Originally posted by ShakyamunisonSure it did. You just don’t see how it applies to you (although, I was talking in general and not about you).
As long as it was generally speaking.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Can you name any liberals who fit into this category?
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.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Who are the people “affected“?
We were talking about the charities, Shaky, early on. The "affected" were the children of slain veterans getting measely to none care. The "affected" were the gravely wounded veterans getting a $1000 check or less in compensation for missing an eye or other such horrible outcomes.
Originally posted by Moscow
As long as it was generally speaking.
Of course, I don’t know you.
Originally posted by Moscow
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 [B]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.[/B]
I don’t watch much TV. You are making my point. I’m glad we can agree.
Originally posted by Moscow
We were talking about the charities, Shaky, early on. The "affected" were the children of slain veterans getting measely to none care. The "affected" were the gravely wounded veterans getting a $1000 check or less in compensation for missing an eye or other such horrible outcomes.
So, let me get this straight: if Sean Hanity did not do these shows, then the charities would get more money?
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonI don’t watch much TV. You are making my point. I’m glad we can agree.
Ah, good. We've agreed.😱
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonSo, let me get this straight: if Sean Hanity did not do these shows, then the charities would get more money?
The charities are doomed to be exploited one way or the other. If Sean didn't do them, then they probably wouldn't be getting any attention at all. People don't normally donate money to something unless they feel good about it. Examples are like helping out a region affected by a natural disaster. Another is seeing a respected (in certain circles) celebrity like Hannity willing to give aid to people.
What Sean would need to do is be honest and disclose where the large bulk of the money is going to. It's obviously not helping out these affected. They are only getting a smidgen of help compared to the exorbitant miscellaneous poobah expenses Sean is paying for himself (really now..."aviation expenses". Damn bubblehead needs to go around in fancy jetliner and entourage motorcade?)
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 MoscowYou don't think Maddow is a good journalist?
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 [B]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.
[/B]
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...
Originally posted by inimalist
that still makes no sensethe 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 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 sensethe 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.
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.aspxSeems 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 thatbut, 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