Search results

I am just sad that he will never attain his desired goal of having everyone on the board ignore him.

I'll just say this, I don't use Twitter, and while I knew the guy was weird, that Tweet is on a whole other level. I think it was just posted as an example. Nobody is trying to support that or anything. It's like slowing down to rubberneck when you pass a car accident. You try not to look...

Nobody "chooses to see" your posts. Putting a person on "ignore" might be the most weak-minded response ever. Only a pvssy does that kind of stuff. Sadly, we are stuck seeing your frequent and crappy posts.

No problem, I'm not mad at anyone, I just wanted to clarify the issue. If a church is funneling money in a recruiting scam, it would be a crime. Detecting that crime and finding the evidence of that crime would, indeed, be a challenge.

Again, I'm not trying to argue with anyone, just want to provide facts. You are mixing up "burden of proof" with "examining". "Burden of proof" is what would be required to win a legal case. Merely examining (also known as AUDITING) is a much different issue. Yes, the IRS may be gun-shy...

You, literally, just replied to his post.

That is not completely true. Churches are not allowed to engage in political activity such as campaigning, and can lose their non-profit status if they do. https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/charities-churches-and-politics