contributes to the community.”
Edgar Thomson does the steel without tax money.
Comment by thor on 11/29 @ 11:57 pm #
Wesley, you’re arguing with the Duuuuuuuh Squadron. Don’t expect to go anywhere, or to any rational conclusion so to speak.
For example: I have an undergraduate business degree with 12 hours of accounting. Though I’m far removed from the days of business school it seems to me the product pricing models overlapped in several junior and senior level management and marketing classes. There were a lot of different strategies and razor blade pricing and Coke case studies we learned about. Non of that will be included in any discussion with a member of the Duuuuuh Squadron. They’ll state some obvious aspect of product pricing, something you’d expect to hear from any random person on the street, and dutifully begin to call you names such as dirty Socialist, ignorant slut, dumb cunt, fuckwit, etc…
One might assume they watch Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity all day. To hide their lack of knowledge, which is a nice way of saying ignorance, they brow beat and name call. Sean Hannity-ing is, as they see it, a high-water mark of projecting self-importance. The sad truth is none of ‘em (the ones cited, anyway) have ever held a job or even have the slimmest of educations in what they bark so ferociously about. The Duuuuuh Squadron are the Fox Newser know-nothings on this board.
Comment by wesley on 11/29 @ 11:58 pm #
“#
Comment by B Moe on 11/29 @ 11:35 pm #
So what you are proposing then Wesley is like a windfall non-profit tax on anything these hospitals manage to save away for the future?
And this really seems like a reasonable idea to you?”
No treat this entities as FOR PROFIT entities tax or don’t tax accordingly. Ask Charley Rangel what to do.
Comment by maggie katzen on 11/29 @ 11:58 pm #
and your point is?
Comment by maggie katzen on 11/29 @ 11:59 pm #
oh, look over there! is that a rabbit!?
Comment by wesley on 11/30 @ 12:06 am #
“#
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 11/29 @ 11:42 pm #
Also, I see that this hospital pioneered transplant surgery and the polio vaccine, trains medical students (hence the “University of Pittsburgh†part), and spends $400 million a year on medical research.”
You want to do “research”? Here’s research Koppers, PPG, Gulf, Westinghouse, ALCOA. We DID research here in Pittsburgh. So f’off with your UPMC stuff. Tax payer research ask AlGore how that is going? Screw the unions the Dems and the statists.
Comment by wesley on 11/30 @ 12:08 am #
“#
Comment by maggie katzen on 11/29 @ 11:58 pm #
Edgar Thomson does the steel without tax money.
and your point is?”
Who pays more in taxes queen bee USS or UPMC?
Comment by thor on 11/30 @ 12:13 am #
Lot’s of people have questioned the accounting and tax treatment of church sponsored hospitals. Thousands of articles have been written about the topic.
I believe the topic is beyond the Duuuuuuh Squadron’s “pay grade,” if I may borrow a line from Barack Obama.
Comment by maggie katzen on 11/30 @ 12:14 am #
Why does it matter? if you tax them, they’ll just donate less. Or are you arguing that the government would know better how to spend that money?
Comment by maggie katzen on 11/30 @ 12:23 am #
There’s also the matter of being part of a public university.
Comment by wesley on 11/30 @ 12:42 am #
Dear Darleen,
Love you dear. But I find your views some what troubling. You don’t seem to understand that at one time this little Bolshevik republic I call home namely Pitsburgh used to be an engine of economic growth. Do you know about Tesla and Westinghouse and Edison? Long time ago. But you know I travel daily across The George Westinghouse bridge and look down on the Turtle Creek valley where the remains of the Westinghouse East Pittsburgh Works remain. On that George Westinghouse Bridge I can look over to The Edgar Thomson works of USS in Braddock. I’ve been in that plant Darleen. A bunch of “cue happyfeet” greasey union guys looking at tv screens showing lego slabs of steel being extruded.
