- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 14,012
- Reaction score
- 3,439
- Location
- Southern Oregon
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Um, are you being sarcastic here?
There are an awful lot of charitable organizations dedicated to fighting AIDS and assisting its victims. Even a cursory search turns up dozens and dozens of them. But I have yet to see the Clinton Foundation show up on a single on of those lists, not even as a distant also ran. . . .
San Francisco AIDS Foundation
Gay Men's Health Crisis (GMHC)
Desert AIDS Project
Cascade AIDS Project
AIDS Project Los Angeles
AIDS Foundation Houston
AIDS Emergency Fund
Elton John AIDS Foundation
Project Inform
Pangaea Global AIDS Foundation
Keep A Child Alive (formerly Children Affected by AIDS Foundation)
mothers2mothers
Global AIDS Interfaith Alliance
Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation
Black AIDS Institute
Bailey House
International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI)
amfAR, The Foundation for AIDS Research
Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center
Top 20 HIV/AIDS Charities of 2013
One or two different ones here:
Top 20 HIV/AIDS Charities of 2014
And others:
https://www.aids.gov/federal-resources/around-the-world/global-hiv-aids-organizations/
Riiiight....
Africa | Catholic Relief Services | Catholic Relief Services
https://my.care.org/site/Donation2?...QSLWmCIRE7WsJhPLOTHqT-oYqkdu_zb7gIaAikX8P8HAQ
Charity Organizations - Aid for Africa
Welcome - HIV/AIDS Charity - African Aid Organization, Inc - AFAID - HIV and AIDS, save the children, sida, HIV/AIDS, hiv/aids news, support, afaid.org. AIDS Charity, Africa, HIV and AIDS prevention, education
HIV - Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Heh. That was good. See? It's just not that hard to be a successful liar in politics and "journalism". These days it's pretty much a requirement on the left, and they've studied exactly what they can get away with, and what they can't. Stuffitupyourass knows he can get away with this, just like Reid knew he could lie with impunity, admit it after the fact and laugh about it. It's all a giant **** You, and what are ya gonna do about it?
But everyone knows that if you care deeply, I'm talking, like, really REALLY deeply about aids like ole' Georