Says the guy who avidly defends sodomy.
Roy Moore, OJ Simpson, And why I don't believe you.
- Thread starter fool
- Start date
Says the guy who avidly defends sodomy.
You're the liar.
501c3s are generally considered to be charities. "The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals." https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-p...-purposes-internal-revenue-code-section-501c3
Can you tell me what the exempt purpose of this organization is? And why it would be paying Roy Moore $300,000 for his services? Calling it a charity is charitable of WaPo. Really what it is is a corrupt tax-exempt slush fund for attacking secularism and, apparently, lining Roy Moore's pockets.
While this post was intended for WizardofOz, I will answer rexlunae's post until WizardofOz comes back to defend his remarks.
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
It's been well established that the WAPO lied about Moore sexually harassing and molesting teenage girls.
Back the WAPO allegations with proof please. I know, petty things like proof aren't important in the world of liberals and Libertarians are they rex?
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Let's discuss those lies first Aaron and once we both agree that the rainbow flag wavers at the WAPO are pathetic liars, let's talk about how the liars at WAPO are calling a 501c3 tax exempt organization that "fights to protect the Constitution and protect the heritage of our Country" a "charity".
Charities are generally believed to be organizations that give to the needy, often times sick and dying children. While Judge Roy Moore's organization helped those in need that were being harassed by the LGBTQ movement, i.e. the 'gaystapo", it's a tax exempt organization, not a charity as WAPO made it out to be.
I'll let Judge Roy Moore's organization tell you:
http://morallaw.org/
Just think rex: If Judge Roy Moore were to get into the Senate, he would question the constitutionality of Roe v Wade, Lawrence v Texas and Obergefell v Hodges.
I see why you liberals/Libertarians are having nightmares at just the thought.
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
It's been well established that the WAPO lied about Moore sexually harassing and molesting teenage girls.
Back the WAPO allegations with proof please. I know, petty things like proof aren't important in the world of liberals and Libertarians are they rex?
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Let's discuss those lies first Aaron and once we both agree that the rainbow flag wavers at the WAPO are pathetic liars, let's talk about how the liars at WAPO are calling a 501c3 tax exempt organization that "fights to protect the Constitution and protect the heritage of our Country" a "charity".
Charities are generally believed to be organizations that give to the needy, often times sick and dying children. While Judge Roy Moore's organization helped those in need that were being harassed by the LGBTQ movement, i.e. the 'gaystapo", it's a tax exempt organization, not a charity as WAPO made it out to be.
I'll let Judge Roy Moore's organization tell you:
http://morallaw.org/
Just think rex: If Judge Roy Moore were to get into the Senate, he would question the constitutionality of Roe v Wade, Lawrence v Texas and Obergefell v Hodges.
I see why you liberals/Libertarians are having nightmares at just the thought.
The Washington Post doesn't traffic in "proof", or lies. They practice journalism. They seek the truth by interviewing witnesses, checking sources and doing background research. What they publish is their best effort at the truth. And so far, there's no reason to doubt what they uncovered, as much as you may dislike their reporting. If you want to dispute their story, the burden is on you. But it's dishonest to just accuse them of lying without pretty significant evidence.
As I pointed out, the provision of the tax code that they are using for their exemption exists for the use of charities.
That's non-responsive, and you already posted it. The IRS lists specific things that qualify for the exemptions under the applicable law. I asked you which of their activities met those qualifications. It's not a long list, and if you're going to bother defending them, why don't you point out which part applies.
Tax exempt organizations are not supposed to exist for the enrichment of their owners and investors. They don't have a formal salary cap, but it's a little hard to figure out a reasonable rationale for paying a guy so much money that's non-abusive.
I'm not sure what the value of a US Senator complaining about Supreme Court holdings is supposed to be. It's certainly not good, but it isn't a huge departure from what Sessions or Luther Strange have been doing.
Please see the Washington Post article.
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Back the WAPO allegations with proof please. I know, petty things like proof aren't important in the world of liberals and Libertarians are they rex?
When a major news organization is going to not only ruin someone's political career, but character, they better back those allegations with the truth.
I'll wait for you to show the evidence showing Judge Roy Moore did what his accusers accused him of.
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Let's discuss those lies first Aaron and once we both agree that the rainbow flag wavers at the WAPO are pathetic liars, let's talk about how the liars at WAPO are calling a 501c3 tax exempt organization that "fights to protect the Constitution and protect the heritage of our Country" a "charity".
Charities are generally believed to be organizations that give to the needy, often times sick and dying children. While Judge Roy Moore's organization helped those in need that were being harassed by the LGBTQ movement, i.e. the 'gaystapo", it's a tax exempt organization, not a charity as WAPO made it out to be.
And I pointed out that the religious freedom activities that Moore's tax exempt organization partake in, isn't your typical kind of charity.
But then if the perverts at the WAPO referred to Moore's organization as a "tax exempt religious freedom rights organization", it wouldn't have that smear effect would it rex?
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
I'll let Judge Roy Moore's organization tell you:
http://morallaw.org/
Read your own posts:
Quote: Originally posted by rexlunae
"The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals." https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-pr...-section-501c3
I'm sure if Moore represented a left wing organization, the money he was paid wouldn't have been "reasonable" enough, i.e. he would have been grossly underpaid.
To my knowledge the Board of Directors of non profits decide the pay scale. Take that up with your left wing charitable organizations like Planned Parenthood.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Just think rex: If Judge Roy Moore were to get into the Senate, he would question the constitutionality of Roe v Wade, Lawrence v Texas and Obergefell v Hodges.
I see why you liberals/Libertarians are having nightmares at just the thought.
49 million unborn babies killed in the womb see the "value" rex.
Back the WAPO allegations with proof please. I know, petty things like proof aren't important in the world of liberals and Libertarians are they rex?
When a major news organization is going to not only ruin someone's political career, but character, they better back those allegations with the truth.
I'll wait for you to show the evidence showing Judge Roy Moore did what his accusers accused him of.
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Let's discuss those lies first Aaron and once we both agree that the rainbow flag wavers at the WAPO are pathetic liars, let's talk about how the liars at WAPO are calling a 501c3 tax exempt organization that "fights to protect the Constitution and protect the heritage of our Country" a "charity".
Charities are generally believed to be organizations that give to the needy, often times sick and dying children. While Judge Roy Moore's organization helped those in need that were being harassed by the LGBTQ movement, i.e. the 'gaystapo", it's a tax exempt organization, not a charity as WAPO made it out to be.
And I pointed out that the religious freedom activities that Moore's tax exempt organization partake in, isn't your typical kind of charity.
But then if the perverts at the WAPO referred to Moore's organization as a "tax exempt religious freedom rights organization", it wouldn't have that smear effect would it rex?
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
I'll let Judge Roy Moore's organization tell you:
http://morallaw.org/
Read your own posts:
Quote: Originally posted by rexlunae
"The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals." https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-pr...-section-501c3
I'm sure if Moore represented a left wing organization, the money he was paid wouldn't have been "reasonable" enough, i.e. he would have been grossly underpaid.
To my knowledge the Board of Directors of non profits decide the pay scale. Take that up with your left wing charitable organizations like Planned Parenthood.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Just think rex: If Judge Roy Moore were to get into the Senate, he would question the constitutionality of Roe v Wade, Lawrence v Texas and Obergefell v Hodges.
I see why you liberals/Libertarians are having nightmares at just the thought.
49 million unborn babies killed in the womb see the "value" rex.
Yeah, Moore's wife was pictured in the same school yearbook as Bevery Young Nelson.
Married to the same woman since 1985 and raised a family together.
Some May-December marriages work out just fine.
WizardofOz
New member
Um, no. WAPO reports what their investigation turned up. How did they lie? It's one thing to say these women lied but WAPO didn't lie. These women obviously told them about their respective recollection of events.
Otherwise, show me a WAPO lie in regards to Roy Moore.
:yawn:
Semantics. Your feathers are ruffled over whether or not it's technically a "charity"? That isn't significant enough to even debate. As [MENTION=7390]rexlunae[/MENTION] correctly pointed out it has to do with their 501(c)(3) tax exempt status and that they accept charitable donations.
In short, who cares? :idunno:
As I've been saying all along the 14 year old is the only charge actionable. All these other stories if true aren't Illegal if they did happen and according to the stories nothing happened.
Trying to trot out all the other stories as if they lent credence to the 14 year old story is why it's a hit job. They balled four women into one article and the next thing you know even TOLs own kmoney thinks he gave wine to the 14 year old at the underwear cabin when that wasn't alleged. He supposedly drank wine with the 18-19 year old at restaurants but she's not sure if she was 18 or 19 (the legal drinking age) at the time.
How convenient for them, who'd a thunk people would blend all the different accounts together.
Phone records?
Also, I thought the girl who he supposedly called at school he met at a school event, not the mall.
Maybe I'm blending those though.
