Do you think someone is "unpatriotic" or does not "support the troops" if they advocate pulling out of the Iraq war?

If so, please explain...

"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

No, it has nothing to do with it. However, you are trying to paint those who advocate pulling out as supporting the troops. That is probably the case with the majority of those in that camp but certainly not all.

John Murtha is the obvious exception. After publically accusing Marines of mass murder and war crimes in Haditha, BEFORE A TRIAL AND ANY OF THE EVIDENCE WERE MADE PUBLIC, it is obvious that the congressmen does not support the troops nor respects the split second decisions one must make in combat. Considering he is a former marine, it is a disturbing display but it probably brings in plenty of campaign cash from the Moveon crowd.

Hillary showed utter contempt to the Marines who provided security in the White House while first lady so we know where she stands.

Obama bashes the military commanders in Iraq publically and refuses to ackowledge that the Surge and the efforts of the soldiers in Iraq seem to have had a very postitve effect. Furthermore, the Commander in Chief wannabe has not set foot in Iraq for over two years and has never had as much as a one minute conversation with General Petraus, the current commander in Iraq. Obviously he does not respect the military with as far as I am concerned is not Patriotic.

_____________________________________________
January 6,1991: The last post season victory for the Bengals.

There are a great number of people (myself included) that think the latest rounds of success can be attributed to:

1. The cease fire among tribes and factions in Iraq over the last year.

2. Congressional pressure from the Democrats to get push to change his policies in Iraq, which have done an amazing 180 since Janaury of 2007.

3. The President and Petraeus finally choking the supply lines from Syria and Iran which should have been done years ago.

4. Al Queda's money is running out.

5. The Surge...

"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

SF2,

He is going over there between July and August and it has nothing to do with McCain calling him out over it. I don't know if you noticed but he just got done with an 18 month primary in the Democratic party. Sorry he couldn't make it over there, he was kind of trying to win a nomination and do his job as a Senator. Fukking laughable.

The fact that you think he is not patriotic makes me think you are either a liar or a complete idiot. Yeah, a Harvard law grad who used to teach others, refused a life as a high paying corporate lawyer to be a state senator to represent his constituents. Yeah, he's obviously not patriotic. Whatever, dude...

"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

The problem is that people who want to pull out the troops at this time do not really support our troops or our military.

This is also a question of what is the definition of supporting ones troops. To me supporting the troop’s means you do not question the decision making of our generals. You have to support and except the decisions they decide to do.

It is far too easy for one to say that you support the troops now let’s get out of Iraq. If one really supports the troops than they also respect its Generals. No where have I heard, read or seen Gen Petraeus say we need to pull out of Iraq. What I have heard him say is that he needs more time and great progress has been made with the surge.

Supporting ones troops does not mean playing arm chair quarterback and telling them when they can fight and when to go home. I would hope our Generals have better skills than politicians in Washington as to deciding what is best for the troops.

I for one was against going into Iraq but now that our military is there I will support whatever decisions they make.

SF2,

He is going over there between July and August and it has nothing to do with McCain calling him out over it. I don't know if you noticed but he just got done with an 18 month primary in the Democratic party. Sorry he couldn't make it over there, he was kind of trying to win a nomination and do his job as a Senator. Fukking laughable.

The fact that you think he is not patriotic makes me think you are either a liar or a complete idiot. Yeah, a Harvard law grad who used to teach others, refused a life as a high paying corporate lawyer to be a state senator to represent his constituents. Yeah, he's obviously not patriotic. Whatever, dude...

Obama had able opportunity to talk to Gen. Petraus and the other military leaders during the last 18 months but did not feel it important. Furthermore, the first primary was in January of 2008, not 2007. The fact that he did not feel compelled to at least visit Iraq in the preceding 18 months or talk to the commanders is a troubling FACT. He obviously does not hold the opinion of those on the ground worthy of an hour or two of his precious time.

Wow, a Harvard Law graduate who took the high road to be handed a State Senate spot by the Daly political machine. Gosh, what a patriot he is. I won't even discuss his revered spiritual leader or his host of American loving buddies and cronies. Sorry but you are the one being bamboozled by a pure leftist political hack who makes Hillary Clinton look like Pat Buchanan.



