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 ShakyamunisonI 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 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
I do realize that. I learned that when I looked her up after reading the article. However, it does not matter, because I was not talking about her in any way.
Originally posted by Moscow
Hmm... you have preconceived notations, too (notations?). But anyway, your response had nothing to do with what I was talking about.
I’m not a very good speller. You might as well get used to it.
Sure it did. You just don’t see how it applies to you (although, I was talking in general and not about you).
Originally posted by Moscow
If you want propaganda and ignorance, then you listen to Hannity or Olbermann. Two different propagandas that ultimately gel into one in your mind.
Can you name any liberals who fit into this category?
Originally posted by Moscow
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.
Who are the people “affected“?