(02-12-2026 09:15 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(02-12-2026 08:07 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  You spend a lot of time on here talking about your business acumen, but thinking that non-profits don’t care about revenue is naive. Hell, the fact that bad bunny’s half time show ended with the message “Together we are America” and the TPUSA show ended with a QR code begging for money should be your clue. That would be in addition to the fact that within a week of Kirk’s death they made all new merch to sell, and sent out a text campaign begging for money. Obviously they care about taking advantage of revenue opportunities, and are also a little ghoulish.

Your other level of naivety is thinking that nonprofit execs can’t structure their “work” to offset their lifestyle events and drive a lot of money back to their own benefit.

As someone who works for a non-profit, they definitely do care about revenue and profitability. They still have to make enough money to keep their doors open. But other than that, you are making accusations that may or may not be happening here. I get that you don't like TPUSA and their message, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are bad, are grifting, or anything of the like.

That’s fair but the original position taken by AAA was that these people care so much about Jesus they don’t do things to make money. Which given the body of evidence on their opportunistic fundraising is ridiculous.

“Ok, I'll be quick, then out. Kirk's mission was to spread Christianity, not primarily to make money. TPUSA would never look at something strictly as an opportunity to make money. They would look at it as an opportunity to spread the gospel.“

(02-12-2026 09:39 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  That’s fair but the original position taken by AAA was that these people care so much about Jesus they don’t do things to make money. Which given the body of evidence on their opportunistic fundraising is ridiculous.

“Ok, I'll be quick, then out. Kirk's mission was to spread Christianity, not primarily to make money. TPUSA would never look at something strictly as an opportunity to make money. They would look at it as an opportunity to spread the gospel.“

Based on the large, evangelical churches with the pastors living in huge mansions, there is no doubt that some of them are grifting. I'm just not going to automatically assume that.

Maybe the main theme here (and I'm not directing this at CK) is that there are Christians who generate lots of income and "live large" though they purport to be humble and Christ-like.

Nothing wrong with a Christian wanting to make as much money as possible (for major health care crisis expenses, gifting to charities and nonprofits, helping friends and family, etc.)

But we all know there are Christian leaders (protestant and not Catholic) who live in mansions, wear expensive suits, drive high-dollar vehicles, etc. We have some pastors like that here in Nashville.

(02-12-2026 09:48 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(02-12-2026 09:39 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  That’s fair but the original position taken by AAA was that these people care so much about Jesus they don’t do things to make money. Which given the body of evidence on their opportunistic fundraising is ridiculous.

“Ok, I'll be quick, then out. Kirk's mission was to spread Christianity, not primarily to make money. TPUSA would never look at something strictly as an opportunity to make money. They would look at it as an opportunity to spread the gospel.“

Based on the large, evangelical churches with the pastors living in huge mansions, there is no doubt that some of them are grifting. I'm just not going to automatically assume that.

Alot of these mega church pastors, like Joel Osteen, Kenneth Copeland and Paula White are grifters.

It is amazing and disheartening to read the extent through lies and innuendo Dem’s will go to justify killing Charlie.

According to a September 2025 YouGov Poll shortly after his assassination, a shocking 42% of Dems agreed political violence can sometimes be justified. That number is likely understated because some Dem’s possess the self awareness that wanting to kill someone is frowned upon.

At the least, the Dem’s create the oxygen for bad actors to thrive. Horrific.

(02-12-2026 10:13 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  It is amazing and disheartening to read the extent through lies and innuendo Dem’s will go to justify killing Charlie.

According to a September 2025 YouGov Poll shortly after his assassination, a shocking 42% of Dems agreed political violence can sometimes be justified. That number is likely understated because some Dem’s possess the self awareness that wanting to kill someone is frowned upon.

At the least, the Dem’s create the oxygen for bad actors to thrive. Horrific.

Almost as amazing as this ridiculous logical fallacy.

Not one person here has used anything as a justification for killing him.

(02-12-2026 10:13 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  It is amazing and disheartening to read the extent through lies and innuendo Dem’s will go to justify killing Charlie.

According to a September 2025 YouGov Poll shortly after his assassination, a shocking 42% of Dems agreed political violence can sometimes be justified. That number is likely understated because some Dem’s possess the self awareness that wanting to kill someone is frowned upon.

At the least, the Dem’s create the oxygen for bad actors to thrive. Horrific.

How was the question raised to them? I mean, I don't think anyone would be upset if Putin was taken out.

