Senator Charles Grassey, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, is looking into the notion some ministries propound of God wanting to bless the faithful with earthly riches but can't do it until and unless people send their money to these evangelical groups. Six ministries, including Joyce Meyer, Benny Hinn, etc. are being asked to fork over their financial records to determine whether they still qualify for non-profit status. Perhaps this will offer more financial transparancy and make people think twice before sending their $$ to groups like this...
I think the emphasis on me me me me getting from God is a deviation from what is recorded in the gospels. Has anyone heard whether TWI is being asked for their financial records?
They(twi) probably sent money to someones campaign!!
heck remember wierwilles saying?"Find out what they like and give them some of it"
Has anyone heard whether TWI is being asked for their financial records?
I havent heard anything ( Im way out of any loop anyway) but outside of normal accounting and auditting of nonprofits i personally doubt that they will. They are a very small fish in a big pond and have stayed, probably by design, pretty much under the radar
For all their abuses there is no one that I know of living in multimillion dollar houses, driving Rolls Royces or flying around in their private jets (..just like Jesus was! <_< ) showing it off and collecting more and more on national TV everyday like some of the bigger groups do.
Joyce Meyer Ministries' complete financial records are posted on their website, including the truth about the alleged "$23,000 commode."
I think the senatorial socialist doctrine that anyone with money must be investigated, castigated, and condemned is absolute BS, unconstitutional, and a waste of my federal income tax.
I think the senatorial socialist doctrine that anyone with money must be investigated, castigated, and condemned is absolute BS, unconstitutional, and a waste of my federal income tax.
it's not about investigating people with money, it's about for-profit corporations illegally using a non-profit status to avoid taxes. just because you're selling religion doesn't mean you're entitled to non-profit status.
Joyce Meyer Ministries' complete financial records are posted on their website, including the truth about the alleged "$23,000 commode."
I think the senatorial socialist doctrine that anyone with money must be investigated, castigated, and condemned is absolute BS, unconstitutional, and a waste of my federal income tax.
WG
They are not investigating "anyone" with money but instead "not for profit" oganizations with church/religious tax exemptions whose leaders appear to
They are not investigating "anyone" with money but instead "not for profit" oganizations with church/religious tax exemptions whose leaders appear to
be reaping huge personal profits.
And this is a follow up to the 60 Minutes story last Sunday about the guy with the "church" in Houston. This is REALLY a political issue, NOT a religious issue.
There may have been a time when this could have been an issue of concern for twi, but more than likely not these days.
I’ve read several articles on this and find myself amused by them. I do work with Kenneth Copeland, and Joyce Meyer Ministries and some others who preach what some call “the prosperity gospel” and I’m always amazed at what some people leave out regarding their teachings. They also don’t teach just “giving and receiving” but that first you seek God and you give, but you seek God and give with no strings attached. If you do either with the idea of receiving your priority is wrong. You are not seeking God, but things through God. Expect to be blessed yes, but don’t seek to be blessed. The crossover point is very fine and easy to overstep and very easy to miss when listening to their teachings. I’ve done it thousands of times.
For the record I know that Kenneth Copeland does practice what he preaches. Recently I received a 40 disc set (Yes 40) from them because they wanted me to have it. It was sent free to all of the ministries that worked with him. Jesse Duplantis spent weeks, working and living in Katrina hit New Orleans to help with clean-up even though he could have stayed at his own offices and home both of which survived Katrina unharmed.
This is REALLY a political issue, NOT a religious issue.
While I agree it is not a religious issue, it is hardly a political one.
It is a legal issue. Is the tax law being broken?
The question is, are these folks, (Copeland/ Meyer. Hinn et al) personally profiting while claiming not-for-profit religious/charitable tax exempt status ?
This not only applies to organizations with high profile "preachers" but to any so called charitable organizations whose leaders give themselves and their friends & family huge salaries and benefits that are disproportinate to the jobs they do.
Veteran's charities and those claiming to support Firefighters and Police are notorious for this kind of stuff.