You got really pissed off about me spouting off about “non profits”. Here’s my point: non profit means you are loser. If you do not profit from the exchange then the exchange is worthless. If I want Bituminous coal and you have this coal and we exchange goods all is fine. If I need to register my concern with the federal Government in order to make the exchange you have said Freedom is a worthless commodity.
God bless you in your work. But I’m going OUTLAW in my genes.
Comment by wesley on 11/30 @ 12:56 am #
“#
Comment by maggie katzen on 11/30 @ 12:14 am #
Why does it matter? if you tax them, they’ll just donate less. Or are you arguing that the government would know better how to spend that money?”
Tax everyone. Everyone rebel. F%%K politicians!
Comment by daleyrocks on 11/30 @ 1:44 am #
“Here’s my point: non profit means you are loser.”
wesley – Sheer brilliance. Can you lose money on an exchange and not be a nonprofit? What about tax loss carrybacks or carryforwards? Are we going to sump the tax exempt status of colleges and universities too, those fucking losers where you learn to misapply concepts such as rent seeking? How about Planned Parenthood, speaking of losers, are they nonprofit? Your plan could revolutionize (read dry up) private sector charitable giving compared to its current levels! Think of the engineering possibilities!
Comment by Sarah on 11/30 @ 3:45 am #
What you call religious bigotry I call moral hypocrisy. If black women have the audacity to attend church, maybe they should have the integrity to practice their religion instead of telling others what to do – with the force of law – while blindly ignoring their own wretched behaviors that are affecting society more than two gay guys getting married.
Comment by Pablo on 11/30 @ 6:12 am #
Gee, you sound angry, Sarah. Do you think practicing Christianity precludes one from voting against Prop 8? That seems to be what you’re arguing, but most really Christiany people don’t seem to agree with you about that.
Comment by Rusty on 11/30 @ 6:59 am #
Yes HMOs can lobby the government because it is a constitutional right. No they shouldn’t be strip of any legal rights they have for exercising a constitutional right.
I hardly think ‘lobbying’ as it exists today is what the founding fathers had in mind.
Using your analogy, then shouldn’t public parks also pay property taxes?
Instead of asking why aren’t all properties taxed equally, why not go back to first principles and ask; Why are properties taxed at all? That is what a real big’L’ classic liberal should be thinking about.
Comment by Carin on 11/30 @ 7:26 am #
while blindly ignoring their own wretched behaviors that are affecting society more
Black women’s wretched behavior? Someone’s gonna have to go to a racial tolerance seminar …
Comment by Pablo on 11/30 @ 7:46 am #
Sarah sounds like a Typical White Person™. Maybe a little Messiah time would fix her.
Pingback by Or, You Know . . . We Could Just Get Rid of Black Women. | Little Miss Attila on 11/30 @ 7:48 am #
[...] solved! [...]
Comment by Rusty on 11/30 @ 8:09 am #
#123
A business degree is useless when it comes to actually running a business.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 11/30 @ 8:23 am #
Earlier “wesley” was saying non-profits were government-mandated winners because they weren’t forced at gunpoint for the privilege of owning property.
Comment by Rusty on 11/30 @ 10:16 am #
#129
But free public healthcare is OK?
Comment by Darleen on 11/30 @ 10:42 am #
earlier “wesley†was saying non-profits were government-mandated winners
wesley’s arguments “evolved” but basically stay on message
getting rid of non-profits in toto as a way to get rid of religion.
Comment by SSG Ratso on 11/30 @ 11:02 am #
An important point: not for profit != tax exempt.
Comment by Carin on 11/30 @ 11:04 am #
One might assume they watch Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity all day.
How do they do that? I believe the two of ‘em, added together, clock-in at about 2 hour grand total of TV time.
e. The sad truth is none of ‘em (the ones cited, anyway) have ever held a job or even have the slimmest of educations in what they bark so ferociously about. The Duuuuuh Squadron are the Fox Newser know-nothings on this board.
Yet, here you are??? You can’t quit us, thorazine.
