If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
I've decided that all the nouns in your post mean "cheese." So effectively, your post says:
You're free to cheese about your particular cheese without any cheese, or cheese for that matter (since cheese are just descriptive cheese). Good cheese.
As a cheese to another poster's cheese, you've cheesed miserably in making an cheese either cheese or (more likely) cheese. Come on Cheese, you're better than cheese. If you don't like the cheese of a cheese someone else is using, make a cheese for it. Don't just say "why can't we do cheese my way?!" - that's cheese and has the cheese of being cheese (though I don't think that's your cheese here).
Feel free to dispute me. That wouldn't be a waste of time at all. Nor would I welcome the chance to be antagonizing, patronizing, or downright ornery, by your doing so.
If one person is arbitrarily changing the meaning of common words to fit their agenda, it's hard to converse without having a baseline for translation.
^^ Quite often you like to focus on the extreme fringe (much like with mass shootings) and allow them to rule your opinions. The vast, vast majority are noble causes and a very few of those types of "pastors" even exist.
Sometimes I'm exaggerating for comic effect. I'm quite sure that for every megapastor with a Gulfstream, there are several hundred small church groups spending money on their roof, sending missionaries to brainwash starving people in the 3rd world, de-programming gay people, and lobbying against planned parenthood.
Where do those awful Christian Universities get their funding from?
At any rate, whether its stadium tours or cheese & wine evenings for the church governors, lavish expense or what you would term money well spent, not everyone is going to agree with you there.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Ahh, so you get to define what is extreme fringe, and we need to abide by your definitions?
Sure, go ahead.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Sometimes I'm exaggerating for comic effect. I'm quite sure that for every megapastor with a Gulfstream, there are several hundred small church groups spending money on their roof, sending missionaries to brainwash starving people in the 3rd world, de-programming gay people, and lobbying against planned parenthood.
Fine, I'm done talking about it too, no need to just go full-on troll, however.
Where do those awful Christian Universities get their funding from?
Tuitions, like other universities? Duh?
At any rate, whether its stadium tours or cheese & wine evenings for the church governors, lavish expense or what you would term money well spent, not everyone is going to agree with you there.
Largest strawman thus far, really impressive.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Again, I'm pretty sure you don't actually understand what a 'strawman' is. Waragainstsleep suggested that the reason southern states are more 'charitable' is that they are giving money to their churches- he was perhaps a bit bombastic in his language, but that was the thrust of his argument.
Religion seems to be the biggest factor in the rankings. A Gallup poll in February found that Mississippi and Utah are the two most religious states, followed by Alabama, Louisiana and South Carolina. Religion is also the largest recipient of America's charitable dollars, totaling $105 billion in 2013, or slightly less than a third of all giving in the U.S.
So, yeah, bible belt folks (and Mormons) are giving to churches. He's not wrong and was certainly not making a 'strawman' argument.
Again, exaggerating for mostly comic effect, but surely an intellectual such as you can see what I'm getting at? Paco seems to understand me well enough.
Let me mitigate my cynicism by saying that if people are giving to a cause they truly believe is good and charitable, then I won't question their generosity, even if they are being misled to one extent or another.
My main complaint should really be about the ease with which one can declare ones organisation a charity, and what sort of terms and conditions are imposed whether its people buying blessings for their "donation" (which isn't strictly a donation) or doing that weird thing where they are promised they will get loads more money if they "donate" some, or whether its the recipients of donations making the homeless or starving people read scripture or attend services before they get to eat.
There are all sorts of moral technicalities which definitely apply to this discussion rather than just legal definitions which I suspect is where you and/or your stats are coming from.
If you donate cash to feed the homeless, its not our fault if the church makes the homeless say prayers before they get food. If you are buying yourself gods blessings from a televangelist, then that is NOT charity, even though it might say otherwise on the books. I wouldn't think you would dispute that either, and we both know that however few of them there are they are making tens or hundreds or millions of dollars between them. Its not insignificant.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
ROME - On the eve of a trip to the United States, Pope Francis has called himself a “son of immigrants” and confirmed the point by issuing a blunt warning to any religious orders in Europe that spurn his recent call to open their doors to refugees because they want to make money off their properties instead.