_____________________________________________
January 6,1991: The last post season victory for the Bengals.

Bronco..you need to add one more bullet to your list:

We borrowed a bunch more money from China and gave it to a bunch of Sunni's that we used to fight and call terrorists. We told them we'd keep paying them these bribes if they'd hold off ambushing our troops a while longer....at least until the dolt in the White House plays out his shameful string.

Do you think someone is "unpatriotic" or does not "support the troops" if they advocate pulling out of the Iraq war?

No

I do not think, however, a great majority of people run for office as a patriotic duty.

Patriotism is a dieing concept. Today, most Americans realize that there's really not much that threatens our way of life. No British oppressors, no Nazis, no communists (at least none that don't believe in capitalism). Al-Quaeda? Give me a break. That's a bunch of dudes with medieval mentalities working on a shoestring budget. Once you understand that money above all else runs your country, patriotism dies quick. Maybe it will be necessary again one day but at the moment patriotism's only use is for exploiting people and getting them to think and behave how you want.

"Get a clue jack azz! Stop reading your history books" - quote from "Murf's Guide to Survivin' in Da Hood"

"...Do you think someone is "unpatriotic" or does not "support the troops" if they advocate pulling out of the Iraq war?

If so, please explain..."

The answer isn't as black and white as "yes" or "no."

If a person wants the troops to come home because they're genuinely concerned about the welfare of the troops and the nation, then no, I have no problem with them and wouldn't call them "unpatriotic." I might not agree with them or their reasons for whatever they believe in, but I wouldn't question their patriotism.

However, if someone wants the troops to come home before the job is finished because they think 'America is evil" or because it'll look bad for their political opponents and they don't really give two sh!ts about the troops or the efforts and sacrifices they make every day, then yes, they are unpatriotic idiots. There are people like this that exist. It's up to each individual's motives, which are largely unknowable. Even the most heinoius idiot usually isn't going to admit that, but they do exist.

The other case is when a politician, or a group of politicians, promise as a group, to bring the troops home to win power via elections, because they know that's what their constituents want to hear, when in reality, they have no intention of bringing them home, then yes, they are unpatriotic azzholes.

Case in point, which I posted here before, but which was totally ignored. These azzholes in the Democrat party are unpatriotic because by promising to bring the troops home while having no intention of doing so and knowing full well they wouldn't, they aided and abetted the enemy during a time of war by promising a withdrawal when they all knew what they were saying was BS, which this Democrat congressman admits to. You're damn right these types of scum are unpatriotic.

scum

*****************
"...I am afraid that there is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don't want the patient to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to make themselves prominent before the public." -Booker T. Washington, 1911

"We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason if we dig deep in our history and doctrine and remember that we are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes which were, for the moment, unpopular. We can deny our heritage and our history, but we cannot escape responsibility for the result. There is no way for a citizen of the Republic to abdicate his responsibility."~Edward R. Murrow: March 9, 1954

"...if someone wants the troops to come home before the job is finished because they think 'America is evil" or because it'll look bad for their political opponents and they don't really give two sh!ts about the troops or the efforts and sacrifices they make every day, then yes, they are unpatriotic idiots."

True. Ditto for people who want the troops to stay because they can't stand the idea that the enemy would "win" if we withdrew even though it was clearly stupid to invade in the first place, or because we would be seen as "pussies" if we left before we "kicked ass", or because they really don't give two sh!ts about the people living in the country we've invaded and are glad to see Arabs dead, or because they don't have any close friends and family with their asses in the firing line who could have their legs blown off by an IED for nothing. Those people too.

"Get a clue jack azz! Stop reading your history books" - quote from "Murf's Guide to Survivin' in Da Hood"

The question was about pulling out of Iraq, not why we went there in the 1st place and if it was justified to begin with. Try reading the question next time.

*****************
"...I am afraid that there is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don't want the patient to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to make themselves prominent before the public." -Booker T. Washington, 1911

Oops! Touched a nerve I see. My response has everything to do with pulling out of Iraq and why some people refuse to support this for petty, selfish reasons.

"Get a clue jack azz! Stop reading your history books" - quote from "Murf's Guide to Survivin' in Da Hood"

LMFAO. Care to explain how you think you touched a nerve? This should be good...

Also, care to explain the lying actions of Democrats in 2006 that used you fools as dupes to gain power based on crap they said which they had NO intention of honoring? lol. You're about to get duped again this election too, by your party of panderers. Enjoy!