Cultural relativism is the idea that a person's beliefs, values, and practices should be understood based on that person's own culture, rather than judged against the criteria of another.
Ethnocentrism is an evaluation of other cultures according to preconceptions originating in the standards and customs of one's own culture.
Their two sides of the same coin.
The extent to which you get to pick the Alabama Senator is zero.
The voters of Alabama get to pick their Senator and your Ethnocentrism is probably spurring his supporters on not deterring them.
WizardofOz
New member
:idunno: Explain the relevance...
If she's honest about being paid or not then she's fine. I'm sure you raised her not to lie through her teeth. :thumb:
WizardofOz
New member
You would have been OK with a 32 year old man dating your daughter when she was 16. Would you have given permission?
WizardofOz
New member
Maybe he wouldn't but the alleged victims' parents gave Roy permission.
Derf
Well-known member
This is a good question, but again, it's merely an opinion. My opinion is that it would not be my first preference (and I have a daughter who's getting married next week--to a man only 2 years her senior). But I don't know that it would be that bad, depending on who it was and what his character was like.
You have to admit that most "men" are still boys at 16, while most "girls" are indeed turning into women at 16, and even younger. Our culture, now that boys have been taught to remain boys until they are near 30, is trying to teach girls to remain girls later, too. But their bodies know better. And their minds know better, too.
Most of the time, they want to marry someone who is not a flake, who doesn't sit around in his underwear playing video games in his parents' basement, who can actually afford to provide for them when they have to take some time off work and care for a baby after marriage. And maybe can provide for them if they decide not to return to work at all after the birth of their first child. What I've just described does not fit very many "men" under 32 these days! Yet girls (young women) are thinking about these things when they are 16 (and younger, even). Boys (boys)...aren't.
You and I wouldn't but you're from Wisconsin and I'm from Michigan.
In Agrarian Societies it's not uncommon to see a disparity in ages as a man must be landed and have cattle before he is deemed Husband Material.
And the women ain't waiting until their contemporaries have matured to that point because they don't want to have their first kid when they're 30.
That's not how we do things in the Industrial North.
And the more I think about it I think the North/South Dichotomy is more of an Urban/Rural Dichotomy as I'm an Urban northerner and my rural cousins might have different views.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
As you read the story their initial claim is not backed up.
Nothing in the story proves Moore lied.
He was getting a part time salary and did not collect it on a regular basis.
WizardofOz
New member
What about $180,000 per year confuses you?
That is a regular salary. You disagree? Define what a regular salary might mean...
Derf
Well-known member
Your link shows they accept "tax deductible" donations. It didn't say anywhere on that link they were "charitable" donations. Of course, all uncoerced gifts of money are "charitable" in the broader sense of the term, but you are equivocating "charitable" to mean, in the one case, only those monies that are given to a group that then turns around and gives them to someone else, and, in the other case, any monies given to 501c3 organizations.
rexlunae made similar arguments, even quoting irs.gov, in this post:
Funny, though, that the irs.gov site paragraph rexlunae linked to is more extensive than what he provided. And fortunately for rex, irs.gov even answers his question (if he had bothered to read the whole thing instead of cherry-picking his "evidence") by defining the word "charitable". Here it is in its entirety. I've highlighted the words in it that might apply to the organization in question, according to their purpose statement (Foundation for Moral Law is a non-profit legal foundation committed to protecting our unalienable right to publicly acknowledge God.):
| The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency. |
All of those things highlighted are positively affected by acknowledging God publicly. All of them. There might be a case that could be made that "erecting and maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works" should also be highlighted, since God's blessings, bestowed on nations that adhere to His law and acknowledge Him publicly, would both help in the financing of said erecting and maintaining, as well as prevent invasion and catastrophe due to God's removal of blessing or His direct cursing of such nations. But I left that one off, so rex and you wouldn't feel so bad about maligning such a noble purpose.
Since the paragraph describes the definition of "charitable" as "its generally accepted legal sense", and since such definition doesn't fit with what you and rex are willing to concede here, one has to wonder who is really able to give us decent and correct information for this discussion.
Maybe if you cared more, you'd want to find out the whole truth of a matter before passing judgment.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
You're boring me. :yawn:
WizardofOz
New member
[MENTION=17606]Derf[/MENTION] - what difference does it make if The Foundation for Moral Law is called a charity or not?
I mean, what is the significance? :idunno:
It's not a charity, fine. Big whoop.
I mean, what is the significance? :idunno:
It's not a charity, fine. Big whoop.