Go ahead, the pope said, but be ready to pay taxes just like everybody else.
“Some religious orders say ‘No, now that the convent is empty we are going to make a hotel and we can have guests, and support ourselves that way, or make money,’” the pontiff said.
“Well, if that is what you want to do, then pay taxes! A religious school is tax-exempt because it is religious, but if it is functioning as a hotel, then it should pay taxes just like its neighbor. Otherwise it is not fair business.”
Renting space to help with operating expenses is a common practice among religious orders in Europe. For example, in Rome, a pensione operated by an order of nuns just outside St. Peter’s Square offers a room, breakfast, and Mass at 7 a.m. each day for $90 a night. They also rent their rooftop to CBS during major papal events.
In an attempt to invalidate the hugely positive, necessary things churches do. Yeah...
I get it, you hate Christianity, I just hope you or a loved one never requires the help of St Jude's (the largest children's hospital in the world, that happens to be totally free) or similar, I'm sure that would be incredibly awkward for you. But you're just going to pick at the 2% at the bottom of the pile and ignore the overwhelming majority who work tirelessly to help those in need, anyway, because "ugh, religion".
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
In an attempt to invalidate the hugely positive, necessary things churches do. Yeah...
I get it, you hate Christianity, I just hope you or a loved one never requires the help of St Jude's (the largest children's hospital in the world, that happens to be totally free) or similar, I'm sure that would be incredibly awkward for you. But you're just going to pick at the 2% at the bottom of the pile and ignore the overwhelming majority who work tirelessly to help those in need, anyway, because "ugh, religion".
I'm not saying they don't ever do any good, I'm quite certain they do. I'm just saying that sometimes they aren't as good or selfless as they make out.
But while we are at it, wouldn't it be nice if people helped other people because it was the right thing to do rather than because their religion mandated it or because it benefitted their church in some way? If that happened then maybe your notion about all the rich people hoarding the cash actually would share it if taxes were lowered.
Historically, when the government cuts taxes for the rich, do charity donations spike?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
I've decided that all the nouns in your post mean "cheese." So effectively, your post says:
Feel free to dispute me. That wouldn't be a waste of time at all. Nor would I welcome the chance to be antagonizing, patronizing, or downright ornery, by your doing so.
If one person is arbitrarily changing the meaning of common words to fit their agenda, it's hard to converse without having a baseline for translation.
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status:
Offline
Jul 20, 2016, 09:22 AM
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
But you're just going to pick at the 2% at the bottom of the pile and ignore the overwhelming majority who work tirelessly to help those in need, anyway, because "ugh, religion".
I'm not saying they don't ever do any good, I'm quite certain they do. I'm just saying that sometimes they aren't as good or selfless as they make out.
A tiny percentage "aren't as good or selfless as they make out", yet you act as if it's much more. I'm not a fan of organized religion, but it's no coincidence that Millennials are the most selfish generation, while at the same time the least religious. At least in Sunday school it's repeatedly drilled into your head that you need to share and help those in need, something that's barely addressed in secular culture at all.
But while we are at it, wouldn't it be nice if people helped other people because it was the right thing to do rather than because their religion mandated it or because it benefitted their church in some way? If that happened then maybe your notion about all the rich people hoarding the cash actually would share it if taxes were lowered.
I can tell you haven't spent much time in an average church, otherwise you'd realize that isn't what's taught at all. Anti-Christian movie and television plots, painting each minister as a mini version of Jimmy Swaggart or Jerry Falwell, aren't reality. Less than 1% of Christians attend "megachurches" (10,000+ members), most are congregations numbering 200 or less and have modest facilities, where everything they do is centered around helping the less fortunate. My own mother, bless her heart, would start baking on Wednesday for Saturday bake sales at the VFW or Rotary club, nearly every week, where all the proceeds would go to a children's hospital or women's shelter. While my dad spent his weekends building houses with Habitat for Humanity, and still does, despite his advancing years.