*****************
"...I am afraid that there is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don't want the patient to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to make themselves prominent before the public." -Booker T. Washington, 1911

"...True. Ditto for people who want the troops to stay because they can't stand the idea that the enemy would "win" if we withdrew..."

Finishing the job they started when they have the chance to finish it is hardly the same as your silly statement above. Nice try.

"... even though it was clearly stupid to invade in the first place..."

Nothing to do with "pulling out." Nice try.

"...or because we would be seen as "pussies" if we left before we "kicked ass"

See #1

"... or because they really don't give two sh!ts about the people living in the country we've invaded..."

And you do, by pulling out? Nice retarded logic you got going on there.

"... and are glad to see Arabs dead"

Yeah, we love dead arabs. lmfao. Seek help.

"...or because they don't have any close friends and family with their asses in the firing line..."

By that lack of logic, we should never go to war because someone has family members in the military. More brilliance. I did my time in the military. I can say whatever the f**k I want. I earned that right. FU.

"... who could have their legs blown off by an IED for nothing. Those people too."

Your response is emotional, not based on anything factual regarding why people might think pulling out at this time would be stupid. Yawn. Same old BA crappola.

*****************
"...I am afraid that there is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don't want the patient to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to make themselves prominent before the public." -Booker T. Washington, 1911

Watch out chris, your getting up to 140/100.

"care to explain the lying actions of Democrats in 2006 that used you fools as dupes to gain power based on crap they said which they had NO intention of honoring?"

I suppose you're referring to that weak story about that one dude who supposedly speaks for every Democrat in congress. Your remarks should read:

"care to explain the lying actions of Democrat in 2006 that used you fools as dupes to gain power based on crap they said which they had NO intention of honoring?"

Keep ripping on Democrats while Bush's approval rating crashes and even Republicans abandon him like rats from a sinking ship. Good thing Kerry lost in 2004, since the country is in such great shape four years later. "LMFAO". You're in good company with murf and DWBTC.

"Get a clue jack azz! Stop reading your history books" - quote from "Murf's Guide to Survivin' in Da Hood"

I didn't say he spoke for "every" Democrat in congress, but he clearly stated "Democrats." lol. The "S" on the end of the word means there's more than 1. Continue to live in your state of denial, dupe.



*****************
"...I am afraid that there is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don't want the patient to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to make themselves prominent before the public." -Booker T. Washington, 1911

"..."LMFAO". You're in good company with murf and DWBTC..."

Awwww. For someone who boasts that they "touched a nerve," I certainly seem to have done so myself. lmfao. Enjoy your anger.

BA's logic: "If you don't like our pandering left wingers, then you're just like ______" (fill in the blank with the name of someone BA hates. lol.)

If you had a campaign office for Obama, I'd bet you be sporting a spiffy poster of Che Guevara too, just like this ignorant idiot. Typical Democrat Obama minion. She thinks murderous henchemen are people to admire and glorify. Liberalism truly is a mental disorder.



*****************
"...I am afraid that there is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don't want the patient to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to make themselves prominent before the public." -Booker T. Washington, 1911

You probably think Batista was an honorable leader for Cuba. Actually, you probably don't know anything about this U.S.-backed, corrupt DICTATOR as he isn't a useful propaganda tool like Guevera is, and Fox News doesn't discuss him.
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1768.html
Its okay to be crooked as long as it helps our economy. Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. Obama is a communist who hates whitey.

"Get a clue jack azz! Stop reading your history books" - quote from "Murf's Guide to Survivin' in Da Hood"

Yep, just as I thought. The prosecutorial henchman/executioner for Castro is a hero of yours. What a surprise! Damn, but it's easy to push your red buttons, comrade.

"...You probably think Batista was an honorable leader for Cuba..."

And you probably think Castro was too, as evidenced by your defense of his "better" dictatorship. Too funny.

"...Actually, you probably don't know anything about this U.S.-backed, corrupt DICTATOR..."

A corrupt dictator is a corrupt dictator. I certainly don't prefer one dictatorship (US backed) over another (Commy backed), the way you do.

Though I'm not surprised that you'd extol the virtues of a communist dictator over an American backed dictator, as if one is better than the other, comrade.

