RE: Another Mass Media Leftist Shamed (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Sanity -> RE: Another Mass Media Leftist Shamed (5/17/2015 8:11:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

The degree to which YOU JUST DON'T GIVE A SHIT (about facts, policies, analysis, and information) is just startling at times. But, I am stupid for being startled, because your posting is as remarkably consistent as is substantively empty.


Whats really amusing here, is that you are projecting yourself onto me. You slither in here, ignore the topic, rant about me then slither away... Repeatedly. Same shit, different day, different thread.

(You are just a troll, trollboy)

Personally, I think that Jr High is above your pay grade

Now, despite you. More on the topic - facts, policies, analysis, and information:

An honest mistake, George? An excerpt of an OP-ED from the author who Stephanopoulos savaged in the infamous interview:

quote:


What ABC News' top anchor has done is far different than the "honest mistake" ABC called it in a statement earlier this week...


More of the very hard hitting OP-ED here

Stephanopoulos had ought to resign, and if he wont ABC should fire him. And Hillary Clinton needs to be jailed




cloudboy -> RE: Another Mass Media Leftist Shamed (5/17/2015 8:42:08 AM)

^^^^ Thanks for proving my point. There's no projection. In this very thread you've made false claims that have been debunked -- and per your style you don't make corrections. To wit: the Clinton Foundation is not a "slush fund."

What does it say about you that you want a Newsman fired for giving money to a charitable organization? Is it a crime for politicians to engage in good works and charities?




Moderator3 -> RE: Another Mass Media Leftist Shamed (5/17/2015 8:46:06 AM)

FAST REPLY:

I think this thread has had its quota of attacks and is crossing over into nothing but see who can best the others/party.

Bring it on home... to the original topic, please.

Thank you




Sanity -> RE: Another Mass Media Leftist Shamed (5/17/2015 8:59:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

^^^^ Thanks for proving my point. There's no projection. In this very thread you've made false claims that have been debunked -- and per your style you don't make corrections. To wit: the Clinton Foundation is not a "slush fund."

What does it say about you that you want a Newsman fired for giving money to a charitable organization? Is it a crime for politicians to engage in good works and charities?


Nothing has been debunked, these things are being hotly contested. Blind partisans on your side had their minds made up before they heard any of the details

Stephanopoulos is not a newsman, he is an exposed hyperpartisan Clinton attack dog masquerading as a "journalist"




bounty44 -> RE: Another Mass Media Leftist Shamed (5/17/2015 9:14:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

^^^^ Thanks for proving my point. There's no projection. In this very thread you've made false claims that have been debunked -- and per your style you don't make corrections. To wit: the Clinton Foundation is not a "slush fund."

What does it say about you that you want a Newsman fired for giving money to a charitable organization? Is it a crime for politicians to engage in good works and charities?


have you not read the thread? or the news on the issue? its not about his giving money to an organization. its about a violation of journalistic ethics in not disclosing it.

for the purpose of the conversation, could you explain how you understand the term "slush fund?"




cloudboy -> RE: Another Mass Media Leftist Shamed (5/17/2015 12:57:13 PM)


A yes, debunked. The Clinton Foundation is not a slush fund by any measure of objective observation. Post a retraction.




BamaD -> RE: Another Mass Media Leftist Shamed (5/17/2015 1:19:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


A yes, debunked. The Clinton Foundation is not a slush fund by any measure of objective observation. Post a retraction.

Other than because you say so? Would you please post the debunking?
Did you ever tell us what you think a slush fund is?




bounty44 -> RE: Another Mass Media Leftist Shamed (5/17/2015 2:26:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


A yes, debunked. The Clinton Foundation is not a slush fund by any measure of objective observation. Post a retraction.


and I still cannot tell from your posting that you really understand the situation with stephanopolous either.




Moderator3 -> RE: Another Mass Media Leftist Shamed (5/17/2015 11:04:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moderator3

FAST REPLY:

I think this thread has had its quota of attacks and is crossing over into nothing but see who can best the others/party.

Bring it on home... to the original topic, please.

Thank you


I have removed post because someone didn't understand that it was time for the attacks to stop. The others quoted or responded.




