Random Politics & Religion #00
Random Politics & Religion #00
Yes, everyone here is conspiring with the Clinton Foundation to deflect criticism on an obscure gaming sub-forum. Jig's up, guys. He's on to us.
[+]
It took me a while to put that post together, but fyi, the operation doesn't start until July, and the National Guard won't be doing anything. And once again, the Clintons can operate their business however they want. There remains no evidence of any wrongdoing, as as many questions ask you want, it really doesn't matter.
Its also pretty hard to be a liberal headline when Fox News is the only site making it a story.
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
Yes, everyone here is conspiring with the Clinton Foundation to deflect criticism on an obscure gaming sub-forum. Jig's up, guys. He's on to us.
[+]
Odin.Jassik said: »
I like how you keep bringing up Infowars.com, like anyone besides Lordgrim has ever cited them as a source for anything, let alone any of the left of far-right posters.
ftfy
Let's not bring up people by name when they are topicbanned from the thread, please.
I'm far too lazy to backread.
Shiva.Viciousss said: »
And once again, the Clintons can operate their business however they want.
As long as it's within the legal bounds of what a charity is allowed to do, then sure. That doesn't mean it's above criticism, and operating a charity that resembles a slush fund certainly isn't going to win Hillary any extra favor in her already rocky presidential bid.
[+]
Shiva.Viciousss said: »
Who is topicbanned?
[+]
Also a charity is not a business.
[+]
*** American politics, UK General Election today baby!
[+]
Odin.Jassik said: »
I like how you keep bringing up Infowars.com, like anyone besides Lordgrim has ever cited them as a source for anything, let alone any of the left of moderate posters.
Shiva.Viciousss said: »
Fictionalized map in question, straight from infowars:
inb4 "satire" "rhetorical question" or "that's not what I said" deflection excuses that generally come up when I prove you wrong.
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
Yes, everyone here is conspiring with the Clinton Foundation to deflect criticism on an obscure gaming sub-forum. Jig's up, guys. He's on to us.
But hey, according to the law, if there are errors to the 990 found, they have 180 days to correct such mistakes or have their nonprofit status revoked.
Except these mistakes were found almost a year ago, and they still have their 501(c)(3) status. Heck, one can argue that this "charity" is being operated under the benefit of private interests, which is also illegal to do.
But since this is the Clinton's little baby, I guess there is no harm in it, right?
Also, I noticed how nobody is defending the items I pointed out last page about various practices shown on their audited financial statements and 990 raises questions. I'm sure that if it was a Bush-led charity, you would have demanded their status revoked and the Bush's penalized by now.
Also that should be her campaign slogan.
[+]
Such a noble charity.
Clinton Foundation event in Morocco bankrolled by controversial mining firm
Quote:
Former President Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation’s Global Initiative are being hosted this week at a five-star luxury hotel in Morocco by one of the world’s most controversial mining companies, criticized for “serious human rights violations” by the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice.
The Moroccan government-owned mining company OCP operates in disputed international territory in a remote part of the Sahara Desert, and the firm has been criticized for removing the resources without adequately compensating the impoverished people who live there.
“Anytime the human rights of a population are systematically suppressed in this way, it’s a serious concern, and I think it’s worthy of attention,” said David McKean, who has studied the issue for the RFK center.
OCP is paying $1 million to help host the prestigious event and throw a private cocktail reception, to the dismay of human rights activists.
The Moroccan government-owned mining company OCP operates in disputed international territory in a remote part of the Sahara Desert, and the firm has been criticized for removing the resources without adequately compensating the impoverished people who live there.
“Anytime the human rights of a population are systematically suppressed in this way, it’s a serious concern, and I think it’s worthy of attention,” said David McKean, who has studied the issue for the RFK center.
OCP is paying $1 million to help host the prestigious event and throw a private cocktail reception, to the dismay of human rights activists.
[+]
Leviathan.Chaosx said: »
Also that should be her campaign slogan.
Should be every politicians' slogan.
Followed by a "we're *** either way!"
[+]
Leviathan.Chaosx said: »
Also a charity is not a business.
It is in America!
Ramyrez said: »
Should be every politicians' slogan.
Followed by a "we're *** either way!"
Followed by a "we're *** either way!"
[+]
If for some reason you get a Rand Paul v. Bernie Sanders race, there may be a tiny shred of hope.
Sure, whatever.
Some charities may have operating structures like a business, but it's not a business. It is a cross between a business and the federal government, where the overriding goal is to increase revenue (grants/gifts/so on) but not decrease expenses (like having adequate internal controls, negotiate services, actually care where the money goes). Nonprofits are not there to make money and to hold money for investment, they are there to transfer money from people to whatever cause they support.
I'm still wondering where the $62 million in salaries goes, where most of their workers are volunteers and unpaid internships.
Some charities may have operating structures like a business, but it's not a business. It is a cross between a business and the federal government, where the overriding goal is to increase revenue (grants/gifts/so on) but not decrease expenses (like having adequate internal controls, negotiate services, actually care where the money goes). Nonprofits are not there to make money and to hold money for investment, they are there to transfer money from people to whatever cause they support.
I'm still wondering where the $62 million in salaries goes, where most of their workers are volunteers and unpaid internships.
Leviathan.Chaosx said: »
If for some reason you get a Rand Paul v. Bernie Sanders race, there may be a tiny shred of hope.