*****************
"...I am afraid that there is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don't want the patient to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to make themselves prominent before the public." -Booker T. Washington, 1911

almost everyone who claims to "support the troops" does so nominally, and does absolutely NOTHING to support anyone, i know this first hand.

anyone who froths for more war and claims to be supporting the troops is a dangerous jingoist. thats all i think about that.

and as to cuba under castro, they seem to be doing ok considering half a century of military interventions, blockades, assasination attempts, trade embargoes and general undermining on all levels. Batista couldnt even manage 400 geurillas with some cameras and newspaper contacts.

Chris, your characterization of Guevarra is inacurate. He was roughly the equivalent of an SF medic who just happened to be charismatic enough to lead, and eventually left castro's camp because of the problems with it and was killed fighting for what he believed in (a south america free of robber barons and foreign backed Crony puppet dictators). Im surprised there arent more and more people like him in the "third" world.

----------------

for comrade chris:

the book of matthew:

31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory; 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats; 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 For I was hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in; 36 Naked, and ye clothed me; I was sick, and ye visited me; I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. 41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink; 43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in; naked, and ye clothed me not; sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal.


or

Leviticus 25:35-38:

"If one [...] becomes poor [...] help him [...] so he can continue to live among you. Do not take interest of any kind from him, but fear your God [...] You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at a profit. I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God."

and Acts 4:32-35:

"All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had [...] there were no needy persons among them [...] the money [...] was distributed to anyone as he had need." As well as Acts 2:42-47, "They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching [...] to the breaking of bread [...] everyone was filled with awe [...] all the believers were together and had everything in common [...] they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they [...] ate together with glad and sincere hearts [...] "

----------------

ACTS 5

1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, 2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet. 3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? 4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. 5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things. 6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him. 7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in. 8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much. 9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. 10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.

----------------

"A corrupt dictator is a corrupt dictator. I certainly don't prefer one dictatorship (US backed) over another (Commy backed), the way you do."

Sure you do. You give the dictators that treat their people poorly a free pass as long as they make good trade partners for us. That's why you blast figures like Guevera and Castro, while ignoring the corruption of the men they were fighting against like Batista and Carlos Castillo Armas of Guatemala. Your villains are those you've been told to fear, even though they are chosen primarily on the basis of economic factors. You let the government decide what's right and what's wrong. That's sheep-like behavior in my book.

"Get a clue jack azz! Stop reading your history books" - quote from "Murf's Guide to Survivin' in Da Hood"

Steve, you are fugging clueless.

There is a big difference between individual charity, which is what Christ preached in those passages, and FORCED collectivization at the behest of a dictatorship state. The Romans didn't come around and make the Jews sell their possessions to give to Christ's apostles. lmmfao.

Learn the difference between voluntary charity because you believe in something and believe in helping your fellow man, and communism. That you would even attempt to compare the two shows just how silly you are. Everything in those passages was based on the decisions of individuals, not Rome.

Nice try. I bet you thought you made a great point with all that crappola.


As for Guevara, of course you're going to get a pretty picture of his life from some places. Doesn't change the fact that he was the prosecutor for Castro in charge of executions of "suspected" war criminals from the previous regime, and if you're stupid enough to believe that all they executed were "war criminals," then you're probably stupid enough to believe that the apostles were preaching communism, and that the 2,000,000 Vietnamese and Cambodians that died under "new regimes" in those places were all "war criminals" too.

BA, what you don't fugging seem to get is that ALL dictators are worthless in my eyes. Just because you want to make silly distinctions between what form of dictatorship is good, and what form is bad, doesn't mean I have to join you in that stupidity. I never defended Battista, and I never defended Castro's regime either. That's all you. You're the one parsing between what a "good" dictator is, and what a "bad" dictator is, and making excuses for one form of dictatorship over the other. If you think it's so fugging great, go live there, and write us about Castro's commy paradise. Yes, the embargo didn't help them either, but it wasn't designed to. Duh. It was designed to break through their thick skulls and teach them that communism is a crap ideology and that as soon as they wise up and get rid of it, we'll be happy to flood their nation with aid. If you think it wasn't within America's "rights" to try to effect change there, that's your opinion, but don't blame the US for Castro being a selfish despot that only cared about maintaining his own power for decade after decade over the welfare of his people, just like every other commie despot who ever lived.