JVoV -> RE: Another Mass Media Leftist Shamed (5/18/2015 12:46:54 AM)

from Fox News

The author of “Clinton Cash” acknowledged Sunday that his book has no evidence that Hillary Clinton as secretary of state directly influenced huge international deals in exchange for million-dollar contributions to her family foundation but argued the numerous instances deserve an investigation.

The interviews Schweitzer has done have all been the same. George Stephanopoulos handled the matter no differently than any other journalist on any network.

In the roundtable following his interview with Schweitzer, George had Newt Gingrich calling for an investigation. And George himself said that the Clinton campaign would have to answer to the allegations in the book.

And again, George apologized today. This time, for even making the donations, even though he does believe in the causes the foundation champions, because of the slightest appearance of bias in his reporting.

A needless attack on one journalist because of charitable donations does not suddenly bring any truth to the accusations the Clinton Cash book has brought. Or give the author any more credibility.




DaddySatyr -> RE: Another Mass Media Leftist Shamed (5/18/2015 2:28:18 AM)


Since the galleys came out, he's been saying he has no evidence; that he just provided a timeline.

ie; US denies "special status" (or contract or aid or whatever) for country X -----> Country X donates 2 Million dollars to the foundation or, hires Slick Willy to speak (at twice-to-three-times his normal fee) -----> Country X gets desired "status" (or contract or aid or whatever).

The one situation I specifically remember was a company getting a contract to mine in Haiti (I think), a place that doesn't allow much mining. Shortly thereafter, Hillary's brother is hired by the mining company. He has no mining experience.

No one's saying a crime occurred. They're just saying that something seems a little bit like nepotism and since money changed hands ...



Michael




bounty44 -> RE: Another Mass Media Leftist Shamed (5/18/2015 5:09:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

...George Stephanopoulos handled the matter no differently than any other journalist on any network...


ive heard people say he handled it like someone would who got his "Clinton foundation talking points" directly from the Clinton foundation, which is exactly the point.

but if you want to disagree on that point, and say that indeed he did handle the matter like any other journalist would have, then why is there a hubbub over this particular instance? its either because he didn't handle it like anyone else would have, or there is an expectation of journalistic ethics that at least many, if not most, people agree on.

even the author of the book was surprised by the tenor of the interview, and subsequently, stephanopolous' failure to disclose.




Sanity -> RE: Another Mass Media Leftist Shamed (5/18/2015 7:14:58 AM)


Whats is so difficult to grasp here

quote:



What makes his scandal different is that he himself chose to interrogate Peter Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash, the new exposé on the Clinton Foundation. If you watch the interview, it’s pretty obvious that Stephanopoulos is playing prosecuting attorney against Schweizer while also declining to ask key questions, for instance, about Hugh Rodham, Hillary Clinton’s brother and his highly questionable dealings involving the foundation. In an op-ed today in USA Today, Schweizer says he views himself as a victim of “hidden hand journalism” in which his work was undermined without the audience’s knowing the interviewer’s biases.

That is no doubt one reason that Carole Simpson, a former colleague of Stephanopoulos’s at ABC News, decided to drop a bomb on him today on Reliable Sources, CNN’s media-criticism show. “There is a coziness that George cannot escape,” Simpson explained. “While he did try to separate himself from his political background to become a journalist, he really isn’t a journalist. . . . And I am sorry that again the public trust in the media is being challenged and frayed because of the actions of some of the top people in the business.” Simpson also stated the obvious: “While ABC News says it was ‘an honest mistake,’ they don’t feel that way. Secretly, they are hopping mad, I am sure.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/418513/stephanopouloss-long-long-record-loyal-service-clintons-john-fund





mnottertail -> RE: Another Mass Media Leftist Shamed (5/18/2015 9:02:34 AM)

So, when Bozell cranks his shit up, we say fuck you, you catholic charities contributor, or heritage foundation or cato run their propaganda, we say fuck you Koch Bros catamites.

Or weren't you thinking of draping yourself in the flag over the whole spectrum?

Lets face it Schweitzer is a known sloppy propagandist, quick to disingenuousness, and devoid of fact. Pointing that out is hardly anything but reality.




