The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: Carl on April 29, 2015, 02:16:23 PM
-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026589088
Wed Apr 29, 2015, 01:04 PM
Star Member geek tragedy (45,446 posts)
Rush Limbaugh says Clinton Foundation spends just 15 percent on charity, 85 percent on overhead
Some 'populists' at DU have been posting/recommending this Limbaugh accusation as if it were true, so here's the reality (spoiler alert: Limbaugh and the Clinton Haters are full of it)
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/29/rush-limbaugh/rush-limbaugh-says-clinton-foundation-spends-just-/
When most people in the charitable world think of foundations, they think of organizations that give away a lot of money in the form of grants to others who go out and do good works. The Clinton foundation works differently -- it keeps its money in house and hires staff to carry out its own humanitarian programs.
...
Our ruling
Limbaugh said "85 percent of every dollar donated to the Clinton Foundation ended up either with the Clintons or with their staff to pay for travel, salaries, and benefits. Fifteen cents of every dollar actually went to some charitable beneficiary."
There’s a grain of truth here -- roughly 85 percent of the foundation’s spending was for items other than charitable grants to other organizations, and a large chunk of this 85 percent did go to Clinton Foundation staff for travel, salaries and benefits. However, the foundation says it does most of its charitable work in-house, and it’s not credible to think that the foundation spent zero dollars beyond grants on any charitable work, which is what it would take for Limbaugh to be correct.
The claim contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, so we rate it Mostly False.
In other words they said so. ::)
Response to geek tragedy (Original post)
Wed Apr 29, 2015, 01:07 PM
Buzz Clik (31,465 posts)
2. Hey. Sphincter cyst spends one day per year on his charity.
Now buzzy,you seem so sensitive here,why would you say such a mean and ugly thing.
Response to geek tragedy (Original post)
Wed Apr 29, 2015, 01:09 PM
Star Member former9thward (14,370 posts)
3. You didn't post their tax return so I will.
Most of the money goes to salaries and overhead.
https://www.clintonfoundation.org/sites/default/files/clinton_foundation_report_public_11-19-14.pdf
Whoops. :rotf:
Response to geek tragedy (Original post)
Wed Apr 29, 2015, 01:12 PM
Star Member Quackers (329 posts)
5. I really don't know one way or the other.
This is the first I've heard of it. I do have a question though. It states that most of the 85% went to travel, salaries, and benefits but the foundation claims it does most of its charitable work in-house. Shouldn't the foundation have a breakdown of that 85% to show exactly what went to benefits, salaries, travel, and in-house charity work? A statement like that would shut the whole argument down
The Clintons being truthful and forthcoming??
Response to geek tragedy (Original post)
Wed Apr 29, 2015, 01:14 PM
Star Member jwirr (29,187 posts)
6. There is an easy way to put a stop to this. Go to one of those charity rating sights and release the
figures.
Response to jwirr (Reply #6)
Wed Apr 29, 2015, 01:18 PM
Star Member geek tragedy (45,449 posts)
11. No, there is no easy way to stop Limbaugh and his fellow Clinton haters from spreading horseshit
on the Internet.
P.S. From the link:
Partly because of that, one of the leading independent groups that track charities -- Charity Navigator -- has been flummoxed about how to analyze that foundation and has stopped rating it, at least for now.
Charity Navigator says it has "determined that this charity's atypical business model cannot be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity. We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that appropriately captures its business model."
The easy way is to not believe shit that Rush Limbaugh and his ilk are saying.
:lalala: :lalala: :lalala:
-
I would point this out to the OP
American Red Cross
The do-gooders at the American Red Cross do a good job of spending your money when you donate. They manage to keep administrative expenses at less than 5% of their total overhead, and they spend 92.1% of their income on actual programs that benefit the community. Whether it's teacher CPR, or managing crisis during the aftermath of a disaster, the Red Cross puts your money to good use.
The Red Cross which has a lot more overhead than the Clinton Foundation spends less that 5% of donations on administrative overhead. The Clinton Foundation isn't a charity, it's a campaign war chest.
Source for info http://charity.lovetoknow.com/What_Percentage_of_Donations_Go_to_Charity
-
It really irks them when Rush is right and they can't dispel the truth he delivers.
Oh and Buzzy...Rush raises more in that one day fund raiser...in 3 hours than the Clintons do via legit donations in a year.