*****************
"...I am afraid that there is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don't want the patient to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to make themselves prominent before the public." -Booker T. Washington, 1911

so wait... im stupid because your god will kill people who try to profit off of sales?

profit and moneylending are crimes against god, and im stupid for suggesting that that sounds alot like communism?

so, gods laws are "voluntary" because theres no commisar arresting you here on earth, just a hell awaiting you afterwards?

you are bad at twisting things, try again hypocrite. better yet "go away into everlasting punishment".

----------------

im sure you've read it, but for posterity, the book of matthew:

16 And behold one came and said to him: Good master, what good shall I do that I may have life everlasting? 17 Who said to him: Why askest thou me concerning good? One is good, God. But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. 18 He said to him: Which? And Jesus said: Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness. 19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. 20 The young man saith to him: All these have I kept from my youth, what is yet wanting to me? 21 Jesus saith to him: If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. 22 And when the young man had heard this word, he went away sad: for he had great possessions. 23 Then Jesus said to his disciples: Amen, I say to you, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 24 And again I say to you: It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. 25 And when they had heard this, the disciples wondered much, saying: Who then can be saved? 26 And Jesus beholding, said to them: With men this is impossible: but with God all things are possible.

(i even included context, since you are a fan of it)

----------------

"...profit and moneylending are crimes against god, and im stupid for suggesting that that sounds alot like communism?

No, profit and moneylending when one says "I'm willing to give up everything I have and follow you, Christ..." and then holding back a part of it for yourself and making a profit off it, is a sin. Nice try.

"...so, gods laws are "voluntary" because theres no commisar arresting you here on earth, just a hell awaiting you afterwards?"

No. The message in that passage is that you either believe with your whole heart, or you don't. Proclaiming your belief, but not "truly" beleving, is spiritual death in the eyes of God. That's the message in that passage.

"...you are bad at twisting things, try again hypocrite. better yet "go away into everlasting punishment."

Hahahah. Learn the meaning of the word, hypocrite. I am not a "hypocrite" for knowing the difference between what charity is, and what communism is. lol. I'm not the idiot that tries to pass biblical charity off as "communism."

Maybe you need to start studying the bible more for your own spiritual growth, instead of trying to bastardize the messages in it to win arguments on the internet.

The passage about "everlasting punishment" is for people who proclaim their belief in Christ, yet do no charitable acts of kindness when they see their neighbor in need. Keep trying, Stevie!

AND, learn the difference between what Christ's apostles and believers did to support themselves, and MACRO-communism.

If people want to VOLUNTARILY (look up that word, Stevie) pool their resources together in order to support each other and their cause, I have NO problem with that, and more power to 'em, but sorry Steve, that's not the kind of "communism" that you're trying to say it is. lmfao.

And your lack of understanding continues with your idiotic quoting of Matthew.
The quote about it being easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven is translated for the simpleminded, such as yourself, thusly:

Jesus: "You can't take your riches with you when you die, and no amount of money you stored up for treasure on the earth is going to help you enter heaven, so why worry so much about it? If your love of money keeps you from growing spiritually, then your money is a hindrance to you, not a help, and it's not going to help you after you croak and meet your maker. He has no need of, or interest in, your earthly riches."

Keep trying, Steve.

Do churches ever turn a profit or are they non-profit charities?



"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

All non profits are allowed to end each year in the black and build up a pile of cash and investments, usually called "the endowment."

Gifts to the endowment go directly here, and gifts that would support operating funds, if not spent, can be directed into the endowment if the donor says it's OK.

The endowment itself is not spent down - it grows every year as it is invested. The investment income is siphoned off to pay for programs (usually endowment-funded spending is around 5% of the endowment's value each year, though most endowments grow at 6-10%, and in some cases upwards of 20% with good fund managers in charge). Additionally, an endowment is usually a collection of hundreds or thousands of individual accounts, each funding a very specific program. For example, in a university setting, an endowment may actually be 3,000 accounts, with some dedicated to specific scholarships, some to specific academic programs, some unrestricted, and some for the funding of professors' salaries. When you see someone called "The Tom Smith Professor of Craptacularity," Tom Smith (or his kids) made a big gift, usually over a million dollars, to "endow the professorship," which means that until the end of time there will be a Tom Smith Professor.

Gifts that name specific rooms or specific buildings are almost always endowment gifts, with the income directed to go towards unrestricted spending by the academic unit that owns the building (again, a university example).

Charities can also have a cash reserve on hand from year to year.

The difference between a nonprofit and a standard for-profit corporation has nothing to do with making money hand-over-fist: the difference is that there are no shareholders to make money from the profits.

In a for-profit corporation, profits are distributed to shareholders in the form of dividends or just higher share prices that come from being a better business. Shareholders can then sell these shares or borrow against them and make money.

In a non-profit corporation, all "profits," or excess income, is directed back into the charity and therefore back into programs and other expenses. Nobody owns shares in a nonprofit, and the only people who make more money are staff when pay increases come into play. There are actually arguments in the field about whether CEOs should be paid bonuses for good years - some say yes, most say no.

Also, in the case of a nonprofit, if the corporation breaks the law, the board of directors is criminally liable, because they have a (words vary depending on the state in which the organization is incorporated) "duty to the community" to run the organization in keeping with the ideals of charitable community service.

Chris·tian /ˈkrɪstʃən/
–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith.
2. of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ: Spain is a Christian country.
3. of or pertaining to Christians: many Christian deaths in the Crusades.
4. exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike: She displayed true Christian charity.
5. decent; respectable: They gave him a good Christian burial.
6. human; not brutal; humane: Such behavior isn't Christian.
–noun
7. a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.
8. a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ: He died like a true Christian.
9. a member of any of certain Protestant churches, as the Disciples of Christ and the Plymouth Brethren.
10. the hero of Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress.
11. a male given name.

hyp·o·crite /ˈhɪpəkrɪt/
–noun
1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.


moneylending at a profit is indeed a sin in your professed religion chris. its also the cheif tenet of your real religion. sorry dude. bluster all you want.

----------------

"...moneylending at a profit is indeed a sin in your professed religion chris.

And that makes me a "hypocrite" how? Show me the bank of cmbh. I've lent money to freinds, thousands of dollars over the years, with the clear understanding that all they had to do is pay the original amount back, at zero interest. None of them paid me back a cent, and I never pursued them for it. If their conscience can live with it, that's on them, not me.

"...its also the cheif tenet of your real religion..."

Care to prove that? Clueless, you are. Now I suppose I work for the Pope too.

I guess Jesus was a murderer because people who called themselves "christians" murdered in his name. Great logic, Stevie.

"...sorry dude. bluster all you want."

Hahahah. That's funny, coming from you. You wouldn't know the truth of the book I believe in if God himself popped out of it and started explaining it to you.

Keep thinking you're making some grand point with your hairbrained arguements.

If the church is apostate to biblical teaching, you wouldn't be so surprised if you knew what the bible says about church apostacy. See, the bible is the one book that isn't afraid to predict the downfall of the "leaders" of the faith who's duty it is to spread the word of that book. I don't believe in a "church," or a "denomination," or a branch of the Christian "faith." I believe in the bible. Period. Not a man in a funny hat, or some idiot rallying hate for 20 years from the pulpit. Now, explain how that makes me a "hypocrite" or somehow responsible for what church leaders do. Can you do that and make sense, or will you just post some idiotic definitions that have nothing to do with me, no matter how hard you insist that they do?

Your judo is impotent and naive.

*****************
"...I am afraid that there is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don't want the patient to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to make themselves prominent before the public." -Booker T. Washington, 1911

Jesus had a tough life. I read about that guy. Jesus is the only guy that ever came back from the dead that didn't scare the F--- out of everybody!
-Sam Kinison

i was implying that capitalism is your real religion, judging based off of your posts.

if you pay taxes in this country youve broken most of the covenant of moses, and if you have a bank account or a mortgage your on your way to breaking jeshua's covenant as well.

don't try to pull "give unto ceasar", because the context isnt there.

----------------

"I've lent money to freinds, thousands of dollars over the years, with the clear understanding that all they had to do is pay the original amount back, at zero interest. None of them paid me back a cent, and I never pursued them for it. If their conscience can live with it, that's on them, not me."~cmbh

...Chris can I borrow around, Oh I dunno... let's say $10,000? I promise I'll pay you back buddy, Pal, Coolest dude ever!

Dunn, I swear, my friends used to call me "the bank of 'wimbo,'" which was a take-off on my last name.

Did I have lots of money laying around because I made a ton of money? No. I had lots of money laying around because having a ton of material possessions never interested me much, and I never used credit cards to buy things.

"...i was implying that capitalism is your real religion, judging based off of your posts..."

Then you're an idiot, if you think having a preference for capitalism over communism somehow infers that it's my "religion." Nice try #132, Steve.

"...if you pay taxes in this country youve broken most of the covenant of moses..."

As a Christian, I don't live under the covenenant of Moses, but under the covenant of the New Testament.

"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God, that which is God's." -Jesus Christ

"...and if you have a bank account or a mortgage your on your way to breaking jeshua's covenant as well..."

lol. You remain ignorant of the bible, and approach it with the understanding of what a 3rd grader is taught in Sunday school.

"...don't try to pull "give unto ceasar", because the context isnt there..."

Uhhh, OK Steve. lol. WTF do you think that passage is referring to? What do you think "tribute" means in that passage? You're chasing your tail in circles now, looking foolish.

Here's the full passage, Steve. Claiming that "the context isn't there" is pretty damned idiotic on your part.

Mat 22:17Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
Mat 22:18But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, [ye] hypocrites?
Mat 22:19Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
Mat 22:20And he saith unto them, Whose [is] this image and superscription?
Mat 22:21They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
Mat 22:22When they had heard [these words], they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.

lol. Yeah, that's soooooo out of context!

Look, Pharisee, you spewed a bunch of crap out there, like the "eye of the needle" parable, and then you ignored the truth of what that parable really means, and moved on to something else. Give it up.

Seriously, kinda back on to the topic of the thread here is a simple way you can be patriotic and directly support the troops. No, its not a magnetic yellow ribbon on the back of your pickup truck.

Here is how it works.

http://www.anysoldier.com/

Go to anysoldier.com and you will find a list of soldiers that you wish to "support". All the soldiers involved in the effort are military volunteers, mostly stationed in harm's way. You send your support (letters and/or packages) addresseed to them and they see the "Attn: Any Soldier" line in their address, they send your letters and packages into hands of Soldiers who don't get much or any mail first. Everything is shared.

The effort is well establised now so its legit and ive been writing letters and sending packages for over a year now. They are pretty strict on what you can and cant send so be sure to look at the list of prohibited items if you do wish to participate. Also, dont join the effort if you need some sort of response or thank you from a recieving soldier, as these soldiers are often more concerned with their missions and daily life in a war zone than to sit down a write a thank you response.

The war may be thousands of miles away and may be easily forgotten from your daily life if you or your family are not directly connected. But regardless if you believe in the war, voted for a certain candidate or not, you can support the troops by putting a pen to a piece of paper and saying "thank you for your effort and dedication".

i guess you live by the covenant where you ask for forgiveness after knowingly commiting sint against your own religion. nice insurance policy.

and i guess you dont really understand "giving unto ceasar" either. figures.

Mennonite Dale Glass-Hess wrote:

It is inconceivable to me that Jesus would teach that some spheres of human activity lie outside the authority of God. Are we to heed Caesar when he says to go to war or support war-making when Jesus says in other places that we shall not kill? No! My perception of this incident is that Jesus does not answer the question about the morality of paying taxes to Caesar, but that he throws it back on the people to decide. When the Jews produce a denarius at Jesus’ request, they demonstrate that they are already doing business with Caesar on Caesar’s terms. I read Jesus’ statement, "Give to Caesar…" as meaning “Have you incurred a debt in regard to Caesar! Then you better pay it off.” The Jews had already compromised themselves. Likewise for us: we may refuse to serve Caesar as soldiers and even try to resist paying for Caesar’s army. But the fact is that by our lifestyles we’ve run up a debt with Caesar, who has felt constrained to defend the interests that support our lifestyles. Now he wants paid back, and it’s a little late to say that we don’t owe anything. We’ve already compromised ourselves. If we’re going to play Caesar’s games, then we should expect to have to pay for the pleasure of their enjoyment. But if we are determined to avoid those games, then we should be able to avoid paying for them.

