Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Markle and his rhetorical questions

+2
2seaoat
boards of FL
6 posters

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

boards of FL

boards of FL

Markle wrote:Cute, if not feeble attempt, to divert attention from the Clinton Foundation.

What percentage of their collections go to actual charities?  Careful now, turns out it is not what they are saying.

How much does Hillary Clinton plan to spend in her effort to buy the Oval Office?


OK, Markle.  I just did some googling.  


80% of Clinton Foundation collections are spent on charitable work.

Source: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/29/rush-limbaugh/rush-limbaugh-says-clinton-foundation-spends-just-/


I still have absolutely no idea how much Hilary plans to spend on the upcoming election, though I did find this:

As POLITICO reported last month, the former secretary of state plans a quick tour of at least two battleground states, Iowa and New Hampshire, before settling into her new campaign headquarters in Brooklyn to begin the months-long work of setting up a field operation, communications shop and fundraising apparatus for a campaign that many close to Clinton estimate will raise and spend $1.5-to-$2 billion.

Source: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/hillary-clinton-2016-election-launch-sunday-116843.html



So there we have it, Markle.  Now that I have answered your questions, what is your point?


_________________
I approve this message.

2seaoat



Mistakes in comprehension can be excused.....but lying.....nothing honorable about that conduct.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Bumping for Markle.


_________________
I approve this message.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Markle and his rhetorical questions Sdyikc5vNyKEU


_________________
I approve this message.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Markle and his rhetorical questions SVW0HIeEQ77KU


_________________
I approve this message.

Markle

Markle

2seaoat wrote:Mistakes in comprehension can be excused.....but lying.....nothing honorable about that conduct.

From our misinformed good friend BoardsofFL own source.  Which, as you know is questionable at best.  PolitoFact or whatever it is called, is owned and operated by the far left Tampa Bay Times.  Same editors, same writers.

Here is what appeared in BoardsofFL source:

There’s a grain of truth here -- roughly 85 percent of the foundation’s spending was for items other than charitable grants to other organizations, and a large chunk of this 85 percent did go to Clinton Foundation staff for travel, salaries and benefits.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/29/rush-limbaugh/rush-limbaugh-says-clinton-foundation-spends-just-/

Come on, even far left Progressives would expect nothing more from the Clintons than ANOTHER SCANDAL.

Thank you BoardofFL for being so helpful in supporting me and making a fool out of the Clintons...again.



Last edited by Markle on 5/1/2015, 4:09 pm; edited 1 time in total

boards of FL

boards of FL

Markle wrote:
2seaoat wrote:Mistakes in comprehension can be excused.....but lying.....nothing honorable about that conduct.

From our misinformed good friend BoardsofFL own source.  Which, as you know is questionable at best.  PolitoFact or whatever it is called, is owned and operated by the far left Tampa Bay Times.  Same editors, same writers.

Here is what appeared in BoardsofFL source:

There’s a grain of truth here -- roughly 85 percent of the foundation’s spending was for items other than charitable grants to other organizations, and a large chunk of this 85 percent did go to Clinton Foundation staff for travel, salaries and benefits.



Here is the very next sentence that follows the passage that Markle posted. This phrase gets overused, but you really can't make this up:


The claim contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, so we rate it Mostly False.



Here is why the 15% figure that Markle cites is mostly false:

As we noted earlier, many foundations carry out charitable works by giving money to other organizations that, in turn, do the ground-level charity work, whereas the Clinton foundation’s charitable works are mostly done by people on the foundation’s payroll. "We are an implementing organization rather than a grantmaking organization," said the foundation’s Minassian. That’s why the Clinton Foundation’s 990s show a relatively small amount of money categorized as "grants" -- only about 10 percent of all expenses in 2013.


Here is the correct amount that the Clinton Foundation spends on charitable activities:

The correct number for the Clinton Foundation alone -- which owned the account the tweet was sent from -- was just over 80 percent in 2013, not 88 percent.


Do you have a response to this, Markle, or are you going to run away as usual?


_________________
I approve this message.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

It looks like Boards just blew away Markle's PROPAGANDA again...

Great job, Boards!!

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

2seaoat



It gets old. It is sophomoric. Mr. Markle is not a spring chicken and should be embarrassed by his conduct. Shameful.

Markle

Markle

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:It looks like Boards just blew away Markle's PROPAGANDA again...

Great job, Boards!!

Living with those butterflies and unicorns again I see. Especially even when their own sources support my facts.

Keep up the good work guys.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

Markle wrote:
ZVUGKTUBM wrote:It looks like Boards just blew away Markle's PROPAGANDA again...

Great job, Boards!!

Living with those butterflies and unicorns again I see.  Especially even when their own sources support my facts.

Keep up the good work guys.

You can stop congratulating yourself now. Once again, you look like a fool.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Markle wrote:
ZVUGKTUBM wrote:It looks like Boards just blew away Markle's PROPAGANDA again...