Sanity -> RE: Another Mass Media Leftist Shamed (5/18/2015 11:24:09 AM)


Video - Stephanopoulos himself admits that all of the massive donations to Hillarys foundation is meant to buy influence, and that kind of thing is a huge part of what is wrong in Washington today

Start at around 6:20 for the part leading into the Clinton Foundation discussion





BamaD -> RE: Another Mass Media Leftist Shamed (5/18/2015 11:28:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

from Fox News

The author of “Clinton Cash” acknowledged Sunday that his book has no evidence that Hillary Clinton as secretary of state directly influenced huge international deals in exchange for million-dollar contributions to her family foundation but argued the numerous instances deserve an investigation.

The interviews Schweitzer has done have all been the same. George Stephanopoulos handled the matter no differently than any other journalist on any network.

In the roundtable following his interview with Schweitzer, George had Newt Gingrich calling for an investigation. And George himself said that the Clinton campaign would have to answer to the allegations in the book.

And again, George apologized today. This time, for even making the donations, even though he does believe in the causes the foundation champions, because of the slightest appearance of bias in his reporting.

A needless attack on one journalist because of charitable donations does not suddenly bring any truth to the accusations the Clinton Cash book has brought. Or give the author any more credibility.

He is not being criticized for contributing, but for concealing it.




mnottertail -> RE: Another Mass Media Leftist Shamed (5/18/2015 11:35:34 AM)

Yeah, I dont think he actively concealed it, and I am surprised that the lovers of dark money who are into concealing political organs under the guise of 501(c)(3)s are now into hysteria over a guy who contributes to a charity.

What are Rubio, and all them other clowns charitable contributions, lets check that before we go further.




mnottertail -> RE: Another Mass Media Leftist Shamed (5/18/2015 12:50:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Video - Stephanopoulos himself admits that all of the massive donations to Hillarys foundation is meant to buy influence, and that kind of thing is a huge part of what is wrong in Washington today

Start at around 6:20 for the part leading into the Clinton Foundation discussion




And of course thats not what he said. But we expect lies like that from the goons and thugs shutting down free speech.




Sanity -> RE: Another Mass Media Leftist Shamed (5/19/2015 7:20:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

He is not being criticized for contributing, but for concealing it.


Surreptitiously using his position as the lead anchor on a major television network to guide the outcome of national elections

He is not supposed to be an opinion guy, he is billed as a straight news guy

But its a lie




Lucylastic -> RE: Another Mass Media Leftist Shamed (5/19/2015 7:53:13 AM)

WASHINGTON -- For four months, the Republican Party and its many presidential hopefuls have laid into likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton over donations to a family foundation. That these attacks contradict the GOP's broader stand on campaign finance -- and call into question their own weighty burden of donor conflicts -- hasn't troubled them at all.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) called contributions to the nonprofit Clinton Foundation “thinly veiled bribes.” The nation can’t afford the “drama” represented by those donations, according to Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.). Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina asked Clinton to explain why contributions to the foundation “don’t represent a conflict of interest.” And the Republican National Committee has made the donations a central part of its campaign against Clinton.

In embracing this critique of the Clinton Foundation, Republicans are investing in a view of money in politics that they have otherwise rejected in recent years: that spending money to gain influence over or access to elected or appointed officials represents a conflict of interest or an appearance of corruption or could even lead to outright corruption.


Since 2010, the conservative Supreme Court majority has rejected this argument as a reason to regulate campaign finance in their Citizens United, McCutcheon and Williams-Yulee decisions. Most leading Republican federal officeholders now take the view that spending of any sort on campaigns should not be impeded by legal restrictions as fears of corruption are overblown.

So the critical piling on Clinton Foundation donations creates a problem for Republicans, especially those running for president. If contributions to the foundation, a 501(c)(3) entity not involved in political campaigns, create a valid source of corruption concern, then what are we to make of the hundreds of millions of dollars in undisclosed donations to 501(c)(4) nonprofits that have worked to elect Republicans over the past three elections?

Since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision opened the door for unlimited corporate, union and, ultimately, individual spending on elections, Republicans have maneuvered to use so-called dark money nonprofits to fund large portions of their electoral efforts. Dark money spending on federal races exceeded $400 million in the 2012 presidential election and $200 million in the 2014 midterms with the vast majority of those dollars going to aid Republican candidates, according to previous analysis by The Huffington Post.