Mohandas K. Gandhi shared this perspective. He wrote:

Jesus evaded the direct question put to him because it was a trap. He was in no way bound to answer it. He therefore asked to see the coin for taxes. And then said with withering scorn, “How can you who traffic in Caesar’s coins and thus receive what to you are benefits of Caesar’s rule refuse to pay taxes?” Jesus’s whole preaching and practice point unmistakably to noncooperation, which necessarily includes nonpayment of taxes.

nice try chris. guess the finer points tend to miss the hypocrits.

others read this passage to suggest that Jesus wanted his followers to be very careful in determining where God and Caesar came into conflict so as to be able to discriminate appropriately between what they owe to one and to the other — the very opposite of an aloof, apolitical stand, and one which was exemplified by the persecuted apostles in Acts 5, when they said in reference to teaching about Jesus, “We ought to obey God rather than men.”

----------------

"...i guess you live by the covenant where you ask for forgiveness after knowingly commiting sint against your own religion. nice insurance policy..."

I guess you're incapable of knowing what is taught in the bible. It isn't that hard until a pharisee such as yourself tries to make it so.

"...and i guess you dont really understand "giving unto ceasar" either. figures..."

lmfao. I posted the scripture that quotes CHRIST himself saying render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. I really don't give a crap what you say about it, it speaks for itself, sparky.

"...Mennonite Dale Glass-Hess wrote:"

I am not a Mennonite. Why do you think I would give a crap what a mennonite says? I'm not a Catholic either. Why do you think I'd give a crap what they say? The bible speaks for itself. I don't need it interpreted for me by someone, as you do.

"...It is inconceivable to me that Jesus would teach that some spheres of human activity lie outside the authority of God..."

It might be "inconcievable" to him. What do I care? The bible speaks for itself. Please, do keep reading. Scripture proves this idiot as wrong as you are.

"...Are we to heed Caesar when he says to go to war or support war-making when Jesus says in other places that we shall not kill?"

That's a nice red-herring, but Jesus wasn't talking about going to war, or killing, he was talking about PAYING TRIBUTE, which is what this conversation is about. Are you capable of sticking to the topic, falc... I mean Steve? Or once scripture proves you ignorant, do you just constantly move onto another topic? Yes, you do. You are ignorant of what it takes to be saved, and that is the ultimate question. It isn't that hard to figure out, as it's all over the New Testament, but the pharisees tried to make it much harder than it was, such as you are failing to attempt to do right now.

"...No! My perception of this incident is that Jesus does not answer the question about the morality of paying taxes to Caesar, but that he throws it back on the people to decide..."

No. Jesus clearly states to give Caesar what is his. Duh. That you can find someone to question that means nothing to me. You believe in the doctrines of the interpretations of men, I believe in the doctrines of God as instructed in the Bible.

"...When the Jews produce a denarius at Jesus� request, they demonstrate that they are already doing business with Caesar on Caesar�s terms. I read Jesus� statement, "Give to Caesar�" as meaning �Have you incurred a debt in regard to Caesar! Then you better pay it off..."

None of this is relevant to salvation, Stevie.

"...The Jews had already compromised themselves. Likewise for us: we may refuse to serve Caesar as soldiers and even try to resist paying for Caesar�s army. But the fact is that by our lifestyles we�ve run up a debt with Caesar, who has felt constrained to defend the interests that support our lifestyles..."

If Dale Glass-Hess ran up a bill to caesar, that's his problem.

"...Now he wants paid back, and it�s a little late to say that we don�t owe anything..."

lol. Is this your big "counter-argument" Stevie? I'm not impressed. Keep reading for further scriptural proof...

"...We�ve already compromised ourselves..."

Speak for yourself, Dale.

"...If we�re going to play Caesar�s games, then we should expect to have to pay for the pleasure of their enjoyment..."

Interpretational gobbledygook. I'm glad it impresses you, Stevie.

"...But if we are determined to avoid those games, then we should be able to avoid paying for them..."

"Dale" assumes that everyone is in hock to caesar, like he apparently is. Why do you think I care?

"...Mohandas K. Gandhi shared this perspective. He wrote..."

Why do you think I care about his opinion? Because you cite him? lmfao.

"...Jesus evaded the direct question put to him because it was a trap..."

Uh, no. He didn't evade a thing. That's why the Pharisees walked away after his answer. If he hadn't answered, they wouldn't have been so embarrassed over his superior wisdom to theirs. Why do you think I care about how a Hindu misinterprated the Christian bible? Do you think I give a crap what Ghandi said? lmfao.

"...He was in no way bound to answer it..."

So? Just because he wasn't "bound" to answer it, doesn't mean he did