Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

this is a common practice in many charitable organizations, if you don't do your research prior to donation, you have nobody to blame but yourself

Originally posted by inimalist
this is a common practice in many charitable organizations, if you don't do your research prior to donation, you have nobody to blame but yourself

Exactly what I was thinking.

Originally posted by tru-marvell
Freedom Alliance press secretary Alan Moore

Well that's your problem right there.

Originally posted by inimalist
this is a common practice in many charitable organizations, if you don't do your research prior to donation, you have nobody to blame but yourself

Yes and no, while the donor is ultimately responsible, it's still dishonest of the charity to put on one face, while practicing another.

In fact, it is/should be illegal, if they have a "non-profitable" tax status.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yes and no, while the donor is ultimately responsible, it's still dishonest of the charity to put on one face, while practicing another.

In fact, it is/should be illegal, if they have a "non-profitable" tax status.

for sure, I'm not saying it is despicable, but who hasn't heard of charity scams in this day?

Ultimatly, Hannity or whoever should be responsible for what they say they are doing, and that is important, but to me, the bigger issue is how easily swayed people are by nice words and celebreties, and why it is we see them as being "victimized" by their own lack of foresight in the situation.

Sure, blame Hannity for lying through his teeth, but there is some fault on the people who buy it hook line and sinker.

They prey on the kindness of people and they do it by lying. I hold the wolves to be more at fault than the sheep, imo.

Though as you said, ultimately, the sheep should know better.

Ask a car salesman what lying is and your eyes will be opened. This is not something unique to one side of the political world or the other. In other words, there are as many liberals as conservatives doing this kind of this "racket".

Buyer beware!

No one forces people to go to these concerts every year. I'm sure if they were not sufficiently entertaining, then people would not go. This is the down side to freedom of speech. So, before you (who every you are) condemn this because it does not fit your political opinion, remember freedom of speech works both ways.

It is defo the sheep's fault, 100% (unless they are mental handicap or something that affects their decisions making skills.) Every single idiot should realize, by now, that you research where you donate money to. I don't feel sorry for the "bleeding heart" conservative that gives their "tithes" to their Preacher when he drives up to the church every Wednesday and Sunday in an Escalade or Porsche. No, I'm not exaggerating, at all. Every "big" protestant church I've ever seen had the head Preacher living in a huge house, driving nice cars, all on the idiots' dollar. Preacher

I could understand if this was, say, 1000 AD. It's not. American's should know better. 99.99% of American's can smell a scam from a mile away. Yet, we still fall for them. I say GOOD! I hope those idiots go bankrupt, giving their money away to leeches.

I'm expected to feel sorry for the idiot that gives money away at an extremely extravagant concert...with effects, decorations, "celebrities", etc...and somehow I'm supposed to believe that was all done by charity and all 100 cents for every dollar I donate goes directly to the scholarships and soldiers? Give me a break. Puh leeez. facepalm


I can understand having laws out there for cons, but not for charity events that big. Nothing is illegal...


I guess I'm more 90% cheep, 10% wolf.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ask a car salesman what lying is and your eyes will be opened. This is not something unique to one side of the political world or the other. In other words, there are as many liberals as conservatives doing this kind of this "racket".

Buyer beware!

No one forces people to go to these concerts every year. I'm sure if they were not sufficiently entertaining, then people would not go. This is the down side to freedom of speech. So, before you (who every you are) condemn this because it does not fit your political opinion, remember freedom of speech works both ways.

I've purchased several cars and been in the room many a time when a deal is being done; I know most of the BS lines a car salesman will use. That is why I don't haggle anymore, I simple tell the guy what I want to pay for the car and if he can make it happen, don't care how, could be he finds me an incredibly low rate, or he gives me six-times what my trade-in is worth. If he can't, I get up and leave. Easy as that.

Difference is, when I sign the dotted line to purchase a car, it's not under the clause of "charity", that being the defining thing here.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It is defo the sheep's fault, 100% (unless they are mental handicap or something that affects their decisions making skills.) Every single idiot should realize, by now, that you research where you donate money to. I don't feel sorry for the "bleeding heart" conservative that gives their "tithes" to their Preacher when he drives up to the church every Wednesday and Sunday in an Escalade or Porsche. No, I'm not exaggerating, at all. Every "big" protestant church I've ever seen had the head Preacher living in a huge house, driving nice cars, all on the idiots' dollar. Preacher

I could understand if this was, say, 1000 AD. It's not. American's should know better. 99.99% of American's can smell a scam from a mile away. Yet, we still fall for them. I say GOOD! I hope those idiots go bankrupt, giving their money away to leeches.

I'm expected to feel sorry for the idiot that gives money away at an extremely extravagant concert...with effects, decorations, "celebrities", etc...and somehow I'm supposed to believe that was all done by charity and all 100 cents for every dollar I donate goes directly to the scholarships and soldiers? Give me a break. Puh leeez. facepalm


I can understand having laws out there for cons, but not for charity events that big. Nothing is illegal...


I guess I'm more 90% cheep, 10% wolf.

Same could be said with false advertisement on products, ultimately it would be the buyers fault for not researching what's in the shampoo, food or car they purchased and just goign by what the label tells them, no?

Originally posted by Robtard
Same could be said with false advertisement on products, ultimately it would be the buyers fault for not researching what's in the shampoo, food or car they purchased and just goign by what the label tells them, no?

I'd say yes to some degree

But I'm certainly not as extreme as these other 2. I don't think the fact that the people who donate are at fault makes the con man's actions ok. lol, 90%, 10%, % of what

Originally posted by Robtard
I've purchased several cars and been in the room many a time when a deal is being done; I know most of the BS lines a car salesman will use. That is why I don't haggle anymore, I simple tell the guy what I want to pay for the car and if he can make it happen, don't care how, could be he finds me an incredibly low rate, or he gives me six-times what my trade-in is worth. If he can't, I get up and leave. Easy as that.