Eh. Emphasis on "may", but either way it won't happen. I'd like to see it happen, but it won't happen. Unless Hilldawg super implodes and doesn't get the primary nod. But I don't think Sanders has it in him for the GE. He's certainly got his ducks in a row for what he's about and might give a better fight than many would expect, but there are just too many people who will take one look at him, go "socialist!" and vote for literally anyone else, and he doesn't have the "excitement" factor to get otherwise non-voting folks to the polls (being a minority, a woman, sympathy votes for being mentally challenged (see Bush II)).
How do you say this:
But then follow it up with this:
Ultimately, however, I was largely just making a quick joke, as we've discussed this before and noted than many charities are on the up-and-up. Though on your salaries note, it is interesting to see groups like Goodwill Industries pay their higher-ups hefty amounts whilst subsequently exploiting "charity employment" and paying disabled workers less than minimum wage.
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Sure, whatever.
Some charities may have operating structures like a business, but it's not a business. It is a cross between a business and the federal government, where the overriding goal is to increase revenue (grants/gifts/so on) but not decrease expenses (like having adequate internal controls, negotiate services, actually care where the money goes). Nonprofits are not there to make money and to hold money for investment, they are there to transfer money from people to whatever cause they support.
Some charities may have operating structures like a business, but it's not a business. It is a cross between a business and the federal government, where the overriding goal is to increase revenue (grants/gifts/so on) but not decrease expenses (like having adequate internal controls, negotiate services, actually care where the money goes). Nonprofits are not there to make money and to hold money for investment, they are there to transfer money from people to whatever cause they support.
But then follow it up with this:
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
I'm still wondering where the $62 million in salaries goes, where most of their workers are volunteers and unpaid internships.
Ultimately, however, I was largely just making a quick joke, as we've discussed this before and noted than many charities are on the up-and-up. Though on your salaries note, it is interesting to see groups like Goodwill Industries pay their higher-ups hefty amounts whilst subsequently exploiting "charity employment" and paying disabled workers less than minimum wage.
Ramyrez said: »
How do you say this:
But then follow it up with this:
Ultimately, however, I was largely just making a quick joke, as we've discussed this before and noted than many charities are on the up-and-up. Though on your salaries note, it is interesting to see groups like Goodwill Industries pay their higher-ups hefty amounts whilst subsequently exploiting "charity employment" and paying disabled workers less than minimum wage.
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Sure, whatever.
Some charities may have operating structures like a business, but it's not a business. It is a cross between a business and the federal government, where the overriding goal is to increase revenue (grants/gifts/so on) but not decrease expenses (like having adequate internal controls, negotiate services, actually care where the money goes). Nonprofits are not there to make money and to hold money for investment, they are there to transfer money from people to whatever cause they support.
Some charities may have operating structures like a business, but it's not a business. It is a cross between a business and the federal government, where the overriding goal is to increase revenue (grants/gifts/so on) but not decrease expenses (like having adequate internal controls, negotiate services, actually care where the money goes). Nonprofits are not there to make money and to hold money for investment, they are there to transfer money from people to whatever cause they support.
But then follow it up with this:
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
I'm still wondering where the $62 million in salaries goes, where most of their workers are volunteers and unpaid internships.
Ultimately, however, I was largely just making a quick joke, as we've discussed this before and noted than many charities are on the up-and-up. Though on your salaries note, it is interesting to see groups like Goodwill Industries pay their higher-ups hefty amounts whilst subsequently exploiting "charity employment" and paying disabled workers less than minimum wage.
While they may do "some" good things, this charity smells more like a money laundering scheme.
On Goodwill, I don't see how you would think that their executives are being paid a "hefty salary" where other companies the size of this charity averages at least 20 times more for an international firm. Or are you going to say that for the amount of work the CEO of Goodwill puts in, $533k is too much?
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Or are you going to say that for the amount of work the CEO of Goodwill puts in, $533k is too much?
Compared to what "others in his position" make?
No.
Do they all make too much in comparison to the average American for the amount of work they do?
Hell yes.
And I'll leave it at that, as we firmly disagree on this topic and that's not changing. And my feelings ultimately don't matter in the slightest, admittedly, as I can't change a damn thing.
Ramyrez said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Or are you going to say that for the amount of work the CEO of Goodwill puts in, $533k is too much?
Compared to what "others in his position" make?
No.
Do they all make too much in comparison to the average American for the amount of work they do?
Hell yes.
And I'll leave it at that, as we firmly disagree on this topic and that's not changing. And my feelings ultimately don't matter in the slightest, admittedly, as I can't change a damn thing.
Let me ask you this then: Do you think Obama works hard?
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Seriously, do you think that all a CEO does is play golf and attend cocktail parties?
Not at all, they put in a great deal of work.
Look, what I'm talking about is on a fundamental level where we're talking about things "in theory" and I readily admit that they're ideals not really achievable in any realistic sense. So let it go, okay? Just being a dreamer. The difference between me and the hippies is I realize and accept that, and keep going to work every day because the lights gotta stay on. Nothing in my lifetime is going to change, though I do hope some day the human race gets there.
I just know I'll be fertilizer one way or another by that time. ^^;
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Let me ask you this then: Do you think Obama works hard?
Harder than most politicians, in that he's one of the most-watched people in the world and has to do his part of the process and all the responsibilities that go along with that. Most senators can go to a super market in jeans and a t-shirt and not even get recognized.
In comparison to your average white collar worker? Ehhhh. Probably not.
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.