Historically, when the government cuts taxes for the rich, do charity donations spike?
That's not a thing that's been studied, but I can tell you that the US states with the lowest taxes donate the most $$ to charity, by quite a margin.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
It'd be great if you actually contributed to conversations. It's not known exactly, but it's theorized that ~2% of Christian charities are outright scams, compared to almost 10% of non-Christian, with 20% considered "inefficient" (I personally would still consider those on the shady side), 50% "average", and the rest ranging from above average to excellent. Where gov't programs are designed to simply help people survive, charities work to help the less fortunate (who still want to help themselves) thrive.
Packing 200 families into a new gov't housing project is often seen as "progress", while organizations like Habitat for Humanity are only happy when 200 houses (which they will then own) are built for those families, and the same amount of $$ is spent for both solutions. Which would most people rather live in?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Laminar challenged you to actually make some semblance of an effort to substantiate your 2% claim. Did that part simply escape you? Or are simply once again stating your opinion as fact?
Only 2% of Christian charities score an "F" on Charity Watch, the overwhelming number to receive a failing grade are secular.
Anti-theist provocateurs love to take pot shots at the worst elements of Christianity, but where it counts most, in the areas of compassion and charity, they wipe the floor with the non-religious.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
A large number of secular rip-off charities has no correlation with the compassion and charity of the average "secularist."
It'd be great if you didn't make up statistical tendencies.
I bet you it's highly correlated - damn close to R=1. Without the compassion and charity of the average secularist the secular rip-off charities wouldn't exist as there would be no one to rip off. (same goes for christian charities & the people who donate to them).
You might be surprised to learn that secular people donate to Christian charities and Christian people donate to secular charities. I can't say how often but I'd bet its not remotely unusual.
Thats certainly the case in the UK anyway. Christian Aid is huge charity here.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
A pity when a few bad apples spoil the whole darn bunch, eh?
While certainly most churches are not pyramid schemes that rip off little old ladies, what I think is more endemic is the sense of feathering ones own nest, and how some churches have strings, limits etc on who they serve. If the recipients of your bounty only consist of the members of your church, you are not part of the greater community.
If I put $20 in the collection plate, that is donating to the church. It might pay for the lights, the heat, the pastor's new socks. That doesn't mean it goes to feed the town's homeless, or pay for sick children's healthcare. I have no say in what they do with my $20. Is that donation for charity? Or am I investing in having a church to go to next sunday? Who benefits from that? Me? Then I am feathering my own nest. I benefit from that $20. People *like me* benefit.
Saying the south, very religious, gives the most to charity... well duh, it goes to churches. Who do those churches serve? Their own kind?
I'd rather give my $20 to a specific charity with a specific cause.
A pity when a few bad apples spoil the whole darn bunch, eh?
While certainly most churches are not pyramid schemes that rip off little old ladies, what I think is more endemic is the sense of feathering ones own nest, and how some churches have strings, limits etc on who they serve. If the recipients of your bounty only consist of the members of your church, you are not part of the greater community.
If I put $20 in the collection plate, that is donating to the church. It might pay for the lights, the heat, the pastor's new socks. That doesn't mean it goes to feed the town's homeless, or pay for sick children's healthcare. I have no say in what they do with my $20. Is that donation for charity? Or am I investing in having a church to go to next sunday? Who benefits from that? Me? Then I am feathering my own nest. I benefit from that $20. People *like me* benefit.
Saying the south, very religious, gives the most to charity... well duh, it goes to churches. Who do those churches serve? Their own kind?
I'd rather give my $20 to a specific charity with a specific cause.
I'm sorry but this is extremely out of touch. You really put the ass in assumption while demonstrating a large degree of ignorance. A lot of people do a lot of good through the churches. I say that not being particularly religious (church maybe once a year, if a GF or family member forces me to go).
Most churches do serve the needy, using donations from the community. One christian charity I volunteer for (my dad is a good friend of the guy who started it) delivers turkeys, milk, eggs, other food, and presents on Christmas Eve to inner city baltimore. Mostly families on hard times, sometimes elderly, and in most cases minority. You know where we get the list of needy from? The church. They also provide some funding, a place to stage, and help negotiate with local businesses that donate the food. If we find that the power is cut off or the residence is unfit to stay in, we call the church who works with the authorities to find a shelter for those people. Whether it's the homeless, families on hard times, orphaned children, etc. If you don't believe me, I suggest you'd go to a few - you can even ask them what they do with it.
A pity when a few bad apples spoil the whole darn bunch, eh?
While certainly most churches are not pyramid schemes that rip off little old ladies, what I think is more endemic is the sense of feathering ones own nest, and how some churches have strings, limits etc on who they serve. If the recipients of your bounty only consist of the members of your church, you are not part of the greater community.
If I put $20 in the collection plate, that is donating to the church. It might pay for the lights, the heat, the pastor's new socks. That doesn't mean it goes to feed the town's homeless, or pay for sick children's healthcare. I have no say in what they do with my $20. Is that donation for charity? Or am I investing in having a church to go to next sunday? Who benefits from that? Me? Then I am feathering my own nest. I benefit from that $20. People *like me* benefit.
Saying the south, very religious, gives the most to charity... well duh, it goes to churches. Who do those churches serve? Their own kind?
I'd rather give my $20 to a specific charity with a specific cause.
A much less contentious way of saying what I was saying.
Christmas aside (I gather there are soup kitchens that turn away volunteers at christmas because its the one time everyone is up for it), Churches use their help of the needy to their advantage. Even if they don't impose explicit conditions, the poor, the lonely, addicts vulnerable people are low hanging fruit when you're recruiting. Show a little kindness in a void and you have a friend forever right?
It sounds ultra-cynical but I have met a couple of dozen JWs and without exception every one of them was either born into it, or recruited after being homeless and/or alcoholic or a drug addict. Not a huge sample size, but taken on both sides of the Atlantic and literally 100% recruited while vulnerable. Probably an extreme example given their cult-like tendencies, but a watered down version of this policy is still going to score you a few warm bodies on a regular basis.
Everyone seems to think everyone else is cynical, naive or out of touch. Perhaps we need to meet in the middle somewhere?
There are obviously good people who go to church, even if some of the good they do gets tainted without their knowing it. And yes, given their legal status, the IRS says that cash spent on the Pastor's new socks counts as a charitable donation for the statistics, so we can definitely explain away some of that apparent generosity gap.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Most churches do serve the needy, using donations from the community. One christian charity I volunteer for (my dad is a good friend of the guy who started it) delivers turkeys, milk, eggs, other food, and presents on Christmas Eve to inner city baltimore. Mostly families on hard times, sometimes elderly, and in most cases minority. You know where we get the list of needy from? The church.
A food drive is separate from straightup donations to the church. It plainly says what it is going for. Yet, that "list of needy" that comes from the church? Where do they get it? If I'm an ex-Catholic on hard times, do I get noticed by the Baptist church and get a food basket? Vice Versa? Or do I have to be someone who attends that church to even get on the list?
I give to charities and food banks, collected by the Scouts, the YMCA, and yes the church.
I'm sorry but this is extremely out of touch. You really put the ass in assumption while demonstrating a large degree of ignorance. A lot of people do a lot of good through the churches.
Your entire post is beyond out of touch, it is willfully ignorant. Yes churches do a lot of good, but the vast majority of the $ that goes into the collection plate on Sunday (exactly what Andi was referencing) goes to 'keeping the lights on.' A Church is basically a business with salaries and bills to pay, buildings to maintain, etc. And most, small, independent Churches exist hand to mouth. Andi was spot-on. Most money given to Churches is only given to charity if you consider the running of the Church a charity.