Yes, I believe it's a legal issue regarding finances (has their non-profit status been abused?) that's why a Senator on the Finance Committee is investigating it.
While I agree it is not a religious issue, it is hardly a political one.
It is a legal issue. Is the tax law being broken?
The question is, are these folks, (Copeland/ Meyer. Hinn et al) personally profiting while claiming not-for-profit religious/charitable tax exempt status ?
This not only applies to organizations with high profile "preachers" but to any so called charitable organizations whose leaders give themselves and their friends & family huge salaries and benefits that are disproportinate to the jobs they do.
Veteran's charities and those claiming to support Firefighters and Police are notorious for this kind of stuff.
Actually, it is NOT a legal issue, but is emphatically ONLY a political issue.
IF it was a legal issue, the investigation would NOT be conducted in Congress, but in the courts and by prosecutors.
Until an enforcement action is commenced in a (federal) court by a (USDOJ) prosecutor, any and all discussion (well, NOT our discussion...) is strictly political. Another point to consider -- what is the intent of the congressman? To what end is he investigating? If he FINDS (issues or publishes a FINDING) there has been abuse of a religious organization's tax-free status, what will (CAN) he do?
Congress has no power to administer legal consequences of any kind, especially against a private corporation (yes, corporation, a nonprofit corporation).
The most severe -- direct -- action he could take is to introduce legislation to alter the rules under which such religious groups operate.
Actually, it is NOT a legal issue, but is emphatically ONLY a political issue.
IF it was a legal issue, the investigation would NOT be conducted in Congress, but in the courts and by prosecutors.
Until an enforcement action is commenced in a (federal) court by a (USDOJ) prosecutor, any and all discussion (well, NOT our discussion...) is strictly political. Another point to consider -- what is the intent of the congressman? To what end is he investigating? If he FINDS (issues or publishes a FINDING) there has been abuse of a religious organization's tax-free status, what will (CAN) he do?
Congress has no power to administer legal consequences of any kind, especially against a private corporation (yes, corporation, a nonprofit corporation).
The most severe -- direct -- action he could take is to introduce legislation to alter the rules under which such religious groups operate.
And THAT is a political act.
Actually is it NOT "ONLY" a political issue but is MAINLY a LEGAL issue with political trappings. The ONLY political part is the investagative action of Grassly and the Sentate Finance Committee ( Not Congress). There is no Congressional Investigation as you implied.
The issue of whether or not these preachers are proffiting personally is LEGAL and NOT pollitical. Unfortunately prosecutors and the IRS have historically not had the balls to look into some these not for profits that claim to be a church that hide behind their church status ( form 990 not required).
The "rules" are already laid out in corporate law which forbids personal gain from operatiing a "charity" whether it is a church or not.
If Grassley and the senate finance commmittee see evidence of abuse of the tax code, then according to Grassley, they will ask the IRS to take further action based upon curent law. .
Utimately this will all be sorted out in a COURT OF LAW. And that is a LEGAL ACT
Leave it to a reporter to turn it into purely political issue.
Actually is it NOT a political issue but is emphatically mainly a LEGAL issue with political trappings.
The issue of whether or not these preachers are proffiting personally is LEGAL and NOT pollitical.
The "rules" are already laid out in corporate law which forbids personal gain from operatiing a "charity". It will utimately be decided in COURT OF LAW. Which makes it a LEGAL issue.
Leave it to a reporter to turn it into purely political issue.
Sheesh
Goey... I don't care what you believe (honestly, it matters not to me whether you choose to believe the sun is black and the sky is below us, what you believe is your personal choice). But you really shouldn't be allowed to mislead people without correction.
Therefore, answer THIS: WHAT will CONGRESS do with the results of ITS investigation?
Will CONGRESS prosecute anyone? Can Congress prosecute anyone? (HINT: those being investigated here are NOT holding either the office of President or Vice-President of the United States)
You cite the word ULTIMATELY. What do you mean by this use of the word ULTIMATELY? Do you mean that somewhere, sometime in the not yet defined future, someone will be prosecuted? If so, WHO will be prosecuted, BY WHOM, in WHAT FORUM (i.e. WHERE). Then answer, HOW will this be accomplished and WHY will it be done.