Difference is, when I sign the dotted line to purchase a car, it's not under the clause of "charity", that being the defining thing here.

Good point, however, the question that comes to mind is, do people claim the cost of those tickets to this event as a donation? I think not, but I could be wrong. If they can't claim it as a charity on their taxes, maybe that is a clue.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
, there are as many liberals as conservatives doing this kind of this "racket".



Interesting...this is why I posted this...many ppl honestly believe their particular political view gives them "moral might" and I've listened to Sean for many years and he is constantly making a moral or spiritual superior perspective to his arguments. The sad truth to life is that crooks are everywhere, in every color, every religion, every political faction, but you still have ppl willing to sell their soul to defend their "team" as more divine. So to say there are just as many liberals as conservatives doing this kind of racket is to fall into that well worn and deep trap of division which keep the group as a whole from working towards any real solutions.
I find Sean and those of his ilk disgusting simply because they knowingly prey on the masses for one reason....to keep their pockets fat.
And yes unfortunately we will always have sheep ready and eager for the slaughter and so I guess we will always have the Sean Hannity's there to swallow them whole...damn

Originally posted by tru-marvell
Interesting...this is why I posted this...many ppl honestly believe their particular political view gives them "moral might" and I've listened to Sean for many years and he is constantly making a moral or spiritual superior perspective to his arguments. The sad truth to life is that crooks are everywhere, in every color, every religion, every political faction, but you still have ppl willing to sell their soul to defend their "team" as more divine. So to say there are just as many liberals as conservatives doing this kind of racket is to fall into that well worn and deep trap of division which keep the group as a whole from working towards any real solutions.
I find Sean and those of his ilk disgusting simply because they knowingly prey on the masses for one reason....to keep their pockets fat.
And yes unfortunately we will always have sheep ready and eager for the slaughter and so I guess we will always have the Sean Hannity's there to swallow them whole...damn

So, you expect me to believe that you are "fair and balanced"? I don't buy it for a moment. My response was written on purpose, because there is never an over sympathy toward the conservative point of view on this forum. Most threads like this, are solely let's bash the conservative.

I could be wrong, so lets find out. Please name for me one liberal that does this same kind of racket, then we can talk about rising about it all.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, you expect me to believe that you are "fair and balanced"? I don't buy it for a moment. My response was written on purpose, because there is never an over sympathy toward the conservative point of view on this forum. Most threads like this, are solely let's bash the conservative.

Wait, people shouldn't be criticized for posing as a charity and lying? Buddhism has a weird moral system.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I could be wrong, so lets find out. Please name for me one liberal that does this same kind of racket, then we can talk about rising about it all.

Can you name one?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Wait, people shouldn't be criticized for posing as a charity and lying? Buddhism has a weird moral system.



Can you name one?

Yes I can name one, and more. Also, your first commit suggests that there is fairness going on in this forum. If there was even a hint of balance, you would find my commits to be quite different. Also, which moral system are you talking about?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes I can name one, and more.

Then do so. I don't follow charity scandals.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Also, your first commit suggests that there is fairness going on in this forum. If there was even a hint of balance, you would find my commits to be quite different.

No it doesn't. Anyone can go look at it and see that, so I'm not sure what you're trying to do.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Also, which moral system are you talking about?

The pseudo-Randian "the victim is always at fault unless the aggressor calls itself a government" morality that pervades this whole forum.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

"the victim is always at fault unless the aggressor calls itself a government"

LoL, well put though.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Then do so. I don't follow charity scandals.

That would defeat my point in asking the question.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No it doesn't. Anyone can go look at it and see that, so I'm not sure what you're trying to do.

"Wait, people (conservatives) shouldn't be criticized for posing as a charity and lying?" In other words, the people on this forum think that only conservatives do things that are wrong, and liberals are always pure as the driven snow. The fact you can't name any corrupt liberals says everything.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The pseudo-Randian "the victim is always at fault unless the aggressor calls itself a government" morality that pervades this whole forum.

What about Karma? You know, something having to do with Buddhism.

In this world no one does something for nothing, if you give to charity your filling someones pockets.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
In this world no one does something for nothing, if you give to charity your filling someones pockets.

Point is: You've been told (lied to) those pockets would be the pocket of someone else, ie someone in need.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The pseudo-Randian "the victim is always at fault unless the aggressor calls itself a government" morality that pervades this whole forum.

ideology aside, the fact is, with the way the internet works, with the way telemarketing scams work, there is no way the government could efficently police these things.

Do you not think it reasonable, in 2010, to expect people to maybe be on guard for people asking for money? Whether their lie is ok or not?

same would go for identity theft in some cases, no? Its wrong to steal, but I have a fault if I'm emailing my credit card info to people posing as VISA

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes I can name one, and more. Also, your first commit suggests that there is fairness going on in this forum. If there was even a hint of balance, you would find my commits to be quite different. Also, which moral system are you talking about? Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Then do so. I don't follow charity scandals.



No it doesn't. Anyone can go look at it and see that, so I'm not sure what you're trying to do.



The pseudo-Randian "the victim is always at fault unless the aggressor calls itself a government" morality that pervades this whole forum.

Lol, you both understand yourselfs as the balanced guards of these oh so biased forums, it's pretty funny.

Originally posted by inimalist
ideology aside, the fact is, with the way the internet works, with the way telemarketing scams work, there is no way the government could efficently police these things.

Do you not think it reasonable, in 2010, to expect people to maybe be on guard for people asking for money? Whether their lie is ok or not?

same would go for identity theft in some cases, no? Its wrong to steal, but I have a fault if I'm emailing my credit card info to people posing as VISA

I think his point was more towards the: If you replace the words 'Sean Hannity/Fake Charity' here with the word 'Government', while keeping the body of it the same, then suddenly it's not the victims fault at all for being the ignorant, but the Government.