And unlike the the two Hillbilly Hucksters he doesn't take a dime from those donations.
Suck it turd.
-
It really irks them when Rush is right and they can't dispel the truth he delivers.
Oh and Buzzy...Rush raises more in that one day fund raiser...in 3 hours than the Clintons do via legit donations in a year.
And unlike the the two Hillbilly Hucksters he doesn't take a dime from those donations.
Suck it turd.
(http://laborunionreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Boom.jpg)
:cheersmate:
-
It really irks them when Rush is right and they can't dispel the truth he delivers.
Oh and Buzzy...Rush raises more in that one day fund raiser...in 3 hours than the Clintons do via legit donations in a year.And unlike the the two Hillbilly Hucksters he doesn't take a dime from those donations.
Suck it turd.
Just in case they missed that portion.
-
Just in case they missed that portion.
They'll ignore that fact like they do other painful facts that destroy their propaganda.
-
The claim contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts....when did DUmmies start dealing in facts?
-
Shouldn't the foundation have a breakdown of that 85% to show exactly what went to benefits, salaries, travel, and in-house charity work? A statement like that would shut the whole argument down
(http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff68/kayaktn/donations_zpsjucaocak.jpg)
-
Until two weeks ago, http://www.charitynavigator.org/ gave the Clinton Foundation a very poor overall rating, and a poor accountability & transparency warning. Then they suddenly deleted their evaluation and replaced it with this message:
"We don't evaluate Bill Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation.
Why not? We have determined that this charity's atypical business model cannot be accurately captured in our current rating methodology."
-
I hate to agree with a DUchebag but Rush is wrong on that. The Clinton Foundation does not pay out 15% to the actual needs, they pay out 6%.
The Clinton Foundation is a criminal organization disguised as a charity.
-
To be fair, Hillary did say they left the White House broke and in debt.... how else are they going to keep Bill in cigars and hookers? Donate today!
-
This is why every professional athlete from the hood has a "foundation".
It's a tax-deductible way to give money to deadbeat family members, supplemented by any donations they can scam from the public.
-
However, the foundation says it does most of its charitable work in-house
Charity begins at home for the Clintons.
:facepalm:
Charity begins at home.
Prov. You should take care of family and people close to you before you worry about helping others.
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/Charity+begins+at+home
-
Star Member Quackers (329 posts)
5. I really don't know one way or the other
No. You don't WANT to know and wouldn't admit it if you did.
-
I hate to agree with a DUchebag but Rush is wrong on that. The Clinton Foundation does not pay out 15% to the actual needs, they pay out 6%.
The Clinton Foundation is a criminal organization disguised as a charity.
That's the figure I heard and, well, look at that?
http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=356435
The have a mirror organization in .....Sweden?!?!?
and the UK!
-
Until two weeks ago, http://www.charitynavigator.org/ gave the Clinton Foundation a very poor overall rating, and a poor accountability & transparency warning. Then they suddenly deleted their evaluation and replaced it with this message:
"We don't evaluate Bill Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation.
Why not? We have determined that this charity's atypical business model cannot be accurately captured in our current rating methodology."
Another name for SCAM ?
-
The Clinton Foundation does not pay out 15% to the actual needs, they pay out 6%.
And that's a pretty normal distribution of funds for charitable foundations, most of which are scams.
-
Response to geek tragedy (Original post)
Wed Apr 29, 2015, 08:29 PM
Buzz Clik (31,499 posts)
73. Limbaugh vs Clintons: charitable giving
Limbaugh is fairly generous in his direct give to charity, and he sponsors charitable drives. Limbaugh annually gives hundreds of thousands of dollars every year to the leukemia foundation, which is fantastic. Limbaugh's EIB Cure-a-Thon has raised a total of $15 million since 2006, which is also very nice.
The Clinton Foundation direct gifts were $75 million over 5 years (2009-2013), or $15 million per year. In direct giving, the Clintons have given $10.2 million over the past eight years.
Both are generous, but if one must compare:
Direct giving:
- Limbaugh: $4 million (appx) over the past eight years.
- Clintons: $10.2 over the past eight years
Charitable fund raising:
- Limbaugh: $1.5 million per year
- Clintons: $15 million per year
-
It really irks them when Rush is right and they can't dispel the truth he delivers.