ALL we have thus far is that IF there is to be ANY prosecution, it will be subsequent to some uncertain future legislation becoming law. Are YOU able to accurately limit the variables in such a POTENTIAL scenario such that you can tell us NOW that there will, with certainty, be a successful push in Congress to write and pass a law, and that this president or the next one will, with certainty, either sign it or allow it to become law without the presidential signature? (Let's also not forget the US Constitutional ban on ex poste facto laws).
If -- and ONLY IF -- you can accurately answer ALL of those questions affirmatively, can you even come close to rightfully classifying the current investigative question as a legal in nature.
If you cannot so answer, then the question(s), by default, fall back to being strictly POLITICAL. And as a political situation, whether or not anyone is ULTIMATELY prosecuted for fiscal immorality related to an alleged "Gospel of Prosperity" is NOT and WILL NOT be a question decided upon in ANY American court of law.
If you can provide a cogent rebuttal, I'd be pleased to have you prove me wrong.
Goey... I don't care what you believe (honestly, it matters not to me whether you choose to believe the sun is black and the sky is below us, what you believe is your personal choice). But you really shouldn't be allowed to mislead people without correction.
Rocky, I don't give a rat's arse what you believe either. Never have. My response was simply to prevent you from spreading more ignorance.
Therefore, answer THIS: WHAT will CONGRESS do with the results of ITS investigation?
Will CONGRESS prosecute anyone? Can Congress prosecute anyone? (HINT: those being investigated here are NOT holding either the office of President or Vice-President of the United States)
Irrelevant......There is no Congressional Investigation except the one that you have conjured up in your mind. When and if there is actually a Congressional Investigation your question might be valid. Until then it is simply rhetoric of no real relevance. Grassley's investigation is informal. No subpenas have been issued.
You cite the word ULTIMATELY. What do you mean by this use of the word ULTIMATELY? Do you mean that somewhere, sometime in the not yet defined future, someone will be prosecuted? If so, WHO will be prosecuted, BY WHOM, in WHAT FORUM (i.e. WHERE). Then answer, HOW will this be accomplished and WHY will it be done.
You don't know how to use a dictionary? Hmmmmm.... or is your tact now to nitpick definitions/semantics? Same old Rocky ... little substance. Let me lay it out in simple terms that you can ( possibly) understand.
IF this goes beyond Grassley's (informal) investigaton and IF the IRS is directed to inverstigate further and IF the IRS finds abuse of the tax laws and choses to take action. THEN this will eventually find its way into Federal Court to decide several lilkely questions. Among these may be ..... 1. Are these TV /Mega Ministries really not for profit "churches"?...... 2. Were tax laws broken/abused....... 3. How far does the 1st Amendment go to protect these "churches" from government scrutiny? I sure there will be more.
My guess is that IF there is any prosecution, that these religious "charities" will hire the best constitutional and tax lawyers available and fight tooth and nail to remain finanicially opaque and to keep thier ministers in Linen Suits, Rolls Royces and Million Dollar Mansions.
ALL we have thus far is that IF there is to be ANY prosecution, it will be subsequent to some uncertain future legislation becoming law. Are YOU able to accurately limit the variables in such a POTENTIAL scenario such that you can tell us NOW that there will, with certainty, be a successful push in Congress to write and pass a law, and that this president or the next one will, with certainty, either sign it or allow it to become law without the presidential signature? (Let's also not forget the US Constitutional ban on ex poste facto laws).
You're in la la land on this one Rockhead. When did I suggest or imply any of the above? Where did I mention any "successful push" in Congress? Your mind is wandering ..... or you are arguing a strawman. (Probably Both)
If -- and ONLY IF -- you can accurately answer ALL of those questions affirmatively, can you even come close to rightfully classifying the current investigative question as a legal in nature.
