• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fox executives Yank Hannity from tea party event

How long has the term "chickenhawk" been in use, and "war for oil" seriously, you lost all credibility when you brought those out.

I never said anything about war for oil. I fought in that war...twice. I can say whatever the **** I want about that war, those who advocate it AND those who oppose it.

Nope, he specifically mentions there is overhead.

Quite a bit from what I understand. Calling it "overhead" and keeping it ambiguous is pretty convenient...

Nope, I heard him speaking about the book, he does not personally take a dime, he pays researchers, editors, and other salaries that went into the book, profits go to charity.

Yeah, HE said.

Listen. I also don't personally like the guy. I think he's jerk that talks down to everyone and chastises every person that even disagrees with him about something minor. He doesn't also strike me as that informed, but just a propogandist that repeats the same crap over and over.

As for chickenhawks...well I hate them nearly as much as Code Pink. Hawks have the stones to advocate for violence that they don't have to be a part of, nor have ever been a part of. That's why I left Ollie North out of the discussion. He can be a hawk; he's earned the right. But Hannity; he's just another arrogant ass.

Now you can add thief and extorter to that list.
 
I never said anything about war for oil. I fought in that war...twice. I can say whatever the **** I want about that war, those who advocate it AND those who oppose it.
You're right, you didn't specifically say "war for oil" it must have been an association based on the rest of the talking points.



Quite a bit from what I understand. Calling it "overhead" and keeping it ambiguous is pretty convenient...
Cut the bull****, no charities release all of their information to the public, and as others who work in charity have stated, the FAF, Ollie North, and Sean Hannity are showing typical numbers.
 
Six pages - too long to read through to find out who blamed all this on the liberals.
 
It's the same model other well respected foundations use. I don't know what your problem is. It is a fund, it has to have reserves, therefore it will pay out a percentage every year, every fund does that.

Uh no. Well respected foundations don't have administrative costs well exceeding service purpose expenditures. Furthermore, well respected foundations often go into the negative and have to use trust corpus. What kind of charity spends $7.1 on administration to $1 in service grants?

No well respected charity on the planet has admin costs exceeding exempted purpose expenditures. That foundation is little more then a tax abusive scam.
 
Uh no. Well respected foundations don't have administrative costs well exceeding service purpose expenditures. Furthermore, well respected foundations often go into the negative and have to use trust corpus. What kind of charity spends $7.1 on administration to $1 in service grants?

No well respected charity on the planet has admin costs exceeding exempted purpose expenditures. That foundation is little more then a tax abusive scam.

So, it's not a stretch to say that Hannity uses the deaths of servicemembers in Iraq and AFG to operate a shady (at best, if not criminal) "charity"?

OK, just like I thought.
 
Bull****. Nice try. Without proof, it's not true.

Quit protecting your God. He steals from good Americans to fatten his pockets on the backs of dead GIs.

Is there anything worse?

Prove he's pocketing any of the money

Prove that he's building in purposeful "ambiguous" expenses so he can funnel money to himself

Prove that all proceeds after expenses have not gone to the charities as has been the prominant and most consistant claim made by Hannity.

Prove any of this.

Quit believing anyone who says something bad about your Devil. Why is Hannity's claims and back up of what its doing any worse than some random ass bloggers statements?

There's been zero legitimate hard evidence that he's pocketed any of this money. There's been zero legitimate evidence of purposefully ambiguous charges to allow him to funnel money. There's been zero legitimate claims that he's unquestionably and completely intimated that it was 100% of every dollar was going to charity rather than 100% of the PROFITS going to charity. There's been zero legitimate claims that the charity is acting wrongly or differnetly than any other upstanding and respectable charity.

You want to bark and bitch about proof, why not provide any of it yourself instead of questionable circumstantial evidence that is about as solid as wet toliet paper.
 
here's been zero legitimate claims that the charity is acting wrongly or differnetly than any other upstanding and respectable charity.

You want to bark and bitch about proof, why not provide any of it yourself instead of questionable circumstantial evidence that is about as solid as wet toliet paper.

Uh ---> http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-po...nts-against-hannity-north-et-al-new-post.html

A charity that donates less then 20% of its revenue is not exactly upstanding. Furthermore, what kind of crackpot charity takes $7.1 in admin to give out $1 in grants?
 
Hannity is a salesman. Nothing more. He is there to convince EVERY human to vote Republican. The guy would sell his wife to Obama if he could become more powerful and influence more people.

What he has done for vets and the like are great. But he has done those things NOT for them but for HIS own agenda.

If the guy dies before me, I wouldnt mind peeing on his grave. :roll:
 
Saun Vannity was yanked away because he was trying to run a fund raiser .. not just broadcast..

It's a good thing - his broadcasts were getting ridiculous and embarrassing.

He'd always have repubs up on his rallies, when there are plenty of dems, independants too in the tea parties. :2razz:

It might be a good idea to yank him if he doesn't tread a more moderate line like O'Reilly and Greta do.
 
Saun Vannity was yanked away because he was trying to run a fund raiser .. not just broadcast..

So? He does that all the time. I wonder exactly how much money really gets to the charities or whatever he's supposedly raising money for.
 
So? He does that all the time. I wonder exactly how much money really gets to the charities or whatever he's supposedly raising money for.

Not much.

I ran a basic computation analysis on Freedom Alliance's 990.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-po...nts-against-hannity-north-et-al-new-post.html

It's pretty embarrassing just how little money actually gets sent out in grants. I'm been doing tax exempted returns this year (in addition to individuals) and I have yet to see anything approaching that level of ridiculousness.

The salary cost alone is insane for how much they give out in exempted purpose grants. And don't even start with the postage.

If I was the IRS, I'd crack down on that "charity."
 
Back
Top Bottom