Cancer charities bilked donors out of $187 million, government says - The Washington Post

The suit claims the group used charitable contributions to pay for trips for their friends and family members to Las Vegas, New York, Disney World, and other locations. The donations also went to vehicles, personal consumer goods, college tuition, gym memberships, Jet Ski outings, dating website subscriptions, luxury cruises, and tickets to concerts and professional sporting events, the government said.

Bill, Hillary and Chelsea raked in almost 2 billion of which about 1.8 billion was funneled into "administrative cost" and the FTC is focusing on this operation? If they could of only kept their greed and thievery to Clintonian levels, they'd be still living large!

Got a source?

Wow, quite the one trick pony . . . are you sure about the choice of user name . . .

Nothing new, CA raided the special license plate 9/11 "We Will Never Forget." some time ago.

California 9/11 license plate fund raided for deficit - CBS News

. . .. . But an Associated Press review of the $15 million collected since lawmakers approved the "California Memorial Scholarship Program" shows only a small fraction of the money went to scholarships. While 40 percent has funded anti-terror training programs, $3 million was raided by Gov. Jerry Brown and his predecessor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, to plug the state's budget deficit.. . .. .

. . .. . For the past decade, the California DMV has said on its website that the money will "fund scholarships for the children of Californians who died in the September 11, 2001, terror attacks and helps California's law enforcement fight threats of terrorism." It advertises the program with the slogan, "Be a patriot."

While the DMV description of the program was not "totally disingenuous," the department should probably remove references to the scholarship program, said Joe DeAnda, a spokesman for the state treasurer's office, which disburses the money.

"It's out of date and it's on DMV to update that," he said.. . ..

Got a search engine?

What's the trick?

X2

Useful info anytime anyone asks for a source or link, wouldn't you say?

Clearly demonstrates he has nothing. And then there are supporters of the proven failure 'go google until you agree'. Hard to have a conversation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by INSIDIOUS Clearly demonstrates he has nothing. And then there are supporters of the proven failure 'go google until you agree'. Hard to have a conversation.

What is the specific basis for your unwillingness to educate yourself? If you have some dispute with something I've posted don't be scared just come out and challenge it. There is a vast number of reports about the Clinton Foundation's financial activities and specifically the ratio of expenses versus actual charity. Do you doubt such articles exist? If you think some fact or figures in my post are incorrect you could simply man up and state what you think they are. Why should other people have to find you enough of some particular information to sooth your butt-hurt?

Here I'll give you a little advice I picked up along the way, I think you'll be hard pressed to honestly disagree with it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by INSIDIOUS My apologies if things are exceeding your intellectual expectations. From the book of Genetics According to Ted: Caucasoids (Science calls this a race) are the Human species. Other things, such as Mongoloids and Negroids are not, and are in fact lessor. Now if a Caucasoid were to interbreed with anything else (despite that science says inter-species breeding cannot occur by definition) the result is sub human. Ted apparently believes blacks and orientals are not human, so it is not a stretch for him to have special feelings for those of mixed races. He doesn't seem to have a grasp of the terminology, but he is indeed a racist, and in fact an ignorant one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst Perhaps you can provide a link to where Ted said what you wrote. I won't hold my breath. Don't you think what he said is repulsive enough without embellishing it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by INSIDIOUS It wasn't claimed to be a quote, it is an analysis of the "logic" of his claim. But feel free to hold your breath

Is that what you believe now? Because it would appear that you've experienced something of an epiphany since earlier in the year! You made an unsupported claim referencing an authoritative source that you subsequently refused to reveal then and you have never revealed since back then. A couple posters attempted to encourage you to put up or ....., but you only revealed a rather ineffective attempt to excuse and explain your way out of the weakness of your position . I've copied and pasted the pertinent parts of the exchange for others who might have been unaware of your past positions against(at least when you are the one being asked!) providing linked information to support your contentions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth Our armies have not done it much that I know of.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI Check the wiki.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst Linkee?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI Give a man a link and he'll find the page, teach a man to Google and he'll waste more time watching cat videos than you can imagine . . .

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst Linkee? Noooo linkee!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst Still no linkee!

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth I did. I found nothing. What did you search to find it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI What search terms did you use?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI During WWII, Allied officers were given direction and discretion not to take prisoners who surrender. Then, of course, there are the rape and sexual assault rate increases in the

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst You wouldn't imply that a few of the hundreds of thousands of men leaving home and facing death might misbehave, would you? And again, no linkee.

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth ...and that would be trying to act superior by being obfuscating?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI . . . is a form of inquiry and discussion between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to illuminate ideas. Chose to engage or not, that's up to you. You seem to state that you cannot find references to the history of the

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth ...don't remember exactly....think I used rape and pillaging of US troops on Wiki as you suggested. And the reason you refused to offer your search method is? If your intended method is to encourage intelligent discussion it does not appear that way....it just seems like obfuscating and trying to appear superior.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI I made the suggested search term, up to you to apply your initiative. One of the effects of the Socratic method is that it is not a one-sided transmission of thought or ideas, it is an exchange. If you feel that my role in it is to be "superior" . . I think my history of posts on these forums should counter that presumed role. There are many other on the forum that want to take that role in their postings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst Lazy people and people who wish to obfuscate could actually claim they are using the socratic method. Really, it could happen. I'm imagining a lawyer arguing case law and telling the judge to look it up himself so that the judge might learn how to do it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI Tell us, what makes you feel that way?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst I just did.

Posts #204 -#238
http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/open-discussion-politics-religion/360973-bowe-bergdahl-deserter-investigation-complete.html

LOL and good bye Was this guy the former JG and maybe Olamadingdong before that?

Too funny, spent all that time cutting & pasting . . . to prove a half-penny point. If that's not a cry for help, I don't know what is.