That's the way I took his statement at least; he's likely right too. He can correct me if I'm wrong.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That would defeat my point in asking the question.

You seem ridiculously concerned with not posting anything that would prove your point. If there is a liberal charity that used this scheme or a similar one I would love to hear about it. You could literally make you entire case in three words.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
"Wait, people (conservatives) shouldn't be criticized for posing as a charity and lying?" In other words, the people on this forum think that only conservatives do things that are wrong, and liberals are always pure as the driven snow. The fact you can't name any corrupt liberals says everything.

You're complaining about something you added to my statement.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What about Karma? You know, something having to do with Buddhism.

Which I gather from your posts on the topic either exploded to form the Big Bang or represents "shit happens". Neither of those has anything to do with morality, unless you want to tack on yet another definition.

Originally posted by Robtard
I think his point was more towards the: If you replace the words 'Sean Hannity/Fake Charity' here with the word 'Government', while keeping the body of it the same, then suddenly it's not the victims fault at all for being the ignorant, but the Government.

That's the way I took his statement at least; he's likely right too. He can correct me if I'm wrong.

well, then its just a bad comparison

for instance, what does a fake charity do when you uncover its fraud and refuse to pay them?

Originally posted by Bardock42
LOL, you both understand yourselves as the balanced guards of these oh so biased forums, it's pretty funny.

Name one way that I am less than perfect.

I even improved to proper KMC standards.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Name one way that I am less than perfect.

I even improved to proper KMC standards. I am not saying you aren't perfect, just drawing parallells.

And I don't know what proper KMC standards even means.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You seem ridiculously concerned with not posting anything that would prove your point. If there is a liberal charity that used this scheme or a similar one I would love to hear about it. You could literally make you entire case in three words.

Your attempt at reverse psychology made me laugh.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You're complaining about something you added to my statement.

Straw man.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Which I gather from your posts on the topic either exploded to form the Big Bang or represents "shit happens". Neither of those has anything to do with morality, unless you want to tack on yet another definition.

Now, he brings in the big bang.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Your attempt at reverse psychology made me laugh.

No reverse psychology at work.

Fact: you claim liberal charities cheat people
Fact: you claim to know specific examples
Fact: you can prove that liberal charities cheat people by writing the name of one of those examples

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Straw man.

Not even remotely. It's a fact that anyone who cares can go see that I didn't say anything about conservatives, you are the one who added that and then subsequently complained about me saying it. (which is actually a perfect example of someone using a strawman)

Originally posted by Robtard
Same could be said with false advertisement on products, ultimately it would be the buyers fault for not researching what's in the shampoo, food or car they purchased and just goign by what the label tells them, no?

Yeah, cept, one you actually get something tangible and consume it. The other, it's not tangible and you don't consume it. You are giving away your money, trusting that another will use it on your behalf. The former is direct and tangible: the other is indirect and intangible.


It is up to you to research both BUT, the consumables have the problem of directly impacting you, physically, so, they require something other than "trust", they require regulations: FDA, FTC, etc.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, 90%, 10%, % of what

Civil lawsuit: "Purchaser" would be responsible for 90% of the "loss" and the liar would have to pay back 10%.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No reverse psychology at work.

Fact: you claim liberal charities cheat people
Fact: you claim to know specific examples
Fact: you can prove that liberal charities cheat people by writing the name of one of those examples



Not even remotely. It's a fact that anyone who cares can go see that I didn't say anything about conservatives, you are the one who added that and then subsequently complained about me saying it. (which is actually a perfect example of someone using a strawman)

I didn't start off by talking to you. I was responding to tru-marvell. It's not my fault that you have no idea what is going on here.

Go back to the beginning of the thread, and read the starter. Everything I am talking about has to do with that. I took everything you said as if you had read the first post.

As of now, you have diverged from the topic. It is no surprise that you think I am talking about you.

Let me help you: If tru-marvell was a regular listener to Sean Hanity, then he would know about liberals that are corrupt. The conservatives are just like the liberals in that they do nothing but rant and insult the other side of politics. If tru-marvell wishes to rise about it all, then he/she should know both sides.

I have no idea why you jumped in, but it is a free forum. It's just your Karma.

The moral is to not give to charities. In fact, it may be a good idea to steal from them. I'm on it.

Originally posted by BackFire
The moral is to not give to charities. In fact, it may be a good idea to steal from them. I'm on it.


*writes it down in the book of mormon*

Originally posted by inimalist
well, then its just a bad comparison

for instance, what does a fake charity do when you uncover its fraud and refuse to pay them?

Continue to seek others?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Straw man.


Don't you see what he is doing? He is trying to destroy the universe in a giant explosion of super-irony, letting us all attain nirvana. He's a hero.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yeah, cept, one you actually get something tangible and consume it. The other, it's not tangible and you don't consume it. You are giving away your money, trusting that another will use it on your behalf. The former is direct and tangible: the other is indirect and intangible.


It is up to you to research both BUT, the consumables have the problem of directly impacting you, physically, so, they require something other than "trust", they require regulations: FDA, FTC, etc.

It's still a lie on both accounts; where you used your money, based on a false premise. Be it the shampoo that regrows hair, or a donation that will help African children. Lies as lie and they both butt-****ed you out of money.

Some yes, not all things purchased could impact you physically.

Originally posted by BackFire
The moral is to not give to charities. In fact, it may be a good idea to steal from them. I'm on it.

There's one good way to give to charity. Take a bunch of money and toss it in the air. God will take the amount needed to maintain his good works and you take whatever falls to the ground.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There's one good way to give to charity. Take a bunch of money and toss it in the air. God will take the amount needed to maintain his good works and you take whatever falls to the ground. Or you can give it to the richest, and it will trickle down.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

Can you name one?

Since both Shaky and Symmetric are not willing to give examples, let me attempt at one.

"Not on Our Watch": the Darfur charity sponsored by Don Cheadle, George Clooney, Brad Pitt, and Matt Damon. Four solidly liberal actors that have donated and are accepting donations to attempt to rescue orphaned children and destitute families from being slaughtered in this Sudan region.

I haven't researched it. Is it as corrupt as Freedom Alliance?

Originally posted by Moscow
Since both Shaky and Symmetric are not willing to give examples, let me attempt at one.

"Not on Our Watch": the Darfur charity sponsored by Don Cheadle, George Clooney, Brad Pitt, and Matt Damon. Four solidly liberal actors that have donated and are accepting donations to attempt to rescue orphaned children and destitute families from being slaughtered in this Sudan region.

I haven't researched it. Is it as corrupt as Freedom Alliance?

Sean Hanity has never talk about Not on Our Watch, as far as I know.

Also, I am not giving an example because I asked the question.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Sean Hanity has never talk about Not on Our Watch, as far as I know.

Also, I am not giving an example because I asked the question.

It would have helped your question if you did.

As far as I know about the charity, it raised a lot of money. I don't really know where its end location went to though.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Sean Hanity has never talk about Not on Our Watch, as far as I know.

Also, I am not giving an example because I asked the question.

Not really fair though. Sym admitted he doesn't know any and, in turn, asked you to tell of some you know. Yet you refuse. You hardly have the moral high ground here. Also you accused him of a straw man argument after actually, actively changing his post to even have a line of attack. Also, you were actually featured in one of my dreams last night, most weird.

Originally posted by Moscow
It would have helped your question if you did.

As far as I know about the charity, it raised a lot of money. I don't really know where its end location went to though.

If I were to get onto a comic book forum, and say something about an artist who makes comics, then you would expert me to have looked at the comics this artist made. If I said I read these comics all the time, and then followed up with something that doesn't ring right. In you gut, you might think I don't know what I am talking about. Wouldn't it be fair to ask me a question, who's answer could only be known by someone who reads the comic?

I listen to Sean Hanity every day at work. If someone listened to Sean Hanity every day, they would be able to answer my question. I don't know if the person who I asked, can answer the question, because he/she hasn't yet.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If I were to get onto a comic book forum, and say something about an artist who makes comics, then you would expert me to have looked at the comics this artist made. If I said I read these comics all the time, and then followed up with something that doesn't ring right. In you gut, you might think I don't know what I am talking about. Wouldn't it be fair to ask me a question, who's answer could only be known by someone who reads the comic?

I listen to Sean Hanity every day at work. If someone listened to Sean Hanity every day, they would be able to answer my question. I don't know if the person who I asked, can answer the question, because he/she hasn't yet.

Wait, so Hannity actually speaks about "liberal charities" that pull shit like that, and then does it himself? Wow, that adds hypocricy to his traits of assholeness...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If I were to get onto a comic book forum, and say something about an artist who makes comics, then you would expert me to have looked at the comics this artist made. If I said I read these comics all the time, and then followed up with something that doesn't ring right. In you gut, you might think I don't know what I am talking about. Wouldn't it be fair to ask me a question, who's answer could only be known by someone who reads the comic?



That could work, but if I knew nothing about this comic strip and you knew a lot about this comic strip how would I know if you were telling me the truth.

I say.. give me something to work with first (some tangibles), then I'll go find out what the heck it is, research it a bit, and then come back to you talk about it.

That.. to me.. makes more sense. Especially with your invested interest into Sean Hannity. Granted I know a little bit about him but not a lot. It would be the same way if I gave you topics on Keith Olbermann. You might know things about him but not a whole lot as you do with Hannity. Now, both of us give information about our guys, and then we go do research on them and then come back and have a detailed conversation about them later.

Makes sense?

Originally posted by Moscow
That could work, but if I knew nothing about this comic strip and you knew a lot about this comic strip how would I know if you were telling me the truth.

I say.. give me something to work with first (some tangibles), then I'll go find out what the heck it is, research it a bit, and then come back to you talk about it.

That.. to me.. makes more sense. Especially with your invested interest into Sean Hannity. Granted I know a little bit about him but not a lot. It would be the same way if I gave you topics on Keith Olbermann. You might know things about him but not a whole lot as you do with Hannity. Now, both of us give information about our guys, and then we go do research on them and then come back and have a detailed conversation about them later.

Makes sense?

I don't have any invested interest in Sean Hannity. I don't agree with him on most of what he says, but my gut tells me that he is censer about his charity. However, he could be a good actor. I think he does what he does for money. Dose that make him evil?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison


I listen to Sean Hanity every day at work. If someone listened to Sean Hanity every day, they would be able to answer my question. I don't know if the person who I asked, can answer the question, because he/she hasn't yet.

If you're referring to Symmetrical, he already has said he doesn't know of any; which is why he asked you to name them.

Also, what Bardick42 said, Hannity's a hypocrite, on top of being a dishonest clown, if he so indeed exposes charity scams, run by "liberals" on his show.

Originally posted by Robtard
If you're referring to Symmetrical, he already has said he doesn't know of any; which is why he asked you to name them.

Also, what Bardick42 said, Hannity's a hypocrite, on top of being a dishonest clown, if he so indeed exposes charity scams, run by "liberals" on his show.

I wasn't talking to Symmetrical until he jumped in, after I asked the question. I can't believe that no one can get it. I've heard the name so often that I'm sick of it.

You are assuming that the article is accurate. I don't know that, but I would not be surprised.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I wasn't talking to Symmetrical until he jumped in, after I asked the question. I can't believe that no one can get it. I've heard the name so often that I'm sick of it.

You are assuming that the article is accurate. I don't know that, but I would not be surprised.