Comment by SSG Ratso on 11/30 @ 11:16 am #
Looking about, UPMC is tax exempt under 501(c)(3). This means that UPMC does not pay income tax. They are still liable for employment taxes, however, and any other federal taxes as might be applicable, given activites and circumstances.
Comment by Sdferr on 11/30 @ 11:42 am #
Are homosexuals strongly ostracized in so-called black or African-American communities?
Are these (poorly characterized) communities differentially more disapproving of homosexuality than other communities, say (grossly, again) Asian-American, Native-American or Southasian-American? (Ugh. I hate this sort of categorization, why the fuck am I doing it?) How about with regard to foreign attitudes toward homosexuals, say, Nigerian, Ugandan, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Argentinian, Italian, Australian and so on, or, do the populations of these nations break down along so-called (internal) cultural lines just as much as our nation is said to do? If so, and only as an aside to the initial question, does any such disapprobation extend equally to lesbians as to queer men?
I have heard such claims broadcast (repeatedly, which repetition only contributes to my doubts as to their veracity) but don’t actually know much about the substance of the thing and certainly have done no research into the subject myself.
If the claim turns out to be correct (mostly or even only somewhat, which is to say, marginally and reliably so), then the next question wanting an account would seem to be “Why is this so?” What drives this attitude or position within this (decidedly indistinct) demographic? And then, does that answer (or those answers) tell us something useful about human nature or only something about the contingent historical circumstance of the individuals so defined?
(All of this seems to me to be built on such rickety structures of thought that I’m not at all sure it’s even worth the trouble of asking. So please forgive me if that proves to be the case. On the other hand, maybe this can prove to be a useful way to begin throw these sorts of (again, to me anyway) useless categorizations out for good, a kind of reductio ad absurdum, if you will.)
Comment by ushie on 11/30 @ 12:56 pm #
O.M.G. thor has TWELVE hours of accounting? 12??? T W E L V E whole hours? Why isn’t he out GOD ON EARTH then?
I am FLUMMOXED! Never in MY LIFE have I ever met anyone with TWELVE HOURS of accounting under his belt! How ASTONISHING! How MARVELOUS! How FANTASTIC! I LITERALLY STAND IN AWE OF HIS AWESOME…
wait. Oh, yeah. I work in a building with around 1,400 full-fledged accountants in it. I forgot.
Comment by Mikey NTH on 11/30 @ 1:07 pm #
#89 Haps:
Sorry to hear about your mom, hope she gets better. And she sounds like a fighter, like my mom.
My mom went in for knee-replacement surgery, got pneumonia, and got over it. She is walking much better, and is able to do the loop on the walking path without a cane.
Then came the lumpectomies, but it seems they got it all. I hope to see the folks at my little brother’s in N.C. this Christmas. Ma is still fighting – she won’t go quietly, she’ll go kicking, and hitting, and yelling – “I’ve got things to do, lectures to give!”. God, I love that about her.
Comment by Mikey NTH on 11/30 @ 1:23 pm #
As others have said – non-profits are not taxed on real property they own or on their donations. This has been done because the services provided to the community are considered so valuable that government wants to encourage them, not hinder them. The expenses of police and fire protection are considered minor when weighed against the benefits. And a religious exemption survives challenge because it is given regardless of denomination or faith, and the benefits to the community are such that it is reasonable.
That said, weaselly is an idiot, because the arguments he brings have already been asked, and answered by the courts. Perhaps weaselly should spend more time on Lexis or Westlaw than here, for he would find the answers to his arguments already addressed by people who have forgotten more about the Constitution and the law than he could ever hope to know.
Comment by ushie on 11/30 @ 1:36 pm #
Best wishes to Happyfeet’s and Mikey’m moms.
Comment by thor on 11/30 @ 1:38 pm #
Ewwwww, wookie, it’s a wittle weedumblican who worked in willy big building with awwwountants.
I stand in awe! A building!!!! A monument to you!!!!
