quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
And they are open about that. Since the discussion is about hiding affiliations you are, as usual, comparing apples and gravel.

Funny, cant deal with any one issue. Your agreeing that you don't have anymore intellectual 'ammunition' to disagree with any one of my points.

The Koch brothers are not honest individuals. They have some good PR firms on the pay role. They also have lawyers and accountants. These people are all highly skilled individuals into what they do. An that its been documented by journalism time and again is also noted (I'm sure a few on the Koch pay role gets fired when that happens...).

I know how much you distrust politicians, so consider the following:

The Koch brothers control many billions in assets. Many companies. Each company is run as a feudal organization with a bent towards capitalism (were as feudal society was often socialist towards business). So each of these organizations is run by both brothers, that would make them rules of their own kingdoms, right? What is another word for someone that rules over the day-to-day and long-term operations of a society in 'USA Terms'? A politician.

Do you hold these two 'politicians' to the same level of accountability and responsibility with power as you slam those of great wealth and/or power just as evenly? No....course not!

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
I'm still waiting for you to school me on your vast knowledge of CO2 that I don't understand after studying physics, chemistry, thermodynamics and fluid mechanics for a few years. But, I can't seem to get you to pin down the knowledge I don't understand or point out the crap the university foisted on me.

Is someone getting defensive after I slammed their fake ignorance for what it was? If you were honest in the first place, I wouldn't have to slam you for it.

Wow, Joe, you really believe that don't you. You are crazy. But, with you saying this I feel much better. When was it...yesterday...you were discussion taking everybody down. I felt kinda left out because I wasn't involved. Now I really do feel better. Thanks Joe.

quote:

The Heritage Foundation was founded in 1973 by Paul Weyrich, Edwin Feulner, and Joseph Coors.[4] Growing out of the new business activist movement inspired by the Powell Memorandum,[5][6] discontent with Richard Nixon's embrace of the "liberal consensus" and the nonpolemical, cautious nature of existing think tanks,[7] Weyrich and Feulner sought to create an organization that would supply policymakers with concise, timely position papers. With $200,000 from Coors, the Analysis and Research Association was created in 1970. New supporters and board members joined, including petroleum executive Edward Noble and Richard Mellon Scaife. Eventually, the organization split into a public interest law center and a separate public policy foundation, the latter of which was incorporated as The Heritage Foundation on February 16, 1973. Weyrich was its first president. Later, under president Frank J. Walton, the Heritage Foundation introduced using direct mail fundraising and Heritage's annual income grew to $1 million per year in 1976.[8]

quote:

Heritage's stated mission is to "formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense".

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
And they are open about that. Since the discussion is about hiding affiliations you are, as usual, comparing apples and gravel.

Funny, cant deal with any one issue. Your agreeing that you don't have anymore intellectual 'ammunition' to disagree with any one of my points.

The Koch brothers are not honest individuals. They have some good PR firms on the pay role. They also have lawyers and accountants. These people are all highly skilled individuals into what they do. An that its been documented by journalism time and again is also noted (I'm sure a few on the Koch pay role gets fired when that happens...).

I know how much you distrust politicians, so consider the following:

The Koch brothers control many billions in assets. Many companies. Each company is run as a feudal organization with a bent towards capitalism (were as feudal society was often socialist towards business). So each of these organizations is run by both brothers, that would make them rules of their own kingdoms, right? What is another word for someone that rules over the day-to-day and long-term operations of a society in 'USA Terms'? A politician.

Do you hold these two 'politicians' to the same level of accountability and responsibility with power as you slam those of great wealth and/or power just as evenly? No....course not!

quote:

Stephanopoulos will not moderate Republican debate

NEW YORK (AP) -- ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos will not moderate a Republican presidential debate next winter, part of the fallout after revelations that the network's top political anchor contributed $75,000 over a three-year period to the Clinton Foundation...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Shunned now

quote:

Stephanopoulos will not moderate Republican debate

NEW YORK (AP) -- ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos will not moderate a Republican presidential debate next winter, part of the fallout after revelations that the network's top political anchor contributed $75,000 over a three-year period to the Clinton Foundation...

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
I'm still waiting for you to school me on your vast knowledge of CO2 that I don't understand after studying physics, chemistry, thermodynamics and fluid mechanics for a few years. But, I can't seem to get you to pin down the knowledge I don't understand or point out the crap the university foisted on me.

Is someone getting defensive after I slammed their fake ignorance for what it was? If you were honest in the first place, I wouldn't have to slam you for it.

Wow, Joe, you really believe that don't you. You are crazy. But, with you saying this I feel much better. When was it...yesterday...you were discussion taking everybody down. I felt kinda left out because I wasn't involved. Now I really do feel better. Thanks Joe.

You do realize, and I am sure he doesn't , that he is saying that you are not ignorant?

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

in case anyone is wondering about the evil Koch brothers and their dastardly plot to fool us conservatives and libertarians by creating the heritage foundation, there appears to be no easily found evidence of that they actually did create the foundation, let alone hire the people who worked there (im going out on a limb here, because afterall, its impossible to do an exhaustive search and so of course i could be wrong).

anyway, here's what I found.

quote:

The Heritage Foundation was founded in 1973 by Paul Weyrich, Edwin Feulner, and Joseph Coors.[4] Growing out of the new business activist movement inspired by the Powell Memorandum,[5][6] discontent with Richard Nixon's embrace of the "liberal consensus" and the nonpolemical, cautious nature of existing think tanks,[7] Weyrich and Feulner sought to create an organization that would supply policymakers with concise, timely position papers. With $200,000 from Coors, the Analysis and Research Association was created in 1970. New supporters and board members joined, including petroleum executive Edward Noble and Richard Mellon Scaife. Eventually, the organization split into a public interest law center and a separate public policy foundation, the latter of which was incorporated as The Heritage Foundation on February 16, 1973. Weyrich was its first president. Later, under president Frank J. Walton, the Heritage Foundation introduced using direct mail fundraising and Heritage's annual income grew to $1 million per year in 1976.[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation

or what the heritage foundation is about:

quote:

Heritage's stated mission is to "formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense".

no wonder liberals hate the place.

oh the horrors!