Oh and Buzzy...Rush raises more in that one day fund raiser...in 3 hours than the Clintons do via legit donations in a year.
And unlike the the two Hillbilly Hucksters he doesn't take a dime from those donations.
Suck it turd.
Actually, he gives to the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation through his tea business and his books too, I think.
Cindie
-
The claim contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts....when did DUmmies start dealing in facts?
DUmmies hate facts.
-
Response to geek tragedy (Original post)
Wed Apr 29, 2015, 01:14 PM
Star Member jwirr (29,187 posts)
6. There is an easy way to put a stop to this. Go to one of those charity rating sights and release the
figures.
That sight is a site for sore eyes.
-
Oh look who's back. The attention whore.
Got a link for your little stats you posted up there Buzzy?
Also...and this is important to note as I posted earler...Rush doesn't use one penny of the money raised to fight Blood Cancers on his three hour radio-thon for his own personal use or enrichment.
Not the same with the HillBilly Hucksters.
-
Actually, he gives to the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation through his tea business and his books too, I think.
Cindie
Yeah there is that too that I forgot about.
What I'm talking about and what BuzzDick is referring to...is the once a year 3 hour radio-thon Rush does to raise money for the fight against blood cancers.
That one day of giving for the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society has raised $40 million since it started. And this year Rush donated $600K personally.
-
Got a link for your little stats you posted up there Buzzy?
In the original post.
Oh and Buzzy...Rush raises more in that one day fund raiser...in 3 hours than the Clintons do via legit donations in a year.
Link?
-
Link?
One thing you DUmmies that come over here never seem to learn is that when I make statements...unlike you Libtards...I can back up what I say.
Results of the 2015 Cure-a-thon haven't been tallied yet. Here's transcript from his show thta lists the total from the 2014 Cure-a-thon Remember 3 hours one day a year.
A Leukemia & Lymphoma Cure-A-Thon Thank You
April 15, 2014
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: This is Ryan in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Welcome. I'm glad you called, sir.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. I just want to tell you: It's a real, real honor to be able to talk to you.
RUSH: Thank you very much, sir. I appreciate it.
CALLER: I called in just because I wasn't able to hear yesterday's episode and did not get to hear the results from Friday, as far as the amount of money raised for the Cure-A-Thon.
RUSH: Well, we set a record. It was just overwhelming. With the weekend and everything, we ended up over $3.1 million.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/04/15/a_leukemia_lymphoma_cure_a_thon_thank_you
Last year includes a $500k individual donation from Rush and his wife.
That doesn't include a 4.2 million dollar one time donation to the Marine Corps-law Enforcement Foundation and the continuing donation of profits from his line of Tea's that he sells online.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Corps%E2%80%93Law_Enforcement_Foundation
As for the HillBilly Hucksters...well...
After earning more than $109 million over eight years, the Clintons took tax write-offs for $10.2 million in charitable contributions. In most of those years, that money was donated to the Clinton Family Foundation, and a portion was distributed to charitable causes.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/04/05/ST2008040502593.html
The biggest recipient of the chairitable donations...was themselves.
Buzz Clik (31,499 posts)
73. Limbaugh vs Clintons: charitable giving
Limbaugh is fairly generous in his direct give to charity, and he sponsors charitable drives. Limbaugh annually gives hundreds of thousands of dollars every year to the leukemia foundation, which is fantastic. Limbaugh's EIB Cure-a-Thon has raised a total of $15 million since 2006, which is also very nice.
Nice of you to leave out the TOTAL dollar amount thta has been raised by this one day once a year cure-a-thon...whi is in excess of $44 million.
Direct giving:
Limbaugh: $4 million (appx) over the past eight years.
Clintons: $10.2 over the past eight years
His one time $4 million donation to the MCLEF show this stat you posted to be a lie. Then add in the $500K ($600K this year) donations he's given over the "past 8 years" you cite in your post...and again...you're just not in control of the facts Buzzy. He's in excess of the 10.2 million dollar mark you cite for the HillBilly Hucksters.
Charitable fund raising:
Limbaugh: $1.5 million per year
Clintons: $15 million per year
There is nothing factualy anywhere to substantiate your bogus claim.
You really should do math in public of shill for these frauds where there are people capable of destroying your propaganda.
Unless you just enjoy public humiliation.
BTW...I thought you said you were leaving and not coming back?