Great job, Boards!!

Living with those butterflies and unicorns again I see.  Especially even when their own sources support my facts.

Keep up the good work guys.


So...no response? You're going to simply pretend as if you can't see what I'm actually posting here?


_________________
I approve this message.

Markle

Markle

boards of FL wrote:
Markle wrote:
ZVUGKTUBM wrote:It looks like Boards just blew away Markle's PROPAGANDA again...

Great job, Boards!!

Living with those butterflies and unicorns again I see.  Especially even when their own sources support my facts.

Keep up the good work guys.


So...no response?  You're going to simply pretend as if you can't see what I'm actually posting here?  

From YOUR source, once again.

There’s a grain of truth here -- roughly 85 percent of the foundation’s spending was for items other than charitable grants to other organizations, and a large chunk of this 85 percent did go to Clinton Foundation staff for travel, salaries and benefits. [/quote]

Even you have to see the humor. "There's a grain of truth here"? Grain?

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

The very best word to describe Semi-Sane "I know "NOSSING" Markle:

Harmless

Markle

Markle

Wordslinger wrote:The very best word to describe Semi-Sane "I know "NOSSING" Markle:

Harmless

Since you have been proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, to be a disgraceful liar on this forum, your post is most welcome!

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

Markle wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:The very best word to describe Semi-Sane "I know "NOSSING" Markle:

Harmless

Since you have been proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, to be a disgraceful liar on this forum, your post is most welcome!

And hot is cold, and up is down, and wet is dry ... lol

boards of FL

boards of FL

Markle wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
Markle wrote:
ZVUGKTUBM wrote:It looks like Boards just blew away Markle's PROPAGANDA again...

Great job, Boards!!

Living with those butterflies and unicorns again I see.  Especially even when their own sources support my facts.

Keep up the good work guys.


So...no response?  You're going to simply pretend as if you can't see what I'm actually posting here?  

From YOUR source, once again.

There’s a grain of truth here -- roughly 85 percent of the foundation’s spending was for items other than charitable grants to other organizations, and a large chunk of this 85 percent did go to Clinton Foundation staff for travel, salaries and benefits.

Even you have to see the humor.  "There's a grain of truth here"?  Grain?



Markle, I just pointed out to you that in the very next sentence that follows the passage that you quoted above, PolitiFact states that your claim is "Mostly False".   I also gave you the reasoning behind why your claim is "Mostly False".   Are you going to muster a response to that, or has your incompetence rendered you unable to do anything but either 1) run away or 2) pretend that you can't see what I am typing here?  I mean, you realize that everyone can read this thread, right?  

Here is my response to your quote one more time, Markle, just in case you somehow missed it:


boards of FL wrote:
Markle wrote:
2seaoat wrote:Mistakes in comprehension can be excused.....but lying.....nothing honorable about that conduct.

From our misinformed good friend BoardsofFL own source.  Which, as you know is questionable at best.  PolitoFact or whatever it is called, is owned and operated by the far left Tampa Bay Times.  Same editors, same writers.

Here is what appeared in BoardsofFL source:

There’s a grain of truth here -- roughly 85 percent of the foundation’s spending was for items other than charitable grants to other organizations, and a large chunk of this 85 percent did go to Clinton Foundation staff for travel, salaries and benefits.



Here is the very next sentence that follows the passage that Markle posted.  This phrase gets overused, but you really can't make this up:


The claim contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, so we rate it Mostly False.



Here is why the 15% figure that Markle cites is mostly false:

As we noted earlier, many foundations carry out charitable works by giving money to other organizations that, in turn, do the ground-level charity work, whereas the Clinton foundation’s charitable works are mostly done by people on the foundation’s payroll. "We are an implementing organization rather than a grantmaking organization," said the foundation’s Minassian. That’s why the Clinton Foundation’s 990s show a relatively small amount of money categorized as "grants" -- only about 10 percent of all expenses in 2013.


Here is the correct amount that the Clinton Foundation spends on charitable activities:

The correct number for the Clinton Foundation alone -- which owned the account the tweet was sent from -- was just over 80 percent in 2013, not 88 percent.


Do you have a response to this, Markle, or are you going to run away as usual?



Do you have anything to say in response to that, Markle?  


_________________
I approve this message.

Markle

Markle

Wordslinger wrote:
Markle wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:The very best word to describe Semi-Sane "I know "NOSSING" Markle:

Harmless

Since you have been proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, to be a disgraceful liar on this forum, your post is most welcome!

And hot is cold, and up is down, and wet is dry ... lol

You've learned well from your hallowed instructors, Bill and Hillary Clinton! Keep up the good work!

boards of FL

boards of FL

So you're going to pretend that you can't see my posts?

A new low for our resident copy-and-paster!


_________________
I approve this message.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum