Conservatives ripping off conservatives: Want to sell a slightly used bridge or a building lot on the moon, get a list of Republicans and you can make billions. Those suckers will...

Glaucon

Want to sell a slightly used bridge or a building lot on the moon, get a list of Republicans and you can make billions. Those suckers will believe anything.

Conservatives are finally starting to notice that sham activist groups are ripping off Republican donors, after dismissing liberal reports about the s**ms.
Jonah Goldberg, the syndicate columnist and National Review Online blogger, points to a report on Rightwing News, which commissioned a study of 17 big name conservative groups.
Many of those groups have already been identified as sleazy in numerous reports, but the conservative website admits many of those were likely shrugged off by GOP donors and activists.
The problem with the articles that have come out so far is that most of them have come from liberal outlets and have only discussed limited aspects of a few organizations, wrote John Hawkins, of Rightwing News. That naturally led people to wonder if they were reading hit pieces.
The 170-page report showed the vast majority of money spent last year by prominent conservative political action committees was siphoned off to vendors, wasted, and just plain old pocketed by people in these PACs.
Two Super PACs Tea Party Army and Republicans for Immigration Reform gave no money at all to candidates through independent expenditures or direct contributions, the study found.
Eight other groups including The National Draft Ben Carson for President, Tea Party Express, SarahPAC, and Tea Party Patriots gave less than 10 percent of their expenditures to candidates.
The bottom 10 groups surveyed spent more than $54 million last year but contributed slightly more than $3.6 million to Republican candidates.
I doubt the average donor was under the impression that only a nickel out of every dollar he or she gave went to getting tea party friendly candidates elected, Goldberg said, noting that the prominent Tea Party Express gave only 5 percent of its expenditures to GOP candidates.
Goldberg said he got a lot of grief for bringing up the issue recently while filling as host of Bill Bennetts radio show, although Ann Coulter has made similar claims in the past about individual hucksters such as Newt Gingrich and Liz Cheney.
Coulter was more concerned about labor union contributions to the Republican Main Street Partnership than she was the paltry campaign spending.
Only four groups surveyed gave more than half of their expenditures to candidates although researchers noted that one of those groups, American Crossroads, uses so many employees or their surrogates as vendors that its impossible to determine their outside expenditures.

DiverDean

Glaucon wrote:

Want to sell a slightly used bridge or a building lot on the moon, get a list of Republicans and you can make billions. Those suckers will believe anything.

Conservatives are finally starting to notice that sham activist groups are ripping off Republican donors, after dismissing liberal reports about the s**ms.
Jonah Goldberg, the syndicate columnist and National Review Online blogger, points to a report on Rightwing News, which commissioned a study of 17 big name conservative groups.
Many of those groups have already been identified as sleazy in numerous reports, but the conservative website admits many of those were likely shrugged off by GOP donors and activists.
The problem with the articles that have come out so far is that most of them have come from liberal outlets and have only discussed limited aspects of a few organizations, wrote John Hawkins, of Rightwing News. That naturally led people to wonder if they were reading hit pieces.
The 170-page report showed the vast majority of money spent last year by prominent conservative political action committees was siphoned off to vendors, wasted, and just plain old pocketed by people in these PACs.
Two Super PACs Tea Party Army and Republicans for Immigration Reform gave no money at all to candidates through independent expenditures or direct contributions, the study found.
Eight other groups including The National Draft Ben Carson for President, Tea Party Express, SarahPAC, and Tea Party Patriots gave less than 10 percent of their expenditures to candidates.
The bottom 10 groups surveyed spent more than $54 million last year but contributed slightly more than $3.6 million to Republican candidates.
I doubt the average donor was under the impression that only a nickel out of every dollar he or she gave went to getting tea party friendly candidates elected, Goldberg said, noting that the prominent Tea Party Express gave only 5 percent of its expenditures to GOP candidates.
Goldberg said he got a lot of grief for bringing up the issue recently while filling as host of Bill Bennetts radio show, although Ann Coulter has made similar claims in the past about individual hucksters such as Newt Gingrich and Liz Cheney.
Coulter was more concerned about labor union contributions to the Republican Main Street Partnership than she was the paltry campaign spending.
Only four groups surveyed gave more than half of their expenditures to candidates although researchers noted that one of those groups, American Crossroads, uses so many employees or their surrogates as vendors that its impossible to determine their outside expenditures.

Want to sell a slightly used bridge or a building ... (show quote)

Tha'ts why politicians are known to be one the shady side. Why else do they spend so much money, to get elected, for jobs that do not pay a fraction of what is spent. Power & Greed.

Obama spends more time campaigning, than he does doing the nations business, (Maybe that a Good Thing!)

DiverDean

Glaucon wrote:

Want to sell a slightly used bridge or a building lot on the moon, get a list of Republicans and you can make billions. Those suckers will believe anything.

Conservatives are finally starting to notice that sham activist groups are ripping off Republican donors, after dismissing liberal reports about the s**ms.
Jonah Goldberg, the syndicate columnist and National Review Online blogger, points to a report on Rightwing News, which commissioned a study of 17 big name conservative groups.
Many of those groups have already been identified as sleazy in numerous reports, but the conservative website admits many of those were likely shrugged off by GOP donors and activists.
The problem with the articles that have come out so far is that most of them have come from liberal outlets and have only discussed limited aspects of a few organizations, wrote John Hawkins, of Rightwing News. That naturally led people to wonder if they were reading hit pieces.
The 170-page report showed the vast majority of money spent last year by prominent conservative political action committees was siphoned off to vendors, wasted, and just plain old pocketed by people in these PACs.
Two Super PACs Tea Party Army and Republicans for Immigration Reform gave no money at all to candidates through independent expenditures or direct contributions, the study found.
Eight other groups including The National Draft Ben Carson for President, Tea Party Express, SarahPAC, and Tea Party Patriots gave less than 10 percent of their expenditures to candidates.
The bottom 10 groups surveyed spent more than $54 million last year but contributed slightly more than $3.6 million to Republican candidates.
I doubt the average donor was under the impression that only a nickel out of every dollar he or she gave went to getting tea party friendly candidates elected, Goldberg said, noting that the prominent Tea Party Express gave only 5 percent of its expenditures to GOP candidates.
Goldberg said he got a lot of grief for bringing up the issue recently while filling as host of Bill Bennetts radio show, although Ann Coulter has made similar claims in the past about individual hucksters such as Newt Gingrich and Liz Cheney.
Coulter was more concerned about labor union contributions to the Republican Main Street Partnership than she was the paltry campaign spending.
Only four groups surveyed gave more than half of their expenditures to candidates although researchers noted that one of those groups, American Crossroads, uses so many employees or their surrogates as vendors that its impossible to determine their outside expenditures.

Want to sell a slightly used bridge or a building ... (show quote)

Tha'ts why politicians are known to be one the shady side. Why else do they spend so much money, to get elected, for jobs that do not pay a fraction of what is spent. Power & Greed.

Obama spends more time campaigning, than he does doing the nations business, (Maybe that a Good Thing!)

America Only Loc: From the right hand of God

Honestly, is there really anything that is larger in size and that has as much as a destructive conclusion that what Obama has and will do to this Nation? Nope!

mtman2

Glaucon wrote:

Want to sell a slightly used bridge or a building lot on the moon, get a list of Republicans and you can make billions. Those suckers will believe anything.

Conservatives are finally starting to notice that sham activist groups are ripping off Republican donors, after dismissing liberal reports about the s**ms.
Jonah Goldberg, the syndicate columnist and National Review Online blogger, points to a report on Rightwing News, which commissioned a study of 17 big name conservative groups.
Many of those groups have already been identified as sleazy in numerous reports, but the conservative website admits many of those were likely shrugged off by GOP donors and activists.
The problem with the articles that have come out so far is that most of them have come from liberal outlets and have only discussed limited aspects of a few organizations, wrote John Hawkins, of Rightwing News. That naturally led people to wonder if they were reading hit pieces.
The 170-page report showed the vast majority of money spent last year by prominent conservative political action committees was siphoned off to vendors, wasted, and just plain old pocketed by people in these PACs.
Two Super PACs Tea Party Army and Republicans for Immigration Reform gave no money at all to candidates through independent expenditures or direct contributions, the study found.
Eight other groups including The National Draft Ben Carson for President, Tea Party Express, SarahPAC, and Tea Party Patriots gave less than 10 percent of their expenditures to candidates.
The bottom 10 groups surveyed spent more than $54 million last year but contributed slightly more than $3.6 million to Republican candidates.
I doubt the average donor was under the impression that only a nickel out of every dollar he or she gave went to getting tea party friendly candidates elected, Goldberg said, noting that the prominent Tea Party Express gave only 5 percent of its expenditures to GOP candidates.
Goldberg said he got a lot of grief for bringing up the issue recently while filling as host of Bill Bennetts radio show, although Ann Coulter has made similar claims in the past about individual hucksters such as Newt Gingrich and Liz Cheney.
Coulter was more concerned about labor union contributions to the Republican Main Street Partnership than she was the paltry campaign spending.
Only four groups surveyed gave more than half of their expenditures to candidates although researchers noted that one of those groups, American Crossroads, uses so many employees or their surrogates as vendors that its impossible to determine their outside expenditures.

Want to sell a slightly used bridge or a building ... (show quote)

I have been concerned about exactly were OUR $'s were going ~!

Loki Loc: Georgia

DiverDean wrote:

Tha'ts why politicians are known to be one the shady side. Why else do they spend so much money, to get elected, for jobs that do not pay a fraction of what is spent. Power & Greed.

Obama spends more time campaigning, than he does doing the nations business, (Maybe that a Good Thing!)

If you wish to donate to a candidate or a cause, Google their contact information and ask them how to donate. Most people dont read the fine print at the bottom of the funding ads which say something like "not affiliated with candidate," etc.
Democratic beggars are just as guilty.

Glaucon

DiverDean wrote:

Tha'ts why politicians are known to be one the shady side. Why else do they spend so much money, to get elected, for jobs that do not pay a fraction of what is spent. Power & Greed.

Obama spends more time campaigning, than he does doing the nations business, (Maybe that a Good Thing!)

It must be a good thing for someone. All of the white presidents have spent as much time or more campaigning. Why do you thing this president is being criticized so much for doing what all other presidents have don't? Clue: you can find the answer by looking at him.

Loki Loc: Georgia

Glaucon wrote:

It must be a good thing for someone. All of the white presidents have spent as much time or more campaigning. Why do you thing this president is being criticized so much for doing what all other presidents have don't? Clue: you can find the answer by looking at him.

Have you proofread yourself lately, Doc?

It must be a good thing for someone. All of the white presidents have spent as much time or more campaigning. Why do you thing this president is being criticized so much for doing what all other presidents have don't?

For shame.
You still haven't answered my questions. In which state[s] are you licensed to practice, and where did you receive your degree? You solicited me as a patient publicly, so I believe you are required to reveal this information. Ever hear of fraud?

Glaucon

[quote=Loki]Have you proofread yourself lately, Doc?

It must be a good thing for someone. All of the white presidents have spent as much time or more campaigning. Why do you thing this president is being criticized so much for doing what all other presidents have don't?

For shame.
You still haven't answered my questions. In which state[s] are you licensed to practice, and where did you receive your degree? You solicited me as a patient publicly, so I believe you are required to reveal this information. Ever hear of fraud?[/quote]

RESPONSE:
You are a very angry little fellow and, as usual, you have some misinformation and you have your intense h**e. Together, they make for some muddled, rambling gibberish.

I see no reason to submit my credentials for your approval. What possible difference could my qualifications make and why are you so obsessed with me? Actually, I am concerned with your intense obsession with me. I understand your envy and I understand your fear that I might reveal your secret nasty mental issues. You lack knowledge of the law is even more than you lack knowledge of politics and most of all, knowledge of yourself.

Glaucon

America Only wrote:

Honestly, is there really anything that is larger in size and that has as much as a destructive conclusion that what Obama has and will do to this Nation? Nope!

Your obsession, your h**e, and your bigotry are noted once again. How many times do you have to spew that stuff before your lynching urge subsides?

Loki Loc: Georgia

Glaucon wrote:

RESPONSE: br You are a very angry little fellow a... (show quote)

In other words, you are a fraud and a liar.

donald43

Which half are you referring to, Glaucon? His white half or his Arab half?

Loki Loc: Georgia

Glaucon wrote:

RESPONSE: br You are a very angry little fellow a... (show quote)

You are attempting to pass yourself off as a licensed medical professional, and you ask what possible difference your credentials, (or in your case, your lack of them ) could make. ARE YOU SERIOUS?
I would be concerned with any charlatan who attempts to portray themselves as a "mental health professional," while comporting themselves in public in a manner more befitting a spoiled ten-year old.
You have some serious issues, amigo. You need help. Do you actually think anyone here believes your pretensions? Do you realize there are penalties for impersonating a health professional and offering professional services, even in jest, to "treat" someone?

How about it, OPP posters? Does anyone besides me doubt Glaucon's bona fides? Speak up! He has repeatedly claimed status as both a "psychologist" and a "mental health professional." Would you like some proof, gentle readers?

Glaucon

Loki wrote:

In other words, you are a fraud and a liar.

You are avoiding my comment and my questions.

Glaucon

Loki wrote:

You are attempting to pass yourself off as a licen... (show quote)

You just can't let go of that nonsense. I asked you why my credentials are such an obsession with you and you have not answered, on more obsession.