quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
he is held to a different standard since he's a public figure in situations where his work effects other people (in this case, their knowledge or beliefs about certain things) and its important (some would say essential) for consumers to know about any potential for conflicts of interest or commitment.

Just like the Koch brothers. They do much in the political arena of America. I think they should have to give a full disclosure of EVERYTHING. Would be enlightening to see their money laundering operations to all their dummy organizations, so as to hide which Republican and Tea Partier is the minion of these two individuals. Would undermine those Republicans and Tea Partiers credibility pretty quickly.

Then we can do the same with Wayne La Pierre, Rupert Murdoch and the whole Walton Family! It's pretty safe assumption none of those people want their political contributions being made public.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
he is held to a different standard since he's a public figure in situations where his work effects other people (in this case, their knowledge or beliefs about certain things) and its important (some would say essential) for consumers to know about any potential for conflicts of interest or commitment.

Just like the Koch brothers. They do much in the political arena of America. I think they should have to give a full disclosure of EVERYTHING. Would be enlightening to see their money laundering operations to all their dummy organizations, so as to hide which Republican and Tea Partier is the minion of these two individuals. Would undermine those Republicans and Tea Partiers credibility pretty quickly.

Then we can do the same with Wayne La Pierre, Rupert Murdoch and the whole Walton Family! It's pretty safe assumption none of those people want their political contributions being made public.

Wayne La Pierre does not pretend to be a neutral newsman. I have never seen any of the people you mentioned conduct and interview. Remember the rap is that he didn't even let his present employer know about this, again, I doubt that that is relevant to any of the people you mentioned.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
he is held to a different standard since he's a public figure in situations where his work effects other people (in this case, their knowledge or beliefs about certain things) and its important (some would say essential) for consumers to know about any potential for conflicts of interest or commitment.

Just like the Koch brothers. They do much in the political arena of America. I think they should have to give a full disclosure of EVERYTHING. Would be enlightening to see their money laundering operations to all their dummy organizations, so as to hide which Republican and Tea Partier is the minion of these two individuals. Would undermine those Republicans and Tea Partiers credibility pretty quickly.

Then we can do the same with Wayne La Pierre, Rupert Murdoch and the whole Walton Family! It's pretty safe assumption none of those people want their political contributions being made public.

Wayne La Pierre does not pretend to be a neutral newsman. I have never seen any of the people you mentioned conduct and interview. Remember the rap is that he didn't even let his present employer know about this, again, I doubt that that is relevant to any of the people you mentioned.

Yet its a matter of privacy what a US Citizens does with their assets. Or are you suddenly of the option that we should have all the firearms in America registered? Last I checked, firearms are an asset as well! What is $50,000 to either Koch Brother? About as much as the cost of a firearm to either of us. So in the analogy, if firearms should not be registered because that's the privacy of the US Citizen, then the person in question, should not have to publicly disclose a donation. You want it both ways, and that's not going to happen.

Large scale assets should be monitored. We have seen what happens when money influences an outcome in the favor of the one giving such assets up. $50,000 to a charity organization is a drop in the bucket compared to $889 million the Koch's are planning on spending for the 2016 election process. How seriously can you take any information from the Heritage Foundation whose biggest contributor is the Koch brothers? I ask that since it comes off often as a source by conservatives on this forum. How many threads have we seen, created by conservatives, bitching about the Heritage Foundation obtaining money from the Koch brothers when reporting on something? That's right....NEVER. If your going to slam one person for a $50,000 donation; then its fair you point out an organization that does it more often.

I say the guy should have disclosed things and been up front about it. Being honest to the public to whom your reporting information is important to maintaining credibility and integrity. He's since done it and apologize. Move on...

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
he is held to a different standard since he's a public figure in situations where his work effects other people (in this case, their knowledge or beliefs about certain things) and its important (some would say essential) for consumers to know about any potential for conflicts of interest or commitment.

Just like the Koch brothers. They do much in the political arena of America. I think they should have to give a full disclosure of EVERYTHING. Would be enlightening to see their money laundering operations to all their dummy organizations, so as to hide which Republican and Tea Partier is the minion of these two individuals. Would undermine those Republicans and Tea Partiers credibility pretty quickly.

Then we can do the same with Wayne La Pierre, Rupert Murdoch and the whole Walton Family! It's pretty safe assumption none of those people want their political contributions being made public.

apart from that the OP and what you just wrote having very little, if nothing, to do with each other---two things:

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
one is, to my knowledge, donations to political candidates are matters of public record. so if you really are desirous of that information, you can get it. and I can think of no reason why the Koch brothers would have to hide their political contributions behind "dummy organizations." as your language of "money laundering"---I trust you know that more or less refers to money coming from illegal activities. im not aware of the Koch brothers engaging in those.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
the other is---how is it liberals don't see the incredible jaw dropping hypocrisy when they complain about the Koch brothers, but are completely okay with warren buffet, bill gates, George soros and other liberal billionaires spending their own money how they wish?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
we are not discussing money laundering since none has been laundered at this point.

Lets discuss the 2nd amendment money laundering by the NRA.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
we are not discussing money laundering since none has been laundered at this point.

Lets discuss the 2nd amendment money laundering by the NRA.

Yes, the NRA has....ALWAYS...been 'truthful' and 'honest' in its reporting of things....

Imagine if they did...

"Hey NRA, do guns kill people?"

"Yes".

We know this, because we can test it scientifically!

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

How seriously can you take any information from the Heritage Foundation whose biggest contributor is the Koch brothers? I ask that since it comes off often as a source by conservatives on this forum. How many threads have we seen, created by conservatives, bitching about the Heritage Foundation obtaining money from the Koch brothers when reporting on something? That's right....NEVER. If your going to slam one person for a $50,000 donation; then its fair you point out an organization that does it more often.

I say the guy should have disclosed things and been up front about it. Being honest to the public to whom your reporting information is important to maintaining credibility and integrity. He's since done it and apologize. Move on...

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

All these entities give money to organizations that report on matters that could be used in a political arena on a number of different topics. That you can not seem to understand that either means your an idiot or intellectually dishonest. Which is it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
he is held to a different standard since he's a public figure in situations where his work effects other people (in this case, their knowledge or beliefs about certain things) and its important (some would say essential) for consumers to know about any potential for conflicts of interest or commitment.

Just like the Koch brothers. They do much in the political arena of America. I think they should have to give a full disclosure of EVERYTHING. Would be enlightening to see their money laundering operations to all their dummy organizations, so as to hide which Republican and Tea Partier is the minion of these two individuals. Would undermine those Republicans and Tea Partiers credibility pretty quickly.

Then we can do the same with Wayne La Pierre, Rupert Murdoch and the whole Walton Family! It's pretty safe assumption none of those people want their political contributions being made public.

Wayne La Pierre does not pretend to be a neutral newsman. I have never seen any of the people you mentioned conduct and interview. Remember the rap is that he didn't even let his present employer know about this, again, I doubt that that is relevant to any of the people you mentioned.

Yet its a matter of privacy what a US Citizens does with their assets. Or are you suddenly of the option that we should have all the firearms in America registered? Last I checked, firearms are an asset as well! What is $50,000 to either Koch Brother? About as much as the cost of a firearm to either of us. So in the analogy, if firearms should not be registered because that's the privacy of the US Citizen, then the person in question, should not have to publicly disclose a donation. You want it both ways, and that's not going to happen.

Large scale assets should be monitored. We have seen what happens when money influences an outcome in the favor of the one giving such assets up. $50,000 to a charity organization is a drop in the bucket compared to $889 million the Koch's are planning on spending for the 2016 election process. How seriously can you take any information from the Heritage Foundation whose biggest contributor is the Koch brothers? I ask that since it comes off often as a source by conservatives on this forum. How many threads have we seen, created by conservatives, bitching about the Heritage Foundation obtaining money from the Koch brothers when reporting on something? That's right....NEVER. If your going to slam one person for a $50,000 donation; then its fair you point out an organization that does it more often.

I say the guy should have disclosed things and been up front about it. Being honest to the public to whom your reporting information is important to maintaining credibility and integrity. He's since done it and apologize. Move on...

We are discussing money laundering so let's repeal the 2nd amendment. Do you have to try to make everything about guns?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
I see that at the end you agree we are right. He was dishonest and should had someone else do the interview.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


You make it sound like a PAC.

"I made charitable donations to the Foundation in support of the work they’re doing on global AIDS prevention and deforestation, causes I care about deeply," he said. "I thought that my contributions were a matter of public record. However, in hindsight, I should have taken the extra step of personally disclosing my donations to my employer and to the viewers on air during the recent news stories about the Foundation. I apologize."

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
he is held to a different standard since he's a public figure in situations where his work effects other people (in this case, their knowledge or beliefs about certain things) and its important (some would say essential) for consumers to know about any potential for conflicts of interest or commitment.

Just like the Koch brothers. They do much in the political arena of America. I think they should have to give a full disclosure of EVERYTHING. Would be enlightening to see their money laundering operations to all their dummy organizations, so as to hide which Republican and Tea Partier is the minion of these two individuals. Would undermine those Republicans and Tea Partiers credibility pretty quickly.

Then we can do the same with Wayne La Pierre, Rupert Murdoch and the whole Walton Family! It's pretty safe assumption none of those people want their political contributions being made public.

apart from that the OP and what you just wrote having very little, if nothing, to do with each other---two things:

All these entities give money to organizations that report on matters that could be used in a political arena on a number of different topics. That you can not seem to understand that either means your an idiot or intellectually dishonest. Which is it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
one is, to my knowledge, donations to political candidates are matters of public record. so if you really are desirous of that information, you can get it. and I can think of no reason why the Koch brothers would have to hide their political contributions behind "dummy organizations." as your language of "money laundering"---I trust you know that more or less refers to money coming from illegal activities. im not aware of the Koch brothers engaging in those.