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


You are F...d in the head.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/04/27/independent-watch-groups-split-on-clinton-foundation/

Actually, no.

http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478

You cannot expect Sanity to deal in facts. Every corpuscle in his brain is run by motivated reasoning. It's rare you spot someone who is 0% objective, but he's one.

There seems to be 0 evidence that the Clinton Foundation is a "slush" fund.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478

You cannot expect Sanity to deal in facts. Every corpuscle in his brain is run by motivated reasoning. It's rare you spot someone who is 0% objective, but he's one.

There seems to be 0 evidence that the Clinton Foundation is a "slush" fund.

Fox News correspondent Eric Shawn debunked his Fox colleagues' earlier criticism that the Clinton Foundation spent just 10 percent of its budget on charitable activities in 2013, calling these claims "incredibly misleading" because the non-profit carries out its humanitarian programs in-house.

On the May 6 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, Shawn addressed accusations of misconduct based on flawed analyses of the Clinton Foundation's expenditures.

When asked by host Bill O'Reilly about the "accusation ... that there only 10 percent of the money raised -- and it's $2 billion -- goes to grants out to poor people or institutions," Shawn responded, "That sounds really bad but it's actually incredibly misleading." Shawn went on to explain that "the way the charity works, they don't give grants to other charities -- they do most of it themselves." According to IRS filings, Shawn said, the Clinton Foundation's charitable spending is around 80 percent, and "the experts for charity say that's very good."
In a response to these accusations, the Clinton Foundation told PunditFact that it and the related Clinton Health Access Initiative combine to spend 88 percent of their expenditures on what the Foundation describes as "life-changing work."

Shawn's fellow Fox contributors and hosts have cited this misleading figure as evidence of malfeasance on the part of the Clinton Foundation. On the May 4 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, Fox contributor Mary Katharine Ham echoed O'Reilly's call for the FBI to investigate the Clinton Foundation's activities, saying that their purportedly low charitable spending rates "raised red flags -- like real red flags -- for the IRS," calling into question the foundation's designation as a charity. On the May 4 edition of Fox's The Five, host Eric Bolling incorrectly said that, "only 10 cents on the dollar went to charitable uses, causes." Co-host Juan Williams responded, "I just find that incredible. That strikes me as, I don't unders[tand] -- how is that legal?"


video
http://mediamatters.org/embed/static/clips/2015/05/06/39865/fnc-factor-20150506-shawnclintonfoundation
article
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/05/07/fox-correspondent-debunks-colleagues-on-clinton/203567

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


Good post.

The greater point here is that the OP is not interested in facts, objective analysis, or information.

Instead we see a hard-on for a "got you" moment.

To understand this mentality, we need only think of THE SWIFT BOATS with John Kerry. I'm getting tired of seeing so many idiots buy into disinformation simply because they want to believe it or dismiss information because they don't want to believe it. It is soul destroying to read this stuff day-after-day, week-after-week, year-after-year unless I simply regard it as a clown circus. (Which it is.)

Meanwhile we can all wonder if Congress will ever adequately fund the US Highway System -- because you know -- taxes must be levied to do it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


Good post.

The greater point here is that the OP is not interested in facts, objective analysis, or information.

Instead we see a hard-on for a "got you" moment.

To understand this mentality, we need only think of THE SWIFT BOATS with John Kerry. I'm getting tired of seeing so many idiots buy into disinformation simply because they want to believe it or dismiss information because they don't want to believe it. It is soul destroying to read this stuff day-after-day, week-after-week, year-after-year unless I simply regard it as a clown circus. (Which it is.)

Meanwhile we can all wonder if Congress will ever adequately fund the US Highway System -- because you know -- taxes must be levied to do it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


Good post.

The greater point here is that the OP is not interested in facts, objective analysis, or information.

Instead we see a hard-on for a "got you" moment.

To understand this mentality, we need only think of THE SWIFT BOATS with John Kerry. I'm getting tired of seeing so many idiots buy into disinformation simply because they want to believe it or dismiss information because they don't want to believe it. It is soul destroying to read this stuff day-after-day, week-after-week, year-after-year unless I simply regard it as a clown circus. (Which it is.)

Meanwhile we can all wonder if Congress will ever adequately fund the US Highway System -- because you know -- taxes must be levied to do it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


Good post.

The greater point here is that the OP is not interested in facts, objective analysis, or information.

Instead we see a hard-on for a "got you" moment.

To understand this mentality, we need only think of THE SWIFT BOATS with John Kerry. I'm getting tired of seeing so many idiots buy into disinformation simply because they want to believe it or dismiss information because they don't want to believe it. It is soul destroying to read this stuff day-after-day, week-after-week, year-after-year unless I simply regard it as a clown circus. (Which it is.)

Meanwhile we can all wonder if Congress will ever adequately fund the US Highway System -- because you know -- taxes must be levied to do it.

So ethics and transparency mean nothing.

There was a thread a while back about a scientist being raked over the coals for possibly not disclosing past funding. Why that man was the most evil person evah! and GS gets a pass, I am not sure.