Most management and marketing majors and assorted other sundry take 6-hours, ya see. We finance majors had to take 2 additional semesters of intermediate back in the day.
So, not that I know anything close to you who work in a building filled with the needle dicks of GAAP, Ohhhhhhnoeeee! Or a government employee, like Darleen, who converses of tax theory on the level of someone who works in a building of – let me think – 1500 (!!!) accountants!
Comment by Darleen on 11/30 @ 1:43 pm #
thor, coward basement dweller with delusions that he is really a “finance major” ::::snicker::::guffaw:::: keeps doing variations of the “chickenhawk” meme.
Comment by daleyrocks on 11/30 @ 1:47 pm #
“We finance majors”
Wow Thor, no evidence you’ve retained any knowledge.
Plus nothing spells good faith commenting like retaining six IP addys.
Let us know when your testicles descend.
Comment by thor on 11/30 @ 1:49 pm #
It’s not what he/she is saying at all. The topic is beyond your pointy head’s range. Non-profits cause noise in the overall corporate tax structure.
The reason you can’t separate religion from a topical taxable status debate is you are nothing but a fool’s harpy, a low-information Fox Newser. Sean Hannity hasn’t dumbed in down for you with a shadow box of Barney Frank over his shoulder.
You’re the reason the weedumblicans got thumped and will continue to get thumped. All bark and no IQ.
Comment by happyfeet on 11/30 @ 1:50 pm #
Thanks, ushie – glad to hear your mom is doing better Mikey. My mom already did a masectomy thinger a kinda long while ago now. When they get it they get it I think but you have to be vigilant.
oh. Can you explain the accounting is one of my favorite questions at meetings. People look at me like it’s impertinent but the cfo guy when he answers you can tell he didn’t think that was a stupid question at all.
Comment by B Moe on 11/30 @ 1:52 pm #
Non-profits cause noise in the overall corporate tax structure.
If thor wasn’t so busy drinking his way to god-hood he would elaborate, no doubt.
Comment by B Moe on 11/30 @ 1:53 pm #
With facts, lots of facts.
Snort.
Comment by daleyrocks on 11/30 @ 1:54 pm #
“It’s not what he/she is saying at all.”
Thor – Try to follow this thread, not the imaginary one in your head fuckstick.
You are wrong cumbreath.
Comment by happyfeet on 11/30 @ 1:54 pm #
I don’t think those prison labor factories get taxed either. Probably some do and some don’t. It’s a mixed up muddled up shook up world except for Lola I think.
Comment by daleyrocks on 11/30 @ 1:56 pm #
“All bark and no IQ.”
Sounds like your comments Thor.
Comment by thor on 11/30 @ 2:00 pm #
You mean to say “was,” you gutless, cellar dweller.
Poor thing, all you can do is hide behind your flag pin and second-rate name-calling.
And I’m finishing my Master of Fine Arts! I have no use for it, but it’s the reason I understand Jeff’s language theory, or try to, since he’s cleverly crafted his very own, which is what I’d do if I had to, but I don’t.
Comment by B Moe on 11/30 @ 2:01 pm #
I guess I just don’t understand lefty style dialogue and reasoned debate:
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/278938.php
Heh. Wonder which one is thor?
Comment by thor on 11/30 @ 2:05 pm #
Well, doucheface (my attempt at a sillier affront than yours), take your own advice.
Wesley called for a change in tax law as it pertains to non-taxable entities. It’s an old and rather well-discussed topic.
Try.Bitch.To.Follow.
Comment by B Moe on 11/30 @ 2:05 pm #
And I’m finishing my Master of Fine Arts! I have no use for it…
So you spend your time pursuing a useless degree while making useless posts on a blog arguing with people you profess to loath.
How long before you finally eat that bullet, dude? Go get some help.
Comment by ushie on 11/30 @ 2:12 pm #
Um…so because I work in a building…the building is a monument to me? Hey, thor, didja take any logic courses? I’m thinking not.