(02-12-2026 08:07 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(02-11-2026 10:19 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(02-11-2026 08:15 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(02-11-2026 07:25 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(02-11-2026 06:31 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  Your saying it’s OK for them to make money, which is fine, but the post several people were responding to is this :

“Ok, I'll be quick, then out. Kirk's mission was to spread Christianity, not primarily to make money. TPUSA would never look at something strictly as an opportunity to make money. They would look at it as an opportunity to spread the gospel.“

Which is claiming that these people are too Christian to even worry about making money. Which based on the mansion is BS.

Guess what? TPUSA does NOT make money. Did you miss the part where they are a non-profit? Totally funded by donations, not by profit-making ventures.

https://donate.tpusa.com/

After expenses, they forward their donations to political and/or Christian causes. Are their "expenses" a bit extravagant? Maybe, but they don't look at ventures on the basis of making money, which is exactly what I said.

So no, they would not produce a show like they just did and sell tickets to make money, unless they donated any profit to charity. Or anything else like that.

And Charlie's money came from several sources, other than his TPUSA salary:

Quote:The organization is funded by conservative donors and foundations, including Republican Party politicians...

...Turning Point board member Mike Miller said: “He wrote 16 books and had the royalties for those. He had a radio show every day, a podcast, and he made money on all that stuff..."

...Charlie earned a salary of $390,493 from June 2023–June 2024 at TPUSA, according to filings.

LINK

The salary is not close to being enough to afford a $4.75M mansion (now worth more), plus 2 other homes, so he obviously was making the bulk of his money from those other ventures.

Plenty of non-profits are used to pad people’s pockets. Just because they are a non-profit doesn’t mean they aren’t in it to make money. You can burry a lot of personal lifestyle and travel in the $21M meetings and conventions budget.

As you said, Charlie made money through other things like his podcast. Would he have even had his podcast income if not from TPUSA…

Also non-profits need exposure to fundraise. TPUSA is well known for taking advantage of exposure to fundraise.

Charlie Kirk died on 9/10 and they send out these texts asking for money on 9/14:
“Erika Kirk: I refuse to let the movement Charlie built die. It will only grow — stronger, bolder, louder. Join me,” read a Sept. 14 text signed by Kirk's wife, with a link to a fundraising page suggesting donations from $25 to $100,000.“
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/pol...210427007/

Now you’re telling me that an organization that was using the name of the widow of their dead founder to beg for money four days after he died is somehow above or better than putting on a Super Bowl half time show to make money? They were texting people fundraising FOUR days after he died but you don’t think they care about money?

Go back to school and learn how non-profits work.

You spend a lot of time on here talking about your business acumen, but thinking that non-profits don’t care about revenue is naive. Hell, the fact that bad bunny’s half time show ended with the message “Together we are America” and the TPUSA show ended with a QR code begging for money should be your clue. That would be in addition to the fact that within a week of Kirk’s death they made all new merch to sell, and sent out a text campaign begging for money. Obviously they care about taking advantage of revenue opportunities, and are also a little ghoulish.

Your other level of naivety is thinking that nonprofit execs can’t structure their “work” to offset their lifestyle events and drive a lot of money back to their own benefit.

Don't put words in my mouth.

1. I didn't say non-profits don't care about revenue. Of course they do. I simply said they are not a traditional for profit org, and depend on donations for revenue, since they can't actually do activities that generate profit for themselves. Thus the label "non-profit."

2. I didn't say they couldn't drive money back to their own benefit. They certainly do it through their salaries. But anything beyond that is tricky, unlike a typical commercial venture.

And in Charlie's case, his TPUSA salary wasn't anywhere close to affording a $4.75M mansion, and two other houses. That came from book sales, podcasts, his radio show, and many speaking engagements.

Which you continue to conveniently ignore. He made millions from that.

Of course, his TPUSA affiliation drove the recognition to generate that level of success, but it wasn't embedded in the non-profit structure itself, as you seem to imply.

(02-12-2026 10:32 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-12-2026 10:13 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  It is amazing and disheartening to read the extent through lies and innuendo Dem’s will go to justify killing Charlie.

According to a September 2025 YouGov Poll shortly after his assassination, a shocking 42% of Dems agreed political violence can sometimes be justified. That number is likely understated because some Dem’s possess the self awareness that wanting to kill someone is frowned upon.

At the least, the Dem’s create the oxygen for bad actors to thrive. Horrific.

Almost as amazing as this ridiculous logical fallacy.

Not one person here has used anything as a justification for killing him.

You are welcome to your opinion, but I disagree. The Dem’s are prone to violence and when they start stating lies and innuendo about Charlie it is a means of justification of the “he had it coming and he deserved it” type.

I did not state any person here justified the murder.

Just checking in..... Is anyone feeling more united now?