Looks like I called that one too. You Libs are so predictable.
-
Between 2009 and 2012, the Clinton Foundation raised over $500 million dollars according to a review of IRS documents by The Federalist (2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008). A measly 15 percent of that, or $75 million, went towards programmatic grants. More than $25 million went to fund travel expenses. Nearly $110 million went toward employee salaries and benefits. And a whopping $290 million during that period — nearly 60 percent of all money raised — was classified merely as “other expenses.†Official IRS forms do not list cigar or dry-cleaning expenses as a specific line item. The Clinton Foundation may well be saving lives, but it seems odd that the costs of so many life-saving activities would be classified by the organization itself as just random, miscellaneous expenses.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/02/the-u-s-constitution-actually-bans-hillarys-foreign-government-payola/
-
73. Limbaugh vs Clintons: charitable giving
Limbaugh is fairly generous in his direct give to charity, and he sponsors charitable drives. Limbaugh annually gives hundreds of thousands of dollars every year to the leukemia foundation, which is fantastic. Limbaugh's EIB Cure-a-Thon has raised a total of $15 million since 2006, which is also very nice.
The Clinton Foundation direct gifts were $75 million over 5 years (2009-2013), or $15 million per year. In direct giving, the Clintons have given $10.2 million over the past eight years.
Both are generous, but if one must compare:
Direct giving:
Limbaugh: $4 million (appx) over the past eight years.
Clintons: $10.2 over the past eight years
Charitable fund raising:
Limbaugh: $1.5 million per year
Clintons: $15 million per year
2 comments:
1) Link? Those numbers look suspicious
2) The clinton FOUNDATION means the clintons don't donate a dime out of their impoverished pockets. Rush does his donations from his own pockets. Once again liberals are (possibly) gracious with OPM.
-
http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/02/the-u-s-constitution-actually-bans-hillarys-foreign-government-payola/
Various %s (6%, 11%, 15%, etc.) for monies expended for actual charitable activities are in circulation. Much of what appears to be confusion (or even contradiction) comes from the time spans considered. Some sources looked at particular years; this article looks at a 5-year span; another I saw (and quoted somewhere) looked at 2013, the most recent year for which data was available.
Don't lose sight of the forest by examining and cross-comparing individual trees. A "charity" whose percentage of money given to charitable work is under 20% is a gross and blatant sham.
-
Some interesting reading for comparisons.
https://famewhorgas.wordpress.com/2013/12/21/the-worst-charities-in-a-nation-of-givers/
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=4045#.VUIqa5P5Guc
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=7653#.VUIq0JP5Guc
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3277#.VUIq7pP5Guc
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=8195#.VUIrS5P5Guc
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=topten.detail&listid=164#.VUIsXpP5Gud
The Clintons suck buzzy.
-
txradioguy, here's what you said:
Oh and Buzzy...Rush raises more in that one day fund raiser...in 3 hours than the Clintons do via legit donations in a year.
And I asked you for a link to verify your claim, to which you replied,
One thing you DUmmies that come over here never seem to learn is that when I make statements...unlike you Libtards...I can back up what I say.
And, of course, what you said was that Limbaugh raises more in a day than the Clintons raise via "legit" donations in a year.
We're going to use Limbaugh's figure that 15% of the Clinton Foundation donations are actually used for charity. Limbaugh quoted a Federalist article that stated, " A measly 15 percent of that, or $75 million, went towards programmatic grants" over the period of 2008-2012. http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/02/the-u-s-constitution-actually-bans-hillarys-foreign-government-payola/
Okay. That will be our basis of comparison: Clinton Foundation donated $75 million to charity over the period 2008-2012. Average: $15 million per year.
I will take every figure you quoted for Limbaugh without question: The Cure-a-Thon raised $3.1 million over one weekend. We'll let that be your "three hours" and let it go. Even though that's a new record for Limbaugh and it's for 2015, I'll use that as the average for 2008-2012. So, $3.1 million per year.
$15 million for the Clintons in one year versus $3.1 million for Limbaugh in "three hours." These are all your numbers (directly from Limbaugh himself), not mine.
There is no place in the universe where $3.1 million is greater $15 million.
-
txradioguy, here's what you said:
And I asked you for a link to verify your claim, to which you replied,
And, of course, what you said was that Limbaugh raises more in a day than the Clintons raise via "legit" donations in a year.
Way to leave out everything in between that totally dispels your bullshit about the Clintons.
Typical of a DU'er.
We're going to use Limbaugh's figure that 15% of the Clinton Foundation donations are actually used for charity. Limbaugh quoted a Federalist article that stated, " A measly 15 percent of that, or $75 million, went towards programmatic grants" over the period of 2008-2012. http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/02/the-u-s-constitution-actually-bans-hillarys-foreign-government-payola/
We can use that or the other figure of 6% that the charity monitoring organization put out. Your choice.
Okay. That will be our basis of comparison: Clinton Foundation donated $75 million to charity over the period 2008-2012. Average: $15 million per year.
How much of that was legitimate donations? We don't know. They are scrambling to refile tax returns for the last 5 years.
I will take every figure you quoted for Limbaugh without question: The Cure-a-Thon raised $3.1 million over one weekend. We'll let that be your "three hours" and let it go. Even though that's a new record for Limbaugh and it's for 2015, I'll use that as the average for 2008-2012. So, $3.1 million per year.
No...as I sstated very clearly...that figure was for 2014 because they haven't gotten the final total for this year. But every year it's been held the amount rises. So this year will be north of $3.1 million.
$15 million for the Clintons in one year versus $3.1 million for Limbaugh in "three hours." These are all your numbers (directly from Limbaugh himself), not mine.
There is no place in the universe where $3.1 million is greater $15 million.
There is when $3 million goes 100% to the charity versus $15 million and we have no idea what percentage of that went to a true legit charitable organization. Not one dime of that money raised went to Limbaugh or any of his employees.
As I linked to and you chose to ignore...the largest reciepient of Clinton charity dollars was...the Clinton's themselves. So you need to take out the millions the Clinton's gave to themselves formthat 15 million figure to more accurately compare the two amounts.
Sorry Buzzy...you lose.
-
Oh and Buzzy...it's very disingenuious to not provide links of your own to back up your bullshit claims.
I believe you chastized others who did that as hypocrites.
Physician heal thyself.
-
It's interesting how Buzzy compares a so called "charitable organization" to an individual's giving. :-)
Also an oldie but still true;
Charitable Giving. Who Gives More?
Posted on December 30, 2010 | By Kathleen McKinley
http://blog.chron.com/texassparkle/2010/12/charitable-giving-who-gives-more/
AND, Catholic Charities (for comparison)
Program Expenses
(Percent of the charity’s total expenses spent on the programs
and services it delivers) 75.0% http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=10656
-
It's interesting how Buzzy compares a so called "charitable organization" to an individual's giving. :-)
Exactly.
-
Exactly.
Since he wants to figure it that way, how about Rush vs. the Clintons in what their donations are every year? No? how about Rush vs. Gore?
-
Bill and Hillary make millions giving speeches, then donate to their own charity, which they use to live a luxurious lifestyle tax free. It's a nice scam.
-
txradioguy,
Oh and Buzzy...it's very disingenuious to not provide links of your own to back up your bullshit claims.
For my first post, I gave the links in the original post at DU and told you that before.
For the new stuff, here's the link:
http://conservativecave.com/index.php?topic=102059.0
Scroll down to reply 24. As I said, I used ALL your figures without changing a thing.
We can use that or the other figure of 6% that the charity monitoring organization put out. Your choice.
I took the 15% figure from Limbaugh and the Federalist article that he quoted and that you quoted (Reply 25). Changed your mind? You want to use 6% now? Okay, here's the bottom line with your NEW number:
$6 million for the Clintons in one year versus $3.1 million for Limbaugh in "three hours."
There is no place in the universe where $3.1 million is greater $6 million.
Face it: you were dead wrong. You made a statement you cannot defend. Period. I have used ALL of your numbers and ALL of Limbaugh's numbers, and you come out dead wrong every time. Even when you undercut Limbaugh's figures, you still are wrong. (And you questioned MY math skills?)
WRONG WRONG WRONG!
Later, bubba. You've got nothin' left. Don't underestimate your opponents, pal.
:hi5:
-
Buzz,
For the third time, when are you goung to call out Skinner for being bought and paid for by the Hillary campaign?
-
txradioguy,
Changed your mind? You want to use 6% now? Okay, here's the bottom line with your NEW number:
No haven't changed my mind about anything. There are two different percentages being bandied about...so I was just giving you an option.
