Tax the church

[detlef]

So, if the NRA only spent 16% of their budget on advocacy you'd be ok with my scenario?

 

OK, so now you're fishing because you continue to ignore the fact that I've been quite consistent in my stance.

 

You tried to play "gotcha" with the "You seem to be wanting to tax the church, so why aren't you against PP spending money on ads". Then I posted two very recent posts where I was very clear and you just ignored that and moved on. Should I post all the rest in this very thread where I said I'd be in favor of eliminating tax free status of politcal contributions?

 

Then, after I once again said that, because I'd be fine with PP not being able to run ads but still think your comparison is silly, you're back to it again. No, for the effing last time, you're not going to catch me in this one because I don't believe what you insist on pretending I believe!

 

However, to crap on your stupid analogy once again, even that 16% number that a group you described as a group whose primary purpose was to defend the rights of gun owners actually spent on doing that (which would seem like an oddly low number for a group to spend on what it claims is its primary mission), still assumes that PP spends all of the money it devotes to "education and advocacy" on just one of those two things. I aimed close to 16% just to point out how wrong you were even if the numbers were as close to being in your favor as they could be.

[stevegrab]

This discussion has gotten beyond silly, I'm done. Enjoy the pissing match guys

[SEC=UGA]

OK, so now you're fishing because you continue to ignore the fact that I've been quite consistent in my stance.

 

You tried to play "gotcha" with the "You seem to be wanting to tax the church, so why aren't you against PP spending money on ads". Then I posted two very recent posts where I was very clear and you just ignored that and moved on. Should I post all the rest in this very thread where I said I'd be in favor of eliminating tax free status of politcal contributions?

 

Then, after I once again said that, because I'd be fine with PP not being able to run ads but still think your comparison is silly, you're back to it again. No, for the effing last time, you're not going to catch me in this one because I don't believe what you insist on pretending I believe!

 

However, to crap on your stupid analogy once again, even that 16% number that a group you described as a group whose primary purpose was to defend the rights of gun owners actually spent on doing that (which would seem like an oddly low number for a group to spend on what it claims is its primary mission), still assumes that PP spends all of the money it devotes to "education and advocacy" on just one of those two things. I aimed close to 16% just to point out how wrong you were even if the numbers were as close to being in your favor as they could be.

 

 

Tried to play gotcha? And you got hung up on the word advocacy in my stupid analogy... Though, the rest of my post outlines sevices that were contemplated in the example, very much in line with services offered by PP (birth control sales, BC awareness/classes to guns lock sales, safety training courses, etc...) Though you see them differently. Maybe I should have laid out an entire budget for my example...

 

Yes, I read that we should tax them all. But, the difference is, even if we taxed them all you still have PP receiving large sums of direct federal dollars and still advocating for a single party. A party who, conveniently enough, continues to fight for their funding.

 

So, I'll give you this. I guess we agree, ultimately that PP should lose it's federal funding and tax exempt status if they choose to participate in political activism.

 

And Steve, Comparing Tax breaks given to industry to direct federal funding of a non-profit, well, to me that is plain silly.