An yet the Koch brothers donate funds to an organization they control. That organization than divides up that money into varying amounts of money to other 'shell' organizations, whom then use it in other 'shell organizations'. They even give it to 'actual' organizations whom then take money to give to 'shell organizations' before heading to the final destination. An that's the simplified version of the actual process. All these transactions take place in less then 3/10ths of a second. How many seconds are in the day?

Makes tracing the money pretty damn hard. Particularly when those accounts are in areas outside of the United States.

I have to give credit were credit is due; their process is very sophisticated and slick. They have hired mathematicians, statisticians, and financial managers upon many individuals to help process all this data. That your so desperately wishing to bash one lone, liberal of $50,000 to a charity, in light of all this seems pretty....petty....

Conservatives have been known to overlook things that 'help the cause', even though they want anyone that does the same thing that doesn't 'help the cause' be nailed to the full maximum. Like lying to Congress and the American people. A Republican Congress Impeached a Democrat for an affair that had no effect on the job. But a total pass by a Republican President after 3,200+ US Soldiers were killed. How many threads have we seen of conservatives demanding other conservatives be held to the same standards and accountability as they slam liberals on this forum? That's right...

NONE...

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
the other is---how is it liberals don't see the incredible jaw dropping hypocrisy when they complain about the Koch brothers, but are completely okay with warren buffet, bill gates, George soros and other liberal billionaires spending their own money how they wish?

Warren Buffeet is a good guy that is donating all his money when he does. Same as Bill Gates and George Soros. Seriously, if we created rules by which someone must disclose major contributions to organizations or individuals of a direct or indirect political degree; they have to publicly disclose it. This would apply to everyone, conservative, moderator and liberal. Because that is how our form of government operates as it deals with the individual citizen. We then, as a society, have to ask "How much is were the line drawn?" (say $15,000). Yet, as we've seen from the Koch Brothers, they would make $14,999 donations to a few hundred if not thousand organizations, whom after a few hundred thousand transactions effectively give many times that to a few organizations. So we might also have to draw the line at how many organizations, or how much in a single tax year.

I frankly do not see any of that standing up to a 1st amendment contest in the courts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
we are not discussing money laundering since none has been laundered at this point.

Lets discuss the 2nd amendment money laundering by the NRA.

Yes, the NRA has....ALWAYS...been 'truthful' and 'honest' in its reporting of things....

Imagine if they did...

"Hey NRA, do guns kill people?"

"Yes".

We know this, because we can test it scientifically!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


You make it sound like a PAC.

"I made charitable donations to the Foundation in support of the work they’re doing on global AIDS prevention and deforestation, causes I care about deeply," he said. "I thought that my contributions were a matter of public record. However, in hindsight, I should have taken the extra step of personally disclosing my donations to my employer and to the viewers on air during the recent news stories about the Foundation. I apologize."

Its already been established in another thread that only around 10% of Clinton foundation contributions go to help any charitable causes

And that the Clinton foundation is a highly suspect organization... It stand accused of being nothing more than a slush fund for the Clinton family, and that the "donations" (many from very shady foreign organizations) are suspected of being pay-to-play bribes or favors to be returned in kind with illegal influence both through Hillarys Dept of State post, and through her possible time as president

A mere $5000.00 0f George Stephanopoulos' $50,000.00 "donation" (for example) will go to any charity

The rest is likely meant to buy him a high paying influential position in a future presidential cabinet wherin he can also raise crony bribe money to pad his wallet

But you already knew all of that, didnt you

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
How seriously can you take any information from the Heritage Foundation whose biggest contributor is the Koch brothers? I ask that since it comes off often as a source by conservatives on this forum. How many threads have we seen, created by conservatives, bitching about the Heritage Foundation obtaining money from the Koch brothers when reporting on something? That's right....NEVER. If your going to slam one person for a $50,000 donation; then its fair you point out an organization that does it more often.

I say the guy should have disclosed things and been up front about it. Being honest to the public to whom your reporting information is important to maintaining credibility and integrity. He's since done it and apologize. Move on...

it beats me how you are still equating the two things. that aside...

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
how often, or how much a person contributes to an organization is generally independent to the creation (and content) of the organization's product. the heritage foundation is a good place of reference for conservatives and libertarians because the they produce content we resonate with---not because the Koch brothers donate to them, which, incredibly, seems to be your argument. the organization owes its existence to a collaboration of like-minded and independent people who the Koch brothers also happen to agree with.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
the order goes like this, heritage foundation writes good stuff, Koch brothers give dollars.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
not, Koch brothers create/control organization and tell it what to produce.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
and even if it were the latter---so what, its still top notch material for people on my side of the spectrum.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
we are not discussing money laundering since none has been laundered at this point.

Lets discuss the 2nd amendment money laundering by the NRA.

Yes, the NRA has....ALWAYS...been 'truthful' and 'honest' in its reporting of things....

Imagine if they did...

"Hey NRA, do guns kill people?"

"Yes".

We know this, because we can test it scientifically!

You know, I've long wanted to put a webcam pointed at my AR so I can know when it sneaks out and randomly kills people.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
has been revised to 15%. But, then there was the $80,000,000 in travel,expenses and 60% of money going out just listed as "other" expenses. Same point.