He is the one who asked you to name some. Why don't you just do that. Are you the only one who gets answers, or how does this work?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't have any invested interest in Sean Hannity. I don't agree with him on most of what he says, but my gut tells me that he is censer about his charity. However, he could be a good actor. I think he does what he does for money. Dose that make him evil?

Aye, fair enough. Regardless of invested interests or anything else worth caring about, it wouldn't be a bad idea to dissect both men anyway. They are both well-paid loudmouths with terrible journalism skills. On both shows, you cannot discuss an important topic like Timothy Geithner's connections with the AIG and Lehman Brother's scandals in a mere 5-7 minutes. That's not only impossible... it's damn right absurd. Yet, both men are merely speaking for the sponsors that advertise for General Electric and Newscorp in their primetime slots.

Are they evil? No, for whatever constitutes "evil". I mean people got to make a living somehow, right? I consider it disappointing that that is what the US has to work with on a MSM scale, but it's not evil.

Originally posted by Moscow
Aye, fair enough. Regardless of invested interests or anything else worth caring about, it wouldn't be a bad idea to dissect both men anyway. They are both well-paid loudmouths with terrible journalism skills. On both shows, you cannot discuss an important topic like Timothy Geithner's connections with the AIG and Lehman Brother's scandals in a mere 5-7 minutes. That's not only impossible... it's damn right absurd. Yet, both men are merely speaking for the sponsors that advertise for General Electric and Newscorp in their primetime slots.

Are they evil? No, for whatever constitutes "evil". I mean people got to make a living somehow, right? I consider it disappointing that that is what the US has to work with on a MSM scale, but it's not evil.

You see, people read articles like the one that started this thread, and because it agrees with their preconceived notations, they believe it. This belief is not based on any information about the subject other then propaganda created by people who know nothing about the topic other then the preconceived notations. Do you see how this leads one into an endless circle of ignorance?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You see, people read articles like the one that started this thread, and because it agrees with their preconceived notations, they believe it. This belief is not based on any information about the subject other then propaganda created by people who know nothing about the topic other then the preconceived notations. Do you see how this leads one into an endless circle of ignorance?

You do realize that this Debbie person who wrote the article is, in fact, a conservative herself? She's not some liberal trying to smear Hannity.

Originally posted by BackFire
You do realize that this Debbie person who wrote the article is, in fact, a conservative herself? She's not some liberal trying to smear Hannity.

Funny thing too, she's very anti-Liberal, similar to Anne Coulter and her view of "liberalism" being a cancer in America.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You see, people read articles like the one that started this thread, and because it agrees with their preconceived notations, they believe it. This belief is not based on any information about the subject other then propaganda created by people who know nothing about the topic other then the preconceived notations. Do you see how this leads one into an endless circle of ignorance?

Hmm... you have preconceived notations, too (notations?). But anyway, your response had nothing to do with what I was talking about.

If you want propaganda and ignorance, then you listen to Hannity or Olbermann. Two different propagandas that ultimately gel into one in your mind.

The article talked about the abuse of charities. Deeper arguments can be made with that, after each individual that wants to talk about it researches it some more. Forget about the people who caused it, concern yourself with the people being affected.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You see, people read articles like the one that started this thread, and because it agrees with their preconceived notations, they believe it. This belief is not based on any information about the subject other then propaganda created by people who know nothing about the topic other then the preconceived notations. Do you see how this leads one into an endless circle of ignorance?

Here's my own step by step confirmation of her claims:



She actually posted their 2006 tax return which shows a revenue of about 9.5 million in donations. We can ignore the rest of the money they made because it wasn't coming from people giving to the charity.

The return then claims they spent 7.5 million dollars on expenses.

Assuming that every penny extra went to charity:

2/9.6 = .21 = 21%

That's not so terrible even if we assume there were additional costs that bumped it down to 20%.

However we can now go look at the Freedom Alliance site to see how much they claim to have given. According to this page:http://www.freedomalliance.org/?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=7&Itemid=15

They claim to have given 2.5 million of the course of several years meaning they gave much less than that each year.

From this we can conclude that yes, Freedom Alliance is scamming people.


Cycle of ignorance: broken
Sean Hannity: still a jackass

Originally posted by Shakyamunison



Can you name any liberals who fit into this category?


He did, Olbermann.

Originally posted by Mindset
He did, Olbermann.

No True Scotsman in 3, 2, 1 . . .

Originally posted by Mindset
He did, Olbermann.

Oh, ok, fair enough.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, you expect me to believe that you are "fair and balanced"? I don't buy it for a moment. My response was written on purpose, because there is never an over sympathy toward the conservative point of view on this forum. Most threads like this, are solely let's bash the conservative.

I could be wrong, so lets find out. Please name for me one liberal that does this same kind of racket, then we can talk about rising about it all.

My intent is NOT to bash conservatives...please carefully re-read my post. My intent IS to point out how "we" fall in step with whichever person or persons we hold alligence regardless of the blatant BS our devotee is has been exposed in.



Again lets not fall into this pit....I voted for President Obama and I can cite many lies, contradictions and blunders he has committed since taking office---I can name even more by the former Presidents but to what end.

As it was pointed out previously the author of the article is herself of the same "team" but she seemed more concerned with the wrongness of the situation more so than with the "who"...so why can't we follow the example....I dunno, maybe my perspective is too "pie in the sky"

Originally posted by Moscow
As long as it was generally speaking.



I just did. Keith Olbermann. You know, the dude on MSNBC? Flip across that channel anyway: Brezinzski, Schuster, Todd, Hall, Matthews, Schultz, Olbermann, Maddow. The channel's full of them. They might have had journalism school, but they're not particularly good journalists and their vested interests are to serve their advertisers and sway ignorant people into a particular so-called liberal direction. They are more than likely liberals in heart, mind and soul. They are first and foremost sellers of an idea, same as Fox News and CNN.
You don't think Maddow is a good journalist?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Civil lawsuit: "Purchaser" would be responsible for 90% of the "loss" and the liar would have to pay back 10%.

that still makes no sense

the liar is 100% responsible for defrauding the money, thus is not entitled to it

buyer beware is a very poor comparison, because it rarely involves cases of outright fraud, as I understand it

EDIT: in fact, it would be a criminal case of fraud, not a civil case at all...

also, how can charity fraud be a right/left thing?

this isn't bad, or worse even, because Hannity is an outspoken celebrity

Originally posted by inimalist
that still makes no sense

the liar is 100% responsible for defrauding the money, thus is not entitled to it

buyer beware is a very poor comparison, because it rarely involves cases of outright fraud, as I understand it

EDIT: in fact, it would be a criminal case of fraud, not a civil case at all...

Originally the only exception to caveat emptor was the case of fraud. If you check the citation at the very bottom of the Wiki article on caveat emptor article you'll find several mentions to how fraud did not happen, and thus the rule held.

Originally posted by inimalist
also, how can charity fraud be a right/left thing?

You'll have to ask Shakya. He seemed to decide that the only reason we were hearing about this was because this forum hates conservatism.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Originally the only exception to caveat emptor was the case of fraud. If you check the citation at the very bottom of the Wiki article on caveat emptor article you'll find several mentions to how fraud did not happen, and thus the rule held.

cool

ya, it would be hard to imagine that a con artists would be, legally, entitled to money they defrauded from people..

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You'll have to ask Shakya. He seemed to decide that the only reason we were hearing about this was because this forum hates conservatism.

wouldn't that imply that he thinks Hannity's conservatism is somehow related to his fraud?

Originally posted by Mindset
You don't think Maddow is a good journalist?

Hmm... now that I think about it, she's done quite a few good pieces. One of her most recent ones was an interview with Timothy Geithner that was interesting enough.

Still, she does what she's told to do.

Originally posted by Robtard
It's still a lie on both accounts;

It is, except one warrants MUCH more financial responsibility than the other due to the intangibility of the purchase.

Originally posted by Robtard
where you used your money, based on a false premise. Be it the shampoo that regrows hair, or a donation that will help African children. Lies as lie and they both butt-****ed you out of money.

Some yes, not all things purchased could impact you physically.

Yes, I agree. I can't disagree with something that is correct. But they are not the same beyond the broad definition of "fraudulent".

Originally posted by inimalist
that still makes no sense

the liar is 100% responsible for defrauding the money, thus is not entitled to it

That makes no sense since the purchaser gave their money away and the "fraud" isn't actually legally fraud.

Originally posted by inimalist
buyer beware is a very poor comparison, because it rarely involves cases of outright fraud, as I understand it

It makes no sense that caveat emptor doesn't apply, especially when modern society is drenched in caveat emptor. And, I think my made my point above in that second half, there.

Originally posted by inimalist
EDIT: in fact, it would be a criminal case of fraud, not a civil case at all...

Nah. It isn't criminal, at all. If you can prove that the person promised certain services, via some sort of legal contract (even if verbal), then you can take them to civil court. Don't you watch Judge Judy?

The problem is, Sean is giving SOME money away, so it isn't outright fraud. And, above and beyond the total costs of the events, I believe they are giving away a majority of the rest (if Syms numbers are to be used).



I don't understand where you are coming from. I have no concept of the buyer being at 0 fault, especially when it is obvious that he or she is getting ripped off.

Edit - Just checked: What Sean Hannity is doing would barely be able to be taken to a civil court and is not even close to being illegal. One would have a hard time proving that this stuff is even a civil violation. However, charities that defraud, completely, are criminal. Kind of like a long firms, which we have to study like mad in our Cyber Security program.

so, let me get this straight, What hanniity is doing is not illegal because a non-zero percent of the donations are going where they were said to be going, even though there is no doubt that he is lying and engaging in fraud with whatever other portion there is (which if we look at sym's numbers, would be considerably more than what was donated).

make this one easy for me, please, my logical brain often doesn't understand the law

EDIT: the "charity fraud" wiki page seems to believe that these types of "skimming" are well within the legal juristiction of the government, unless I totally misread it

Originally posted by inimalist
so, let me get this straight, What hanniity is doing is not illegal because a non-zero percent of the donations are going where they were said to be going, even though there is no doubt that he is lying and engaging in fraud with whatever other portion there is (which if we look at sym's numbers, would be considerably more than what was donated).

Yup. It'd be really ****ing hard to win a civil case against him and there is nothing illegal going on. I'm sure somewhere, before the dotted line, it says that the money pays for the events: else libtards would be all over his ass. Don't you think that this kind of money would attract detractors?

Originally posted by inimalist
make this one easy for me, please, my logical brain often doesn't understand the law

I can't. I don't know the details of the contract when they donate beyond them saying that they will donate all they can to the "charity" cause. If they donate even just a little, it's not fraud unless they promised a specific amount or percentage. And before some wise-ass comments, that percentage would be AFTER their operating costs which include nice hotel rooms, stage effects, etc.

Originally posted by inimalist
EDIT: the "charity fraud" wiki page seems to believe that these types of "skimming" are well within the legal juristiction of the government, unless I totally misread it

It's too bad that "skimming charity" fraud doesn't apply to what Sean Hannity is doing. Is Sean buying things for himself, with that money? Is it outlined in the "donation" terms that he can do that? If it does, bam, not illegal. It's REALLY hard to nail someone for charity fraud when it's so very easy to skirt around any illegal actions.

The only example I can think of is him making a claim, in his "contract" that he is doing the opposite of and it can be proven that he is consciously doing it. Even if you can find and example of him doing the opposite of the contractual promise, he still can feign ignorance and provide some sort of backup to his ignorance...which would be easy.

Shame Martha Stewart didn't think that far ahead...

But, I'm having a hard time trying to nail Hannity on a civil suit: I'm not a damned contract lawyer.


Why the hell did we get onto this subject?


That's right: the idiot donor is 90% at fault...if it can be proven that Sean is doing something not 100% within the agreement.




http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/wealthyboomer/archive/2010/03/15/half-of-canadian-worry-about-charity-fraud-quiz-assesss-your-vulnerability.aspx



Seems you Canadians worry about it quite often.


Doube edit - I ****ed that entire post up. I mixed up civil and criminal, multiple times. **** it. I'm going back through and sorting them out into their respective sections. Wade through that mess and enjoy.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It's too bad that "skimming charity" fraud doesn't apply to what Sean Hannity is doing. Is Sean buying things for himself, with that money? Is it outlined in the "donation" terms that he can do that? If it does, bam, not illegal. It's REALLY hard to nail someone for charity fraud when it's so very easy to skirt around any illegal actions.

The only example I can think of is him making a claim, in his "contract" that he is doing the opposite of and it can be proven that he is consciously doing it. Even if you can find and example of him doing the opposite of the contractual promise, he still can feign ignorance and provide some sort of backup to his ignorance...which would be easy.

weird, I can't say I agree with that at all... I get what you are saying though...

Originally posted by dadudemon
http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/wealthyboomer/archive/2010/03/15/half-of-canadian-worry-about-charity-fraud-quiz-assesss-your-vulnerability.aspx

Seems you Canadians worry about it quite often.

well, considering we canadians like to help people (you know, outside of the personal egotistic boost that comes from charity donations), it sort of comes with the territory

Originally posted by inimalist
weird, I can't say I agree with that at all... I get what you are saying though...

You know, I COULD ask my brother-in-law about this shit because he's a contract lawyer...

If I were to guess, I'd say Canada has better (or just simply, more) charity related laws than the US.

But, yeah, it's hard to peg someone with a civil suit if they say they will use the money for something, and then use it for that. It's pretty much impossible to peg them with criminality if they donate any money at all, in each tax year, in accordance with their "promises."



Originally posted by inimalist
well, considering we canadians like to help people (you know, outside of the personal egotistic boost that comes from charity donations), it sort of comes with the territory

Shhhhh! Be vair wee qwiet...There are Americans on these boards...they don't like to hear about another way that the Canucks are better than the Yanks...

Originally posted by dadudemon
You know, I COULD ask my brother-in-law about this shit because he's a contract lawyer...

If I were to guess, I'd say Canada has better (or just simply, more) charity related laws than the US.

But, yeah, it's hard to peg someone with a civil suit if they say they will use the money for something, and then use it for that. It's pretty much impossible to peg them with criminality if they donate any money at all, in each tax year, in accordance with their "promises."

its not even that, I just don't know the laws, and thought there might be more protections than that

but, thinking about it, in that way, it is almost like writing off your new deck because you have some work friends over once a year for a bbq. How do you prove that it isn't a work expense?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Shhhhh! Be vair wee qwiet...There are Americans on these boards...they don't like to hear about another way that the Canucks are better than the Yanks...

ha, its one of my goals in life

Originally posted by inimalist
its not even that, I just don't know the laws, and thought there might be more protections than that

but, thinking about it, in that way, it is almost like writing off your new deck because you have some work friends over once a year for a bbq. How do you prove that it isn't a work expense?

I do know that it crosses over into the criminal if they say that 100% goes to the "bla bla poor..sick...bla bla" and then they buy something for themselves like a new car or jewelry. But, that's hard to prove and it has to be proven that the money collected went directly to that.

In Hannity's case, he's not really buying anything for himself: they are rentals, hotel rooms, and fancy concerts. So, it's really hard to say he's buying shit for himself beyond attending his events in style. He could easily justify that by claiming that he wants people to think he's "power" and "celebrity" to encourage them to donate or donate more, which could be partially true.

But how are you going to prove mens rea with that attitude?



Originally posted by inimalist
ha, its one of my goals in life

H-how DARE you!

*realizes that he doesn't have ANY weed*

awehuh

Originally posted by dadudemon
I do know that it crosses over into the criminal if they say that 100% goes to the "bla bla poor..sick...bla bla" and then they buy something for themselves like a new car or jewelry. But, that's hard to prove and it has to be proven that the money collected went directly to that.

In Hannity's case, he's not really buying anything for himself: they are rentals, hotel rooms, and fancy concerts. So, it's really hard to say he's buying shit for himself beyond attending his events in style. He could easily justify that by claiming that he wants people to think he's "power" and "celebrity" to encourage them to donate or donate more, which could be partially true.

But how are you going to prove mens rea with that attitude?

but I think thats the rub. We both know why he is buying those suites, and it isn't ridiculous to call it fraud, its just not a provable case as far as the letter of the law then, right?

Originally posted by dadudemon
H-how DARE you!

*realizes that he doesn't have ANY weed*

awehuh

Actually, most of your weed is domestic, grown in like farm country (if you are from Oaklahoma, which for some reason seems right, most of the stuff you would see would be in State). I don't think you guys have the same density of in home grow ops as we do, but I can't be sure.

The formost importer of marijuana is Mexico, but the Cartels are now moving north of the border into Californias massive forests and other areas. Afghanistan and Jamacia (South asia and the Carribean/Latin America) are smaller players.

Canada comes after Mexico, iirc, but serves a different market generally. If you have a pound of good Canadian pot grown in BC, by the time you reach Floridia, you can trade it 1 for 1 with cocaine (which causes interesting social issues in the criminal world, given Canadian pot growers rarely carry guns ).

Originally posted by inimalist
but I think thats the rub. We both know why he is buying those suites, and it isn't ridiculous to call it fraud, its just not a provable case as far as the letter of the law then, right?