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status:
Offline
Jul 22, 2016, 11:08 AM
My friends and I decided to buy an old building where we can hang out and drink beers. Everyone tossed some cash in a bucket and we had enough to rent the building. A few of us brought musical instruments and we jammed out while drinking beers. In order to pay rent, the light bill, and keep the fridge stocked with beers, everyone throws some cash in a bucket whenever we hang out. The idea of crushing beers and jamming out got pretty popular and pretty soon a couple hundred people were showing up to drink beers and jam out. Most people threw some cash in the bucket to keep the fridge stocked, the lights on, oh and also we need some better instruments for better jamming out, so the bucket cash went towards a sick double stack and a '57 Strat. Also we needed a van to carry our instruments so the bucket cash went to buying a van.
Four of us who were especially good at drinking beers and jamming out decided to quit our jobs and live off of the bucket cash money. There was enough there that we were able to buy some nice houses and nice cars, with plenty of bucket cash left over to stock the beer fridge and keep the lights on.
Now Jim, one of the people that regularly comes to drink beers and jam out, had his roof damaged in a storm, so we gave him some of the bucket cash to help cover his roof. The amount needed to fix the roof was about 1% of the yearly bucket cash fund.
Questions:
1. Is this a charity?
2. What rating would this setup get from CharityNavigator?
3. Is this group doing "a lot of good in the community"?
3a. If not, what would need to change before the amount of good done was "a lot"?
4. Should the attendees be able to consider the cash they threw in the bucket as charitable donations?
A food drive is separate from straightup donations to the church. It plainly says what it is going for. Yet, that "list of needy" that comes from the church? Where do they get it?
If I'm an ex-Catholic on hard times, do I get noticed by the Baptist church and get a food basket? Vice Versa? Or do I have to be someone who attends that church to even get on the list?
Food drives are often organized and run by churches (and often by secular organizations) as one of their charitable activities. The churches, in the vast majority of cases, do not care how religious you are or if you're a "member". They tend to the community, not to their chosen members. Ever notice how in large cities tons of homeless people assemble around churches? It's not because they're members or even religious. It's because the church feeds them, provides donated clothing, supplies, etc.
Where'd they get the list of needy from? By being involved in the community in numerous capacities. Churches generally do not isolate themselves from the community with "membership". There's no sign up, no requirements, and no restrictions. If you want to be a member, just show up and you can call yourself that. As an "ex-catholic", I find it hard to believe you don't already know that.
When you say you're an "ex-catholic". Do you mean your parents identified as catholic and you chose not to identify that way once you were old enough? Or you actually spent time involved with a church as an adult? Based on your statements, I'd wager it's the former.
I give to charities and food banks, collected by the Scouts, the YMCA, and yes the church.
Ok, something's not jiving here. Did you not research where your donations are going before giving then? If you are skeptical of how it's being used, why not ask? I mean, it's a simple phone call to say "hey how will my donations be used?". It almost seems as if your ignorance is willful, given that you could have removed your doubt with a phone call or quick google in the time it took to type up that post.
My friends and I decided to buy an old building where we can hang out and drink beers. Everyone tossed some cash in a bucket and we had enough to rent the building. A few of us brought musical instruments and we jammed out while drinking beers. In order to pay rent, the light bill, and keep the fridge stocked with beers, everyone throws some cash in a bucket whenever we hang out. The idea of crushing beers and jamming out got pretty popular and pretty soon a couple hundred people were showing up to drink beers and jam out. Most people threw some cash in the bucket to keep the fridge stocked, the lights on, oh and also we need some better instruments for better jamming out, so the bucket cash went towards a sick double stack and a '57 Strat. Also we needed a van to carry our instruments so the bucket cash went to buying a van.
I assume you're just trying to illustrate a point
Four of us who were especially good at drinking beers and jamming out decided to quit our jobs and live off of the bucket cash money. There was enough there that we were able to buy some nice houses and nice cars, with plenty of bucket cash left over to stock the beer fridge and keep the lights on.
See right here? That's stealing, and any additional donations you took would be fraud. What justification do you have for appropriating the money? Did you start providing a community service? Were those donating aware that you were using the money to support yourselves?
Now Jim, one of the people that regularly comes to drink beers and jam out, had his roof damaged in a storm, so we gave him some of the bucket cash to help cover his roof. The amount needed to fix the roof was about 1% of the yearly bucket cash fund.
"His" roof or the roof of the building you rented?
