@Baldimo,
One of the hardest things for you to understand, I'm sure, is how the Pakistanis can hate Americans and not acknowledge our relief efforts in times of natural catastrophes.
@panzade,
This is the photo I really wanted to share. This was during our first 2 weeks in Pakistan. People were still starving and we were still doing rescue missions. This was the sceen for the about the first month we were there. We would get mobbed at every FOB and temp landing area where supplies were going to be dropped off.
I've been on this site for 10 years, I'm wondering how many of you remember me going on this little vacation.
Where do you get these idiots, coldjoint? And why do you keep believing them, when a simple fact check would show you they're talking thru their asses?
First off, the group they're talking about is Planned Parenthood. The indented copy in your cite clearly says "THEIR largest spending campaign", i.e.. the most PP has ever spent. But your quote says "THE largest spending campaign ever", i.e. the most anyone has ever spent, and that's complete and utter LIES> Planned Parenthood is WAY down the list. For example, Super Pacs in 2012 spent 586,000,000 dollars in the 2012 election cycle. PP's $18 million is small change by comparison.
Further, what they"re taling about is TAX EXEMPT CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS, which don't have to list their donors. With the absurd pressure that's been put on the IRS by political organizations, something that is "charitable" only has to spend 51% of its revenue on "charitable" activities, and the other 49% can, and does, go to overtly political spending. And, yes, a lot of that 51% goes to spending that most reasonable people would think "political" too. Some of the most egregious violators of the spirit of the law are Republicans,(the Koch brothers and Karl Rove spring to mind) but unquestionably some are Democrats too. The proposal that Shumer et al are making seems to be an attempt to make the category of tax-exempt CHARITABLE organizations actually means something by making 90 or 95% of donations actually go to charitable causes, rather than fig-leaf political ones. Ofr course, the uberright is fighting that tooth and nail, because it would mean their fat cats who crave the cloak of anonymous donations would actually be outed and peoplw ould know who is actually trying to influence their vote. And the right hates that very idea.
@Baldimo,
Quote:I'm wondering how many of you remember me going on this little vacation.
I never even saw your posts til a year ago. Did you have another handle?
@MontereyJack,
My question is: Why do you even bother engaging these hacks?
@coldjoint,
Cj: If you can't afford to defend your propaganda, why post it? You answer no questions put to you about things. Such as the IRS scandal, among others.
That's frank, cj, but that's you too. Hypocrisy is so fundamental to so many of you.
The question(again) is:
Do you want this guy in charge of our country?
@panzade,
Nope I have always been Baldimo. I remember bi-Polarbear used to call me baldy the cable guy because of where I used to work.
@coldjoint,
Cj quoted: This is rich coming from Schumer, the guy who was the largest recipient of shady money from convicted Ponzi schemer Bernie Madoff.
----------
What has that got to do with anything? Was this Schumer fella in on the fraud or was he lucky enough to have been near or at the top of the pyramid? What's the difference between Madoff and other Wall Street crooks? Bernie went to jail.
Same quoted ****: Can you say hypocrisy, boys and girls?
Did that really come out of the mouth of a USian?
@panzade,
Someone has to do it, Pan. Not addressing the myriad lies is exactly how the sheeple of the USA got into their delusional state.
My only complaint about MontereyJack is that he uses facts and logic. It would be much better if he took the apisian approach.
@panzade,
My question is why y'all want such a narrow minded determination to determine who can be the usa's top dog. Really, just look at the cretins you have had as prezes.
A child, the reincarnation of all that is good and wise, born outside the USA but comes here at three days old, is excluded? That is major somethingIST, the word if there is one escapes me, but the rank stupidity of such a scenario does not.
Clearly all men are not created equal.
Again, the hypocrisy is endemic!
@panzade,
panzade wrote:
The question(again) is:
Do you want this guy in charge of our country?
What I want....is for this guy to be the Republican candidate for president in 2016!
All the die-hard Republicans are clamoring for candidates who more closely align with their sensibilities...and this guy is spot on in that regard.
That's what I am hoping for.
@coldjoint,
Says Mr Meme generator/Emoticon man.
Just restating the obvious.
Y'all just don't have the foggiest notion of what 'hypocrisy' means. Or you are thick as a brick.
@coldjoint,
Cj: This guy says you Global warmers are full of ****. I think his creditability is above question. And I'm gonna prove it to you as soon as I select the right emoticon.
His credibility aside, his knowledge is clearly not above question. (And another denialist post, by gungasnaKKKe also cites him and an article about another alleged convert to denialism, the eminent planetary physicist James Lovelock, who is totally misinterpreted in the article, who is totally the opposite of denying anthropogenic climate change, and accuses denialists of being religious-cult-like, which is far more accurate a description of who is cult-like).
