|
Grex > Agora56 > #84: Newspaper in Denmark prints cartoon pics of Mohammed | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 432 responses total. |
nharmon
|
|
response 376 of 432:
| 
Feb 21 17:13 UTC 2006 |
Can Grex maintain its charity status while also officially bashing
religions?
|
tod
|
|
response 377 of 432:
|
Feb 21 17:17 UTC 2006 |
Grex has charity status?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 378 of 432:
|
Feb 21 17:23 UTC 2006 |
Isn't that how donations are tax deductible?
|
tod
|
|
response 379 of 432:
|
Feb 21 17:38 UTC 2006 |
100% deductible? You sure?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 380 of 432:
|
Feb 21 17:50 UTC 2006 |
Not now I'm not.
|
tod
|
|
response 381 of 432:
|
Feb 21 18:04 UTC 2006 |
http://apps.irs.gov/app/pub78
|
rcurl
|
|
response 382 of 432:
|
Feb 21 18:06 UTC 2006 |
Grex is a 501(c)3 charitable organization and donations to it are tax
deductible.
When has Grex ever officially bashed religions? Oh, you mean if it
runs the Muhammed cartoons? That depends on whether they are run as a Grex
editorial starement or for informational purposes.
Further than that, if Grex decided to take stands in regard to religions,
positive or negative, I wouldn't think this could have any affect upon
Grex's status as a recognized charitable organization, so long as it was
not lobbying for laws or supporting or opposing candidates for election
further than allowed by law. What's illegal about bashing - or praising -
religions?
|
tod
|
|
response 383 of 432:
|
Feb 21 18:10 UTC 2006 |
re #382
Grex is a 501(c)3 charitable organization and donations to it are tax
deductible.
see #381 (You may be serious mistaken. Also, I seriously doubt you can
deduct any more than 50% of a donation.)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 384 of 432:
|
Feb 21 18:30 UTC 2006 |
Any donation to a 501(c)3 charitable organization is deductible depending on
the tax circumstances of the individual. If one does not claim deductions,
for example, one cannot deduct. But if one can claim deductions, the donation
is 100% deductible from gross income. (It is not a tax credit, which you may
be thinking of.)
If you think there is a limit of 50% within the above general framework,
please cite the chapter and verse saying that.
|
tod
|
|
response 385 of 432:
|
Feb 21 18:38 UTC 2006 |
re #384
Arbornet fell within the "A public charity with a 50% deductibility
limitation." under the Publication 78 deductibility codes by the IRS.
I'm certain Grex would find itself in the same boat if it were eligible.
http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=150830,00.html
All eligible charities are available via IRS lookup
http://apps.irs.gov/app/pub78
If you don't see it then there's a 99% chance its not eligible for ANY
deduction.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 386 of 432:
|
Feb 21 18:45 UTC 2006 |
I tried looking up Grex, Cyberspace, Arbornet, and found none.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 387 of 432:
|
Feb 21 18:59 UTC 2006 |
Hmmmm....has Grex submitted their 990s faithfully? Aruba? Janc?
|
tod
|
|
response 388 of 432:
|
Feb 21 19:09 UTC 2006 |
re #387
Exactly
|
jadecat
|
|
response 389 of 432:
|
Feb 21 19:19 UTC 2006 |
resp:375 Well said.
|
bru
|
|
response 390 of 432:
|
Feb 21 20:27 UTC 2006 |
Hey, if you want to post the pictures, post the pictures. Thats what free
speech is all about. You have the power to put a link tot he pictures in the
Agora. Do so.
|
tod
|
|
response 391 of 432:
|
Feb 21 20:33 UTC 2006 |
I've got the pictures but I also don't feel comfortable expressing my bigotry
that way.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 392 of 432:
|
Feb 21 23:52 UTC 2006 |
Re #372: Don't compound things by turning into richard or kludgie and putting
words in my mouth. I specifically disagreed with your ridiculous analogy to
a barbershop.
|
scholar
|
|
response 393 of 432:
|
Feb 22 02:41 UTC 2006 |
I have very little respect for jep, and I would revel (to a limited extent)
in some bad things that could happen to him.
|
naftee
|
|
response 394 of 432:
|
Feb 22 05:27 UTC 2006 |
ok so it was resp:366 where this item turned into talk about GreX staff
shit, son. GreX's items turn tables faster than a spinning restaurant.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 395 of 432:
|
Feb 22 05:46 UTC 2006 |
re #393: Hows the view from that glass house?
|
naftee
|
|
response 396 of 432:
|
Feb 22 05:57 UTC 2006 |
those alaskans live in igloos !
|
happyboy
|
|
response 397 of 432:
|
Feb 22 05:58 UTC 2006 |
they eat eskimo pies hahahah
|
tod
|
|
response 398 of 432:
|
Feb 22 08:47 UTC 2006 |
Not all Siwash..some eat klondike pie!
|
mary
|
|
response 399 of 432:
|
Feb 22 13:01 UTC 2006 |
I read an interesting blog posting, on this subject at:
http://tinyurl.com/qncq9
I especially found rule #2 interesting, which I'll paste here:
"Make sure that you are an equal opportunity satirist. The Guardian
reports that Jyllands-Posten refused to run cartoons lampooning Jesus
Christ three years ago. The Sunday editor, Jens Kaiser, gave this
rationale at the time: "I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy
the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an
outcry. Therefore, I will not use them." The problem here is that by
running only cartoons focused on Muhammad, the paper is making clear,
however unintentionally, that the point of the satire is not religious but
political -- expressing an attitude toward the Muslim world, rather than
laughing at fundamentalist religion in general. The quote also reinforces
rule #1 by revealing a gross insensitivity."
I think there is a lot of intentionally defamatory and ugly behavior
that hides behind the excuse of Free Speech. I don't want to see
such stuff censored but I do think we should call it as it is.
|
tod
|
|
response 400 of 432:
|
Feb 22 17:18 UTC 2006 |
You know what I have a problem with? The Super Bowl. Everything about it
sends MIXED MESSAGES.
|