And few of the accountants I know use their dicks to work. It’s not like any of us are Norman Mailer or anything.
You get that, right?
Comment by thor on 11/30 @ 2:15 pm #
Nothing screams Duuuuuh Squadron member like the dunce who eeks “Lefty!” every time someone isn’t in-line with some other low-IQ carnival barker who hibernates on PW.
Wingered politics isn’t at the core of debates involving tax structure or tax status, chickenwinger.
It’s about tax law.
Comment by thor on 11/30 @ 2:21 pm #
The logic elasticity comes from extending your hyperbole to its senseless conclusion.
You pick these writing style nuances up in class, or by reading. Hehehe, ho!
Comment by ushie on 11/30 @ 2:24 pm #
The logic elasticity comes from extending your hyperbole to its senseless conclusion.
I could read that all day and it still would be nonsense.
Comment by Ric Caric on 11/30 @ 2:24 pm #
Given the rampant homophobia on Protein Wisdom (Dan Collins’ charming “Hey Faggot” post is only the worst example), you folks should know more than anyone that the gay marriage issue boils down to bigotry against gay people and denying gay people their fundamental rights. The rest of the issues you try to raise are just cover for your bigotry. But you already know that.
Comment by happyfeet on 11/30 @ 2:26 pm #
We’re really scraping the bottom of the victim barrel these days. It’s a living I guess.
Comment by guinsPen on 11/30 @ 2:29 pm #
Stay off the guy’s property. What’s so hard about that?
Nuance?
Comment by daleyrocks on 11/30 @ 2:29 pm #
“Wesley called for a change in tax law as it pertains to non-taxable entities. It’s an old and rather well-discussed topic.”
Geez Thor thanks for the tip, but as Darleen pointed out earlier, Wesley’s argument was indeed an evolving one and way up there in comment 48 argued as both she and I pointed out as follows:
“The government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers as far as tax policy.”
If you take your blinders off for a few minutes you might be a more meaningful participant to threads, instead of having your mouth constantly full of dingleberries.
None of this, however, has anything to do with the original topic of Darleen’s post, the aversion of black women to teh butt sechs.
Comment by thor on 11/30 @ 2:36 pm #
First of all, Professor Caric, Dan Collins is a monument to bigotry so large and profoundly artistic that I can’t will my awe from his grandeur. Like a bigot beanstalk, and I’m Jack!
There shouldn’t be gay marriage until or unless the majority of the populace deigns there to be, in priciple. With a few signatures added to legal paperwork same sex partners are afforded the same rights as heterosexuals, all while benefiting from those highly valued anti-discrimination protections which heteros can’t claim (unless you’re another form of approved minority), therefore I don’t understand the “big, darn deal,” if I may quote Sarah Palin.
Would the homosexuals sharing the same piece of paper adorned with a official seal as heterosexuals receive upon marriage make their love grow, get stronger, be made complete?
It’s all a useless waste of misguided emotion. Couple if you like, as you will, if you want… who the fuck really cares!
Comment by Merovign on 11/30 @ 2:40 pm #
Remember when I said wesley had probably read Atlas Shrugged and didn’t understand a word of it?
I may have overestimated. Now I’m thinking it played Bioshock, and didn’t understand a word of it.
Comment by ushie on 11/30 @ 2:45 pm #
Jesus. H. Goddam. Christ. Are. You. Fucking. KIDDING. Me?
thor, welsy/aphie/parsnip, AND Ric Caric the Fraud? All showing up here? Where’s nishi?
Darleen, Dan, are you FUCKING with us? Did you send out invitations to the dullards?
Comment by thor on 11/30 @ 2:49 pm #
The core of the get-rid-of-non-taxed-entities is that tax law itself has created yet another industry purely on the back of a tax loop hole. The risks of allowing tax law to dictate capital formation was seen during the S&L collapse. When taxation of passive loss carry forwards were changed it collapsed commercial real estate markets that were built to take advantage of those particular loop holes. It makes for a potential mess by misguiding capital toward tax advantages versus toward profit.
