Yeah - that exploitation is going around.
Yeah, because those were the only two countries he hedged against.:roll:
Already been proven false. Most of the money is in a trust, with a smaller immediate payout, minus operating expenses. Sorry, but that's the way all charitable scholarship endowments work.
cunningham is just as full of it as hannity.
He's loud and obnoxious that's for sure. No wonder he's a former Democrat.:2razz:
i had the misfortune awhile back of stumbling across his radio program...the man literally worships at the altar of hannity and limbaugh.
Rush is entertaining, and he overall knows what he's talking about, that being said he has an intelligent audience profile. Hannity's big problem is that he uses crutches, like too many catchphrases that he defaults to whenever he should be engaging, he sounds robotic. Cunningham is just plain obnoxious and unoriginal.
It's been covered already. People who work for not for profits have already explained it. It's a non-issue.
I can see that. Radio personalities get misunderstood easily because you have to juice things up a little and play to your audience.
i'll give you that limbaugh can be entertaining.....hannity used to be tolerable, but over the last few years, he just seems to have become smug and full of himself.
He's the same guy, but his crutches are what make it seem that way. If I didn't go to school for broadcasting or hold a part time radio gig I would think the same way. When he goes into that "I'm a Reagan conservative........." spiel over and over every three hour period it gets old, I'm a Goldwater/Reagan conservative myself, but I don't think I have to announce it constantly.....I would think it's obvious.
It's all over this thread:
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.
Talking points much? How about analyzing the situation instead of recycling long overused garbage rhetoric.
It's not hard to predict getting called out for recycling talking points when you recycle talking points.
How long has the term "chickenhawk" been in use, and "war for oil" seriously, you lost all credibility when you brought those out.
Nope, he specifically mentions there is overhead.
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.