$6 million for the Clintons in one year versus $3.1 million for Limbaugh in "three hours."
There is no place in the universe where $3.1 million is greater $6 million.[/quote]
Again as I said before, 100% of what Limbaugh raised ladt year verifiably went to a charity. The only charity the Clinton Foundation gave to in large dollar number was themselves.
There is a huge difference you are willfully ignoring between giving to a charity and giving to yourself and calling it charity.
Face it: you were dead wrong. You made a statement you cannot defend. Period. I have used ALL of your numbers and ALL of Limbaugh's numbers, and you come out dead wrong every time. Even when you undercut Limbaugh's figures, you still are wrong. (And you questioned MY math skills?)
I have defended my position and I've provided evidence to back it up.
You...well you've done nothing byt dick dodge and weave...cherry pick what you want from the proof I've provided and tried to obfusciate at all turns.
WRONG WRONG WRONG!
Yes you are...and quite obviously.
Later, bubba. You've got nothin' left. Don't underestimate your opponents, pal.
You keep saying bye and yet keep coming back...another instance in which you lie through your teeth.
As for underestimating...you're a DU Progressive Liberal...there's nothing to under or over estimate when it comes to you or other lib.
-
It's like the lib is like all other libs who refuse to educate themselves on any issue.
If any information even remotely appears to contradict their agenda, they simply ignore it.
That's something Buzzy is very good for.
A perfect example of a lib.
-
Since he wants to figure it that way, how about Rush vs. the Clintons in what their donations are every year? No? how about Rush vs. Gore?
Yep. Have to go individual vs. individual and I would bet that the Klintoons come somewhere near zero.
-
Our ruling
Limbaugh said "85 percent of every dollar donated to the Clinton Foundation ended up either with the Clintons or with their staff to pay for travel, salaries, and benefits. Fifteen cents of every dollar actually went to some charitable beneficiary."
There’s a grain of truth here -- roughly 85 percent of the foundation’s spending was for items other than charitable grants to other organizations, and a large chunk of this 85 percent did go to Clinton Foundation staff for travel, salaries and benefits. However, the foundation says it does most of its charitable work in-house, and it’s not credible to think that the foundation spent zero dollars beyond grants on any charitable work, which is what it would take for Limbaugh to be correct.
The claim contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, so we rate it Mostly False.
Hmmm... let us look into politifact, shall we:
PolitiFact.com is a project operated by the Tampa Bay Times, in which reporters and editors from the Times and affiliated media outlets "fact-check statements by members of Congress, the White House, lobbyists and interest groups".[2] They publish original statements and their evaluations on the PolitiFact.com website, and assign each a "Truth-O-Meter" rating. The ratings range from "True" for completely accurate statements to "Pants on Fire" (from the taunt "Liar, liar, pants on fire") for false and ridiculous claims.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com)
So let us check out the Tampa Bay Times (formerly St. Petersburg Times http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampa_Bay_Times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampa_Bay_Times)) shall we? Let us take a look at their endorsements for pres:
They endorsed Obama:
http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/obama-for-president/1257328 (http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/obama-for-president/1257328)
They endorsed Kerry:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/17/election.endorsements/ (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/17/election.endorsements/)
They endorsed Gore:
http://www.sptimes.com/News/102900/Perspective/Gore_for_president.shtml (http://www.sptimes.com/News/102900/Perspective/Gore_for_president.shtml)
They endorsed Clinton, Dukakis, Mondale and Carter:
http://www.politifactbias.com/2014/07/the-tampa-bay-times-endorsed-mitt-romney.html (http://www.politifactbias.com/2014/07/the-tampa-bay-times-endorsed-mitt-romney.html)
So they are in the bag for the dems. Felt the need to have someone check the facts. Got the same folks checking the facts that they had reporting them. And the dummies want me to believe this crock of crap?
Then we have this:
There’s a grain of truth here -- roughly 85 percent of the foundation’s spending was for items other than charitable grants to other organizations, and a large chunk of this 85 percent did go to Clinton Foundation staff for travel, salaries and benefits. However, the foundation says it does most of its charitable work in-house, and it’s not credible to think that the foundation spent zero dollars beyond grants on any charitable work, which is what it would take for Limbaugh to be correct.