It’s not a debate I care much about, but I understand it.
Comment by thor on 11/30 @ 2:52 pm #
And then there’s your Special Olympics bronze medal presence. Oh wait, calling a PW name-caller a name is verboten.
Comment by B Moe on 11/30 @ 3:16 pm #
It’s not a debate I care much about…
Yet here you are again. You are the fucking King of Uselessness, aren’t you?
Comment by cranky-d on 11/30 @ 3:43 pm #
Ah, the Caricature has again graced us with his presence. My weekend is complete.
Comment by Darleen on 11/30 @ 4:00 pm #
The reason you can’t separate religion from a topical taxable status debate
way to ignore what this thread was about. Just as one of my links shows the cries to strip the Mormon church of its tax status isn’t about “tax policy” but as punishment for the audacity of its members daring to support a public social policy SSM fanatics didn’t like.
coward thor refuses to see the forest and sneers that people actually discussing the forest must be disqualified because they don’t have a degree in the chemical composition of squirrel droppings.
Comment by Darleen on 11/30 @ 4:03 pm #
“Prof” Red
he gay marriage issue
See, you can’t even get that right. Gay marriage already exists. Gays can (and some do) get married as long the partner is of the opposite sex.
Radical redefinition is something YOU must argue with more than “if you don’t agree with my whims you are just a poopy head”.
But, heck, what should anyone expect from a “Professor” in the faux field of Womyn’s Studies.
Comment by Darleen on 11/30 @ 4:08 pm #
Comment by thor on 11/30 @ 2:36 pm #
here’s a challenge, coward
since the basis of all the SSM fanatics is that sex of the participants is not only irrelevant but evilllllly irrelevant, why is number of the participants sacrosanct?
If the state cannot limit marriage to one of each, why can it limit the total number?
Comment by thor on 11/30 @ 5:19 pm #
Here’s a response, gutless, I don’t even fuckin’ care about SSM. It’s a canard. Read #175.
Unless SSM’ers have the pull to change our constitution, fuck ‘em. Mormons are idiots in my opinion, but as long as churches are tax-exempt then they should be entitled to that exemption. Were you expecting I’d respond like a weird-o bigot? Your job as head winger is pitting people against each other, not mine.
Comment by guinsPen on 11/30 @ 6:17 pm #
Thing #175 that you don’t care, yet chatter-on about.
Check.
Comment by Rusty on 11/30 @ 6:45 pm #
“We finance majorsâ€Â
The sum total of the boys expertise.
Go home thor. I hear your mom calling for ya.
Comment by thor on 11/30 @ 6:55 pm #
That’s actually your mom calling my name, Rusty. I do her hard and proper, duuuuuh.
Mom jokes… we’re down to mom jokes. I guess that’s about it for this thread.
Comment by B Moe on 11/30 @ 7:12 pm #
We aren’t down to mom jokes thor, you are. And that would pretty much be an up for you, so what you should say is “I am up to mom jokes, I guess that is about it for this thread.”
Comment by TheUnrepentantGeek on 12/1 @ 12:21 pm #
I’m a progressive. I prefer to call people stupid, whine about how we talked about this already, and generally act like a twit rather than actually engage people’s arguments. This makes me feel like a winner – something I desperately need, because I don’t think daddy loved me enough.
Comment by Mossberg500 on 12/2 @ 5:29 am #
Comment by TheUnrepentantGeek on 12/1 @ 12:21 pm #
I’m a progressive. I prefer to call people stupid, whine about how we talked about this already, and generally act like a twit rather than actually engage people’s arguments. This makes me feel like a winner – something I desperately need, because I don’t think daddy loved me enough.
That’s funny, perf caricature has the daddy-hate thing going on too! But I think daddy loved perf caricature too hard!
perf, does your asshole still hurt?
Comment by Rusty on 12/2 @ 6:08 am #
#188
A day late and a dollar short. As usual.