Your reading and comprehension skills are remedial at best. I didn't say the investigaton was classified as "legal" did I? That would be the political trappings part that I mentioned. Try re-reading what I actually wrote and take off your know-it-all, read-between-the lines blinders.
If you cannot so answer, then the question(s), by default, fall back to being strictly POLITICAL. And as a political situation, whether or not anyone is ULTIMATELY prosecuted for fiscal immorality related to an alleged "Gospel of Prosperity" is NOT and WILL NOT be a question decided upon in ANY American court of law.
Another strawman. The Gospel of Prosperity ( as sick as it is) is not on trial. What is primarily in question is whether there are abuses of the tax laws. In persuing this LEGAL question other possibly more important LEGAL questions will arise.
If you can provide a cogent rebuttal, I'd be pleased to have you prove me wrong.
A cogent rebuttal would assume that your argument was at least based above submornic rhetoric, bully tacticts and logical fallacy. I can't make that asumption.
But I do assume that you believe your swill to be "cogent" so therefore any truly cogent rebuttle would soar over your head ...... Like my other posts on this thread.
It's hard to imagine anyone could be more full of baloney than what you've presented here... but it's obvious you have no idea what the difference is between the words 'legal' and 'political'.
You use the word IF several times. THAT particular conditional word, applied to THIS situation, actually proves my point. For your use of the word IF becomes a segue into a DIFFERENT investigation by a DIFFERENT agency in a DIFFERENT branch of government.
As the situation currently exists, the investigation is in, of, and by CONGRESS. Congress can do NO prosecuting. The IRS, on the other hand, yes, is NOT a judicial branch agency. Executive branch agencies ENFORCE LAWS (which are made in CONGRESS, which laws are the result of a POLITICAL process).
Therefore, IF the IRS gets involved, it THEN and then only WOULD become a legal question. But as no judicial action has been taken by any executive branch agency, nor has any enforcement action been taken by any executive branch agency, there is, as yet, NO legal question nor dimension to this matter.
Your situation, by which you constructed your insane argument that this is a legal investigation, until someone (agency) gets involved OTHER THAN Congress, is completely IMAGINARY. Another word for the product of one's imagination is FANTASY.
Therefore, your claim that this matter is a legal one is strictly your fantasy. Until then, it remains very much a REAL political issue, matter, question.
Irrelevant......There is no Congressional Investigation except the one that you have conjured up in your mind. When and if there is actually a Congressional Investigation your question might be valid. Until then it is simply rhetoric of no real relevance. Grassley's investigation is informal. No subpenas have been issued.
btw, "DUDE", Grassley is NOT an agent or member of any entity related to either the executive or judicial branches of ANY government. But he IS a Member of Congress (properly capitalized, btw). As such, his investigation can and is PROPERLY characterized as CONGRESSIONAL... albeit, informal.
That it IS informal only further underscores the POLITICAL nature of his investigation... while further removing it from the realm of being a legal matter.
And btw... your accusations regarding my "argument" are absurd. I made NO argument in the post addressing you previous to your most recent response. I posed questions to you. You did a grand job of failing to answer those questions, however.
It's hard to imagine anyone could be more full of baloney than what you've presented here... but it's obvious you have no idea what the difference is between the words 'legal' and 'political'.
You use the word IF several times. THAT particular conditional word, applied to THIS situation, actually proves my point. For your use of the word IF becomes a segue into a DIFFERENT investigation by a DIFFERENT agency in a DIFFERENT branch of government.
As the situation currently exists, the investigation is in, of, and by CONGRESS. Congress can do NO prosecuting. The IRS, on the other hand, yes, is NOT a judicial branch agency. Executive branch agencies ENFORCE LAWS (which are made in CONGRESS, which laws are the result of a POLITICAL process).
Therefore, IF the IRS gets involved, it THEN and then only WOULD become a legal question. But as no judicial action has been taken by any executive branch agency, nor has any enforcement action been taken by any executive branch agency, there is, as yet, NO legal question nor dimension to this matter.
Your situation, by which you constructed your insane argument that this is a legal investigation, until someone (agency) gets involved OTHER THAN Congress, is completely IMAGINARY. Another word for the product of one's imagination is FANTASY.
Therefore, your claim that this matter is a legal one is strictly your fantasy. Until then, it remains very much a REAL political issue, matter, question.
btw, "DUDE", Grassley is NOT an agent or member of any entity related to either the executive or judicial branches of ANY government. But he IS a Member of Congress (properly capitalized, btw). As such, his investigation can and is PROPERLY characterized as CONGRESSIONAL... albeit, informal.
That it IS informal only further underscores the POLITICAL nature of his investigation... while further removing it from the realm of being a legal matter.
And btw... your accusations regarding my "argument" are absurd. I made NO argument in the post addressing you previous to your most recent response. I posed questions to you. You did a grand job of failing to answer those questions, however.
I appreciate the education you're providing here. It's easy to see it is a political investigation when it's conducted by a member of Congress...a previous post I made stands corrected.
Recommended Posts
frank123lol
They(twi) probably sent money to someones campaign!!
heck remember wierwilles saying?"Find out what they like and give them some of it"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
LINK to story.
I havent heard anything ( Im way out of any loop anyway) but outside of normal accounting and auditting of nonprofits i personally doubt that they will. They are a very small fish in a big pond and have stayed, probably by design, pretty much under the radarFor all their abuses there is no one that I know of living in multimillion dollar houses, driving Rolls Royces or flying around in their private jets (..just like Jesus was! <_< ) showing it off and collecting more and more on national TV everyday like some of the bigger groups do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Hmm. Maybe that's why they threw a bunch of people out.. scattered most of the followers to the wind..
maybe they feel they've "harvested" enough cash to live out their days in "peace".. any more, and it may bring unwanted attention.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Watered Garden
Joyce Meyer Ministries' complete financial records are posted on their website, including the truth about the alleged "$23,000 commode."
I think the senatorial socialist doctrine that anyone with money must be investigated, castigated, and condemned is absolute BS, unconstitutional, and a waste of my federal income tax.
WG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
it's not about investigating people with money, it's about for-profit corporations illegally using a non-profit status to avoid taxes. just because you're selling religion doesn't mean you're entitled to non-profit status.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
They are not investigating "anyone" with money but instead "not for profit" oganizations with church/religious tax exemptions whose leaders appear to
be reaping huge personal profits.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
And this is a follow up to the 60 Minutes story last Sunday about the guy with the "church" in Houston. This is REALLY a political issue, NOT a religious issue.
There may have been a time when this could have been an issue of concern for twi, but more than likely not these days.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Keith
I’ve read several articles on this and find myself amused by them. I do work with Kenneth Copeland, and Joyce Meyer Ministries and some others who preach what some call “the prosperity gospel” and I’m always amazed at what some people leave out regarding their teachings. They also don’t teach just “giving and receiving” but that first you seek God and you give, but you seek God and give with no strings attached. If you do either with the idea of receiving your priority is wrong. You are not seeking God, but things through God. Expect to be blessed yes, but don’t seek to be blessed. The crossover point is very fine and easy to overstep and very easy to miss when listening to their teachings. I’ve done it thousands of times.
For the record I know that Kenneth Copeland does practice what he preaches. Recently I received a 40 disc set (Yes 40) from them because they wanted me to have it. It was sent free to all of the ministries that worked with him. Jesse Duplantis spent weeks, working and living in Katrina hit New Orleans to help with clean-up even though he could have stayed at his own offices and home both of which survived Katrina unharmed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
While I agree it is not a religious issue, it is hardly a political one.
It is a legal issue. Is the tax law being broken?
The question is, are these folks, (Copeland/ Meyer. Hinn et al) personally profiting while claiming not-for-profit religious/charitable tax exempt status ?
This not only applies to organizations with high profile "preachers" but to any so called charitable organizations whose leaders give themselves and their friends & family huge salaries and benefits that are disproportinate to the jobs they do.
Veteran's charities and those claiming to support Firefighters and Police are notorious for this kind of stuff.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Yes, I believe it's a legal issue regarding finances (has their non-profit status been abused?) that's why a Senator on the Finance Committee is investigating it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Actually, it is NOT a legal issue, but is emphatically ONLY a political issue.
IF it was a legal issue, the investigation would NOT be conducted in Congress, but in the courts and by prosecutors.
Until an enforcement action is commenced in a (federal) court by a (USDOJ) prosecutor, any and all discussion (well, NOT our discussion...) is strictly political. Another point to consider -- what is the intent of the congressman? To what end is he investigating? If he FINDS (issues or publishes a FINDING) there has been abuse of a religious organization's tax-free status, what will (CAN) he do?
Congress has no power to administer legal consequences of any kind, especially against a private corporation (yes, corporation, a nonprofit corporation).
The most severe -- direct -- action he could take is to introduce legislation to alter the rules under which such religious groups operate.
And THAT is a political act.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Actually is it NOT "ONLY" a political issue but is MAINLY a LEGAL issue with political trappings. The ONLY political part is the investagative action of Grassly and the Sentate Finance Committee ( Not Congress). There is no Congressional Investigation as you implied.
The issue of whether or not these preachers are proffiting personally is LEGAL and NOT pollitical. Unfortunately prosecutors and the IRS have historically not had the balls to look into some these not for profits that claim to be a church that hide behind their church status ( form 990 not required).
The "rules" are already laid out in corporate law which forbids personal gain from operatiing a "charity" whether it is a church or not.
If Grassley and the senate finance commmittee see evidence of abuse of the tax code, then according to Grassley, they will ask the IRS to take further action based upon curent law. .
Utimately this will all be sorted out in a COURT OF LAW. And that is a LEGAL ACT
Leave it to a reporter to turn it into purely political issue.
Sheesh
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Goey... I don't care what you believe (honestly, it matters not to me whether you choose to believe the sun is black and the sky is below us, what you believe is your personal choice). But you really shouldn't be allowed to mislead people without correction.
Therefore, answer THIS: WHAT will CONGRESS do with the results of ITS investigation?
Will CONGRESS prosecute anyone? Can Congress prosecute anyone? (HINT: those being investigated here are NOT holding either the office of President or Vice-President of the United States)
You cite the word ULTIMATELY. What do you mean by this use of the word ULTIMATELY? Do you mean that somewhere, sometime in the not yet defined future, someone will be prosecuted? If so, WHO will be prosecuted, BY WHOM, in WHAT FORUM (i.e. WHERE). Then answer, HOW will this be accomplished and WHY will it be done.
ALL we have thus far is that IF there is to be ANY prosecution, it will be subsequent to some uncertain future legislation becoming law. Are YOU able to accurately limit the variables in such a POTENTIAL scenario such that you can tell us NOW that there will, with certainty, be a successful push in Congress to write and pass a law, and that this president or the next one will, with certainty, either sign it or allow it to become law without the presidential signature? (Let's also not forget the US Constitutional ban on ex poste facto laws).
If -- and ONLY IF -- you can accurately answer ALL of those questions affirmatively, can you even come close to rightfully classifying the current investigative question as a legal in nature.
If you cannot so answer, then the question(s), by default, fall back to being strictly POLITICAL. And as a political situation, whether or not anyone is ULTIMATELY prosecuted for fiscal immorality related to an alleged "Gospel of Prosperity" is NOT and WILL NOT be a question decided upon in ANY American court of law.
If you can provide a cogent rebuttal, I'd be pleased to have you prove me wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Rocky, I don't give a rat's arse what you believe either. Never have. My response was simply to prevent you from spreading more ignorance.
Irrelevant......There is no Congressional Investigation except the one that you have conjured up in your mind. When and if there is actually a Congressional Investigation your question might be valid. Until then it is simply rhetoric of no real relevance. Grassley's investigation is informal. No subpenas have been issued.
You don't know how to use a dictionary? Hmmmmm.... or is your tact now to nitpick definitions/semantics? Same old Rocky ... little substance. Let me lay it out in simple terms that you can ( possibly) understand.IF this goes beyond Grassley's (informal) investigaton and IF the IRS is directed to inverstigate further and IF the IRS finds abuse of the tax laws and choses to take action. THEN this will eventually find its way into Federal Court to decide several lilkely questions. Among these may be ..... 1. Are these TV /Mega Ministries really not for profit "churches"?...... 2. Were tax laws broken/abused....... 3. How far does the 1st Amendment go to protect these "churches" from government scrutiny? I sure there will be more.
My guess is that IF there is any prosecution, that these religious "charities" will hire the best constitutional and tax lawyers available and fight tooth and nail to remain finanicially opaque and to keep thier ministers in Linen Suits, Rolls Royces and Million Dollar Mansions.
You're in la la land on this one Rockhead. When did I suggest or imply any of the above? Where did I mention any "successful push" in Congress? Your mind is wandering ..... or you are arguing a strawman. (Probably Both)
Your reading and comprehension skills are remedial at best. I didn't say the investigaton was classified as "legal" did I? That would be the political trappings part that I mentioned. Try re-reading what I actually wrote and take off your know-it-all, read-between-the lines blinders.Another strawman. The Gospel of Prosperity ( as sick as it is) is not on trial. What is primarily in question is whether there are abuses of the tax laws. In persuing this LEGAL question other possibly more important LEGAL questions will arise.
A cogent rebuttal would assume that your argument was at least based above submornic rhetoric, bully tacticts and logical fallacy. I can't make that asumption.
But I do assume that you believe your swill to be "cogent" so therefore any truly cogent rebuttle would soar over your head ...... Like my other posts on this thread.
Have a nice day.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
It's hard to imagine anyone could be more full of baloney than what you've presented here... but it's obvious you have no idea what the difference is between the words 'legal' and 'political'.
You use the word IF several times. THAT particular conditional word, applied to THIS situation, actually proves my point. For your use of the word IF becomes a segue into a DIFFERENT investigation by a DIFFERENT agency in a DIFFERENT branch of government.
As the situation currently exists, the investigation is in, of, and by CONGRESS. Congress can do NO prosecuting. The IRS, on the other hand, yes, is NOT a judicial branch agency. Executive branch agencies ENFORCE LAWS (which are made in CONGRESS, which laws are the result of a POLITICAL process).
Therefore, IF the IRS gets involved, it THEN and then only WOULD become a legal question. But as no judicial action has been taken by any executive branch agency, nor has any enforcement action been taken by any executive branch agency, there is, as yet, NO legal question nor dimension to this matter.
Your situation, by which you constructed your insane argument that this is a legal investigation, until someone (agency) gets involved OTHER THAN Congress, is completely IMAGINARY. Another word for the product of one's imagination is FANTASY.
Therefore, your claim that this matter is a legal one is strictly your fantasy. Until then, it remains very much a REAL political issue, matter, question.
btw, "DUDE", Grassley is NOT an agent or member of any entity related to either the executive or judicial branches of ANY government. But he IS a Member of Congress (properly capitalized, btw). As such, his investigation can and is PROPERLY characterized as CONGRESSIONAL... albeit, informal.
That it IS informal only further underscores the POLITICAL nature of his investigation... while further removing it from the realm of being a legal matter.
And btw... your accusations regarding my "argument" are absurd. I made NO argument in the post addressing you previous to your most recent response. I posed questions to you. You did a grand job of failing to answer those questions, however.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Keep beating the air Rocky,
If you scream a little louder, make some more delcarations by fiat, and make a few more absurd and ignorant
assumptions, then maybe someone will eventually agree with you that this entire thing is purely political,
.....that the question of whether or not the tax law is being abused or broken ( what the investigtion is about)
is a political question and not a legal one.
Been abducted by any aliens lately?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
I appreciate the education you're providing here. It's easy to see it is a political investigation when it's conducted by a member of Congress...a previous post I made stands corrected.
Cheers!
penworks
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.