Where the Clinton Foundation is concerned, the public knows who the donors are and, thus, the press can report on the mutually beneficial relationship between Bill Clinton and billionaire donor Frank Giustra or point out that a majority of those also lobbied the Hillary Clinton-led State Department or note that both Clintons have been very supportive of the Moroccan government, a foundation donor, as it occupies the disputed territory of Western Sahara.

The public is not privy, however, to the sources of funds fueling a large part of the Republican electoral apparatus and a smaller part of Democratic efforts. Party leaders and wealthy donors have increasingly worked through nonprofits that are not required to disclose their funding sources.

Republicans, including those now running for president, defend dark money groups as a means to protect what they argue is the First Amendment right of donors to engage in political activity without "retaliation." Perhaps, that retaliation would come in the form of stories informing the public about how those donors are seeking to influence public policy.

Just to be clear, the Supreme Court, even amidst its deregulatory frenzy, has said that public disclosure of contributions to campaigns and independent groups is both constitutional and vital to fair elections.

The very limited record on dark money shows that those funding these groups -- just like those funding super PACs, which must identify their donors -- include many high-powered corporate and individual interests with well-connected lobbyists in search of favors. HuffPost reports have found that dark money groups tightly connected to congressional and party leadership, both Democratic and Republican, have received large sums from pharmaceutical, insurance, banking and online payday lenders seeking specific policy changes while retaining lobbyists previously employed by those very leaders.

This year, GOP presidential candidates are copying this model on an individual level, by launching their very own dark money groups to rake in secret contributions.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has his Right to Rise Policy Solutions, which is playing an increasingly important role in his not-yet-declared, super-PAC-centered presidential campaign. Rubio's advisers run the Conservative Policy Solutions group in collaboration with an affiliated super PAC. And potential candidates like former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal are all running around the country fueled by funding from undisclosed nonprofit groups.

Then there is the case of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, currently running another not-yet-announced presidential campaign.

In 2012, Walker faced a recall election after labor unions in his state rebelled over legislation gutting public employee union rights. His recall campaign coordinated with a band of nonprofit political groups, led by the Wisconsin Club for Growth, to promote Walker and his policies in a positive light. Walker aides worked closely with the outside groups, and the governor directly raised undisclosed contributions for the effort.

A bipartisan investigation by district attorneys into Walker’s coordination with those outside groups revealed some of their funding sources, including a $700,000 contribution to the Wisconsin Club for Growth from Gogebic Taconite at the exact time the company was seeking a rewrite of state mining and environmental laws.

John Menard Jr., considered the wealthiest man in Wisconsin, was another big donor to the save-Walker effort. The billionaire owner of the chain store Menards gave $1.5 million to the Wisconsin Club for Growth, according to a report by Yahoo News. During Walker’s term in office, Menard’s company received $1.8 million in tax credits from an economic development corporation led by the governor. He also received help in his battle with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources as Walker defanged the watchdog agency.

Others who gave to the coordinated Walker effort include billionaires Charles and David Koch, Sheldon Adelson, Paul Singer, Bruce Kovner, Donald Trump, Ken Langone and Steven Cohen.

As Hillary Clinton has done with contributions to her family’s foundation, Walker denies any conflict of interest involving donors to his coordinated recall effort. But the full list of contributors is unknown.

The same failure to see their own conflicts applies to candidates elected since the Citizens United decision precipitated the dramatic rise in dark money. Both Paul and Rubio were elected to the Senate in 2010 with $2.3 million and $2.7 million, respectively, in allied spending by groups that do not disclose their donors, including the Karl Rove-founded Crossroads GPS and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Thanks to its bankruptcy filings, it is known that for-profit Corinthian Colleges made contributions to Crossroads GPS. While the dates and amounts of those donations are still hidden, Rubio’s strong support for Corinthian is well-established. In 2014, he pleaded with the Department of Education for leniency for the company as it faced a fraud investigation.

No one doubts that huge sums of dark money will again be spent supporting presidential candidates in the 2016 election. While the public will be able to consider whether the corporations, billionaires and foreign governments that contributed to the Clinton Foundation would hold undue sway over a Clinton White House, they will not even know the identities of those pouring in the secret donations.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/19/clinton-foundation-dark-money_n_7307852.html

The other story of the paranoia by the right.




Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.09375