Oh it is VERY credible to think that Rush's claim is true. The numbers don't lie. Now whether or not their setup makes a difference is not the story. The story was that Rush said it and the numbers back him up. So the fact checkers just could not resist themselves spinning.
Look dummies, spin is not facts. Politifact is nothing more than spin. Rush did not say no dollars went to charity, he said 15 percent of all dollars they spend went to charity. He was correct by politifacts own words!!!!
-
Buzz,
For the third time, when are you goung to call out Skinner for being bought and paid for by the Hillary campaign?
Didn't catch the other two times. Sorry.
I think I've read here that his wife has gotten a lot of money from Hillary. Does that make him bought and paid for?
-
Didn't catch the other two times. Sorry.
I think I've read here that his wife has gotten a lot of money from Hillary. Does that make him bought and paid for?
More passive aggressiveness from the master of non answers.
A question is not an answer.
Answer the question.
Why are you libs so obtuse ?
Does it come naturally, do you have to work at it, or both ?
-
These comparisons are apples and oranges. The blood cancer fundraising is legit, while the Clinton foundation is nothing more than an extortionate influence peddling scam.
-
These comparisons are apples and oranges. The blood cancer fundraising is legit, while the Clinton foundation is nothing more than an extortionate influence peddling scam.
You may be correct. However, keep in mind that this little urination contest was started by The Federalist and Limbaugh gave it wings.
-
Didn't catch the other two times. Sorry.
I think I've read here that his wife has gotten a lot of money from Hillary.
Not just here. PJ Gladnick has done a great job of showing the primary sources. Those are cited in his posts here at the Cave.
Does that make him bought and paid for?
That is a question you should ask Skinner.
Will you?
-
These comparisons are apples and oranges. The blood cancer fundraising is legit, while the Clinton foundation is nothing more than an extortionate influence peddling scam.
Can you imagine how the jug-eared muslim and the Wookie are salivating over the prospects for their "foundation"?
Combining the race hustle extortion of The Reverend Jackson with the political clout of a black ex-president with Chicago connections, the sky's the limit.
He may have to turn down the Hildebeast when she nominates him for the Supreme Court.
-
Not just here. PJ Gladnick has done a great job of showing the primary sources. Those are cited in his posts here at the Cave.
That is a question you should ask Skinner.
Will you?
I followed up a bit on PJ Gladnick (previously unknown to me), and I see he has appetites similar to the residents of the Cave and a similar personality. He also shares some personality flaws with Will Pitt ... but this isn't about him or Pitt. So, he has shown (I didn't find it, but I believe you) that Skinner's other half has gotten money from directly from the Hillary Clinton campaign, and Skinner has come out as a Hillary "fan boy." As a result, you want me to go to DU and announce (or ask Skinner if it's true) that Skinner has "sold out" to the Hillary campaign.
I certainly am not opposed to raising mischief or calling out admins over there. But why would I do this? Skinner has not been shy about his support for Clinton, so there's nothing hidden there. He's allowed the Warren and Sanders fans to go completely insane for weeks, declaring how much they hate Hillary. So what would I be attempting to prove?
Aside from the total hilarity (for you) of watching the repercussions of me airing out the personal finances of Skinner's wife, you're going to have to give some sort of compelling motivation.
-
I followed up a bit on PJ Gladnick (previously unknown to me).....
Not to be rude sir, but no way.
Everybody's heard of the DUmmie FUnnies.
So, he has shown (I didn't find it, but I believe you) that Skinner's other half has gotten money from directly from the Hillary Clinton campaign, and Skinner has come out as a Hillary "fan boy."
True.
As a result, you want me to go to DU and announce (or ask Skinner if it's true) that Skinner has "sold out" to the Hillary campaign.
I agree there; better that some PonP, primitive of non-prominence, or a particular primitive we don't like here, throw himself on the fire.
I certainly am not opposed to raising mischief or calling out admins over there.
Good; you get the "idea" of the DUmpster, but of course you figured that out a long time ago.
Skinner has not been shy about his support for Clinton, so there's nothing hidden there. He's allowed the Warren and Sanders fans to go completely insane for weeks, declaring how much they hate Hillary.
True, and it's been a great lot of fun watching the primitives discombobulate.