Questions:
1. Is this a charity?
No, it started out as a collective cooperative until you started stealing & committing fraud.
2. What rating would this setup get from CharityNavigator?
0 - you did not use any donations for charitable purposes.
3. Is this group doing "a lot of good in the community"?
No
3a. If not, what would need to change before the amount of good done was "a lot"?
Take the bucket of cash, and use the money for those that need help or to provide a service to the community. "Beer and music" is not a service to the community.
4. Should the attendees be able to consider the cash they threw in the bucket as charitable donations?
Because from the description, it would be trivially simple to register this 'organisation' as a religion/charity in the US.
Umm, no.
Originally Posted by subego
My understanding is the IRS don't play that.
One of the terms of being a 501(c) is the IRS gets to set up shop basically inside your butthole.
Exactly.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status:
Offline
Jul 22, 2016, 03:05 PM
Originally Posted by Snow-i
I assume you're just trying to illustrate a point
See right here? That's stealing, and any additional donations you took would be fraud. What justification do you have for appropriating the money? Did you start providing a community service? Were those donating aware that you were using the money to support yourselves?
Yep, crushing beers and jamming out makes people feel good. They're cool with the bucket cash going to making sure their beer and jam time is awesome. Don't worry, only 20% of the bucket cash is used to pay our salaries. The other 80% goes directly toward our "crushing beers and jamming out" programming.
"His" roof or the roof of the building you rented?
His private residence. We all like Jim and felt bad that his roof got destroyed, so we decided to send some bucket cash his way. Everyone's cool with it.
0 - you did not use any donations for charitable purposes.
Eighty percent of the bucket cash went toward our programs and services.
Take the bucket of cash, and use the money for those that need help or to provide a service to the community. "Beer and music" is not a service to the community.
It makes the people that attend feel good. Why does our beer and jam out group have to go plant trees or some shit?
Yep, crushing beers and jamming out makes people feel good. They're cool with the bucket cash going to making sure their beer and jam time is awesome. Don't worry, only 20% of the bucket cash is used to pay our salaries. The other 80% goes directly toward our "crushing beers and jamming out" programming.
Good luck applying for status as a 501c3. You do know there's an application process right? "Crushing beers and jamming out" don't qualify for 501c3 status.
His private residence. We all like Jim and felt bad that his roof got destroyed, so we decided to send some bucket cash his way. Everyone's cool with it.
And by doing so you would be committing larceny by appropriating funds collected for a different purpose.
Eighty percent of the bucket cash went toward our programs and services.
But you don't have any programs or services, and the IRS would easily find that out.
It makes the people that attend feel good. Why does our beer and jam out group have to go plant trees or some shit?
This does not qualify you for 501(c)(3).
I love how you attempt to counter my response to one ignorant poster by demonstrating an even greater degree of ignorance.
Most tax exempt organizations are required to file annual financial reports (IRS Form 990) at the state and federal level. A tax exempt organization's 990 and some other forms are required to be made available to public scrutiny.
The types of charitable organization that are considered by the IRS to be organized for the public benefit include those that are organized for:
Relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged,
Advancement of religion,
Advancement of education or science,
Construction or maintenance of public buildings, monuments, or works,
Lessening the burdens of government,
Lessening of neighborhood tensions,
Elimination of prejudice and discrimination,
Defense of human and civil rights secured by law, and
Combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.
No wonder ya'll are so anti religion and anti-church. You don't know the first things about em.
That must be some very special "cold chai" to get that kind of reaction.
Originally Posted by besson3c
Man, this is worse than that last black guy whose flag pin wasn't big enough!
What if HRC has another coughing fit or head bobbing event in the middle of one of the debates? How will you pass that off; more of the "vast right wing conspiracy"? I know, another cold chai brain freeze!
The medical term for what transpired there is humor.
You wish. The first head bob with the eye flutter is something. She "pulls off the save" with second bob and the goofy grin to pass is off as brain freeze. The only problem is she never took a drink.
The vast, vast majority are noble causes and a very few of those types of "pastors" even exist.
Top