Exactly. It is DESPICABLE what he's doing and I find him disgusting. I probably didn't make that clear as it seemed like I was defending him. Morally, it's fraud. Legally, it isn't else someone would have grilled his ass already.



Originally posted by inimalist
Actually, most of your weed is domestic, grown in like farm country (if you are from Oaklahoma, which for some reason seems right, most of the stuff you would see would be in State). I don't think you guys have the same density of in home grow ops as we do, but I can't be sure.

Really? Yeah, I heard that Weed is Oklahoma's #2 or #1 cash crop. I was just commenting that I don't have any weed to smoke in my house. Man, when it becomes legal, you bet your sweet ass that I'll be buying some black indica or master kush...then vaping it before I go to bed, each night.

Originally posted by inimalist
The formost importer of marijuana is Mexico, but the Cartels are now moving north of the border into Californias massive forests and other areas. Afghanistan and Jamacia (South asia and the Carribean/Latin America) are smaller players..

Oh yeah. All the marijuana dealers I knew, when I was a teenager, all got it from Mexico either directly or indirectly, despite being in Oklahoma.

Originally posted by inimalist
Canada comes after Mexico, iirc, but serves a different market generally. If you have a pound of good Canadian pot grown in BC, by the time you reach Floridia, you can trade it 1 for 1 with cocaine (which causes interesting social issues in the criminal world, given Canadian pot growers rarely carry guns ).

Yeah, I've heard that BC weed is pretty damned good.


Mind you, I study MJ, but I've NEVER smoked it, and will never smoke it until it's legal where I live. It's a moral thing for me because I do NOT want to break the law, in any way: it would hurt my ability to get a top secret security clearance if or when I get a job in Cyber Security.

This is an eye-opener

http://www.peteykins.com/images/FarkDec03/Hannity.jpg

Originally posted by dadudemon
Man, when it becomes legal, you bet your sweet ass that I'll be buying some black indica or master kush...then vaping it before I go to bed, each night.

just fyi, not legal here either

Canada as a society is just more lax about it, and our police force isn't militarized against it

and like, I've never heard of drug tests here, it might even be illegal in most cases...

I wouldn't hold your breath on it becoming legal either

Originally posted by inimalist
just fyi, not legal here either

Canada as a society is just more lax about it, and our police force isn't militarized against it

and like, I've never heard of drug tests here, it might even be illegal in most cases...

I wouldn't hold your breath on it becoming legal either

Really?

I've heard mixed bags (lulz, pun): some territories it's legal, some it's not: it's illegal everywhere: it's legal. So, I guess your above post settles it.


I plan to make it legal when I become President: even if I have to executive order and reconciliation that shit.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The pseudo-Randian "the victim is always at fault unless the aggressor calls itself a government" morality that pervades this whole forum.

Finally someone had the nuts to say it.

Originally posted by meep-meep
Finally someone had the nuts to say it.

...yeah, right. Objectivism just runs rampant at this forum. We need heroes to stand up to the Randian oppression, no one can say a word against it without being shouted down or even banned. This forum is like some freaky objectivist nazi place.

Originally posted by Bardock42
...yeah, right. Objectivism just runs rampant at this forum. We need heroes to stand up to the Randian oppression, no one can say a word against it without being shouted down or even banned. This forum is like some freaky objectivist nazi place.


lol


I'm so confused as to where the **** you're coming from. Seriously. I'm confused as hell. Granted, you're jumping on Meep-meep's ass for being a critic of Randian social ideals...

Originally posted by dadudemon
lol


I'm so confused as to where the **** you're coming from. Seriously. I'm confused as hell. Granted, you're jumping on Meep-meep's ass for being a critic of Randian social ideals...

I'm not, it is perfectly fine to be critical of Rand's views, to be honest the two people on here that even come close to objectivist views (inimalist and I) are critical of her as well. My point is there isn't some objectivist taint on these forums, there are a few people with libertarian views, but to pretend that it is prevalent on here, is ridiculous (further I dislike the straw man of Rand's thoughts that gets attacked constantly, but that's besides the point)

I've designed a new American flag for the conservative movement and I want fox news to be the first to fly it!

Originally posted by Darth Jello
I've designed a new American flag for the conservative movement and I want fox news to be the first to fly it!

I have no idea WTF that thing is on the top left hand side.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I have no idea WTF that thing is on the top left hand side.

An axe with sticks around it, the symbol from which the name of the fascist movement was derived.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I have no idea WTF that thing is on the top left hand side.

I think that's a straw man being represented by the Teabaggers. Correct me if I'm wrong

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
An axe with sticks around it, the symbol from which the name of the fascist movement was derived.


Ahhh. I see it now.


However, this is why I couldn't make out what that was:

http://drkatesview.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/fascism.jpg


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_l5JEwUH_Tug/RrAmgcAW0uI/AAAAAAAAABQ/sVBMBM3RBA8/s320/fasces_dime.jpg


I've never see the axe upside down into the stack, like that...and I couldn't even tell what the hell it was. I thought it was a door that had been opened, but that didn't make sense since the conservatards want to close our borders down, not open it up.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
An axe with sticks around it, the symbol from which the name of the fascist movement was derived.

Ah, ok, I see it now too.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
An axe with sticks around it, the symbol from which the name of the fascist movement was derived.

Funny fact, those fasces were the weapons used by the roman bodyguards the "Lictors", which, besides politicians also guarded the vestal virgins. Mmmmm, virgins. droolio


The more you know!

the fasces on black was actually the flag of fascist italy. More subtle and elegant than the swastika or the british circle and thunderbolt.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
I've designed a new American flag for the conservative movement and I want fox news to be the first to fly it!

I thought it was a bong. But that would have been a Liberal flag. However, you would have to change the red to yellow.