-
I followed up a bit on PJ Gladnick (previously unknown to me), and I see he has appetites similar to the residents of the Cave and a similar personality. He also shares some personality flaws with Will Pitt ... but this isn't about him or Pitt. So, he has shown (I didn't find it, but I believe you) that Skinner's other half has gotten money from directly from the Hillary Clinton campaign, and Skinner has come out as a Hillary "fan boy." As a result, you want me to go to DU and announce (or ask Skinner if it's true) that Skinner has "sold out" to the Hillary campaign.
I certainly am not opposed to raising mischief or calling out admins over there. But why would I do this? Skinner has not been shy about his support for Clinton, so there's nothing hidden there. He's allowed the Warren and Sanders fans to go completely insane for weeks, declaring how much they hate Hillary. So what would I be attempting to prove?
Aside from the total hilarity (for you) of watching the repercussions of me airing out the personal finances of Skinner's wife, you're going to have to give some sort of compelling motivation.
Allow me to clarify . I don't want you to go over to DU and ask Skinner about his continuing financial dependence to the Hillary campaign. I asked you when (which would have been more correctly phrased if) you were going to do it. The motivation would be your own, but I would be motivated by an expectation of honesty from those whom I deal with.
Skins and Shelly are still getting paid to shill for Hill. The fact that he has not yet purged the Sanders and Warren factions does not change the fact that he is Hillary's whore.
Here's the direct question: Knowing now that Skinner and his website are bought and paid for by Hillary's campaign, how can you trust anything he says, or anything that happens at Democrat Hillary Underground?
-
Like everything Hitlery related it's all about being a Hitlery surrogate.
Nothing wrong with Hitlery surrogates except for 2 things.
The surrogate acting like they are objective.
And Hitlery acting like her surrogates don't speak for her when Hitlery refuses to speak for herself.
It's a case of intellectual dishonesty, hypocrisy, and having your cake and eating it.
But libs love all that, so why would there be any calls from a lib like buzzy for openness transparency and honest, except to deceive voters ?
-
I thought Buzzy was done with us and wasn't gonna post here anymore?
-
I thought Buzzy was done with us and wasn't gonna post here anymore?
We are like flowers to the bees. We draw them out of the hive; they can't stay away. Buzz, buzz.
-
Not to be rude sir, but no way.
Everybody's heard of the DUmmie FUnnies.
That is true, I had heard of them. But, I had no idea who was the creative force behind it.
Allow me to clarify . I don't want you to go over to DU and ask Skinner about his continuing financial dependence to the Hillary campaign. I asked you when (which would have been more correctly phrased if) you were going to do it. The motivation would be your own, but I would be motivated by an expectation of honesty from those whom I deal with...
..Here's the direct question: Knowing now that Skinner and his website are bought and paid for by Hillary's campaign, how can you trust anything he says, or anything that happens at Democrat Hillary Underground?
I don't trust anything that comes from DU/HU. I first arrived when it was Gore's Underground. Although I was massively disappointed about the result of the 2000 election I put the blame on Gore. I made that clear at DU and was banned for my trouble (less than 10 posts in). That was annoying, but I got it -- DU wanted someplace where they didn't have to take a lot of crap from the outside (e.g., other opinions). After serving my detention, I was back on board -- but not exactly "all in" with their purebred philosophy. I don't recall getting banned again, but I have left for extended periods out of disgust or boredom.
Anyway, I hear you. Now that you've planted that seed, it is a matter of when, not if. There will be that perfect opportunity.
If you could be so kind as to provide a link to PJ's data...
-
That is true, I had heard of them. But, I had no idea who was the creative force behind it.
I don't trust anything that comes from DU/HU. I first arrived when it was Gore's Underground. Although I was massively disappointed about the result of the 2000 election I put the blame on Gore. I made that clear at DU and was banned for my trouble (less than 10 posts in). That was annoying, but I got it -- DU wanted someplace where they didn't have to take a lot of crap from the outside (e.g., other opinions). After serving my detention, I was back on board -- but not exactly "all in" with their purebred philosophy. I don't recall getting banned again, but I have left for extended periods out of disgust or boredom.
Anyway, I hear you. Now that you've planted that seed, it is a matter of when, not if. There will be that perfect opportunity.
If you could be so kind as to provide a link to PJ's data...
As I recall from my limited time at CU,which coincided with your time there as Pit Viper,you didn`t have much good to say about the DUmp or its members.
You seem to be mostly of the "well you are just as bad" mentality but whatever.
Why do you stay around there if you dislike or distrust so much about them?