I thought maybe after a few days of reflection, some may feel it?

(02-12-2026 12:02 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(02-12-2026 10:32 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-12-2026 10:13 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  It is amazing and disheartening to read the extent through lies and innuendo Dem’s will go to justify killing Charlie.

According to a September 2025 YouGov Poll shortly after his assassination, a shocking 42% of Dems agreed political violence can sometimes be justified. That number is likely understated because some Dem’s possess the self awareness that wanting to kill someone is frowned upon.

At the least, the Dem’s create the oxygen for bad actors to thrive. Horrific.

Almost as amazing as this ridiculous logical fallacy.

Not one person here has used anything as a justification for killing him.

You are welcome to your opinion, but I disagree. The Dem’s are prone to violence and when they start stating lies and innuendo about Charlie it is a means of justification of the “he had it coming and he deserved it” type.

I did not state any person here justified the murder.

Funny. I seem to remember Tom posting something like that in the thread about Charlie Kirk's shooting only to then take it down because it would've gotten him banned.

Oh, and this is for my buddy Andy B.: Yes, Charlie had a radio and tv show. Yes, he wrote books. But he also went onto college campuses and spread the Word (as well as the tenants of conservatism). He even helped Trump put together the coalition that helped my party take back the White House. He's not the same as Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh (as much as I liked Ed Rushbo). Not even close. He actually did the work, too, which got him killed.

I'm united in the fact that this stupid subject generated over 450 posts on a board with about 50 active members.

(02-12-2026 12:13 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I'm united in the fact that this stupid subject generated over 450 posts on a board with about 50 active members.

Yep.

News of note: Undergone alternative rapper Bad Dazzy is about to release his first video. In it, he shall wear a proper British gentleman's suit (and sporing an ascot, monocle and cane) and rap Irish limericks, accompanied by his pet guinea pig on a leash.

(02-12-2026 12:51 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  News of note: Undergone alternative rapper Bad Dazzy is about to release his first video. In it, he shall wear a proper British gentleman's suit (and sporing an ascot, monocle and cane) and rap Irish limericks, accompanied by his pet guinea pig on a leash.

A... guinea pig, you say? I...

Nah. I can't. That's just too outlandish.

(02-12-2026 12:53 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(02-12-2026 12:51 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  News of note: Undergone alternative rapper Bad Dazzy is about to release his first video. In it, he shall wear a proper British gentleman's suit (and sporing an ascot, monocle and cane) and rap Irish limericks, accompanied by his pet guinea pig on a leash.

A... guinea pig, you say? I...

Nah. I can't. That's just too outlandish.

I take that as a compliment, my good man.

(02-12-2026 01:04 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(02-12-2026 12:53 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(02-12-2026 12:51 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  News of note: Undergone alternative rapper Bad Dazzy is about to release his first video. In it, he shall wear a proper British gentleman's suit (and sporing an ascot, monocle and cane) and rap Irish limericks, accompanied by his pet guinea pig on a leash.

A... guinea pig, you say? I...

Nah. I can't. That's just too outlandish.

I take that as a compliment, my good man.

Ha, I knew you would.

(02-12-2026 01:05 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(02-12-2026 01:04 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(02-12-2026 12:53 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(02-12-2026 12:51 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  News of note: Undergone alternative rapper Bad Dazzy is about to release his first video. In it, he shall wear a proper British gentleman's suit (and sporing an ascot, monocle and cane) and rap Irish limericks, accompanied by his pet guinea pig on a leash.

A... guinea pig, you say? I...

Nah. I can't. That's just too outlandish.

I take that as a compliment, my good man.

Ha, I knew you would.

(02-12-2026 01:04 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(02-12-2026 12:53 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(02-12-2026 12:51 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  News of note: Undergone alternative rapper Bad Dazzy is about to release his first video. In it, he shall wear a proper British gentleman's suit (and sporing an ascot, monocle and cane) and rap Irish limericks, accompanied by his pet guinea pig on a leash.

A... guinea pig, you say? I...

Nah. I can't. That's just too outlandish.

I take that as a compliment, my good man.

Well played, Bill.

(02-12-2026 02:20 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(02-12-2026 01:04 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(02-12-2026 12:53 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(02-12-2026 12:51 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  News of note: Undergone alternative rapper Bad Dazzy is about to release his first video. In it, he shall wear a proper British gentleman's suit (and sporing an ascot, monocle and cane) and rap Irish limericks, accompanied by his pet guinea pig on a leash.

A... guinea pig, you say? I...

Nah. I can't. That's just too outlandish.

I take that as a compliment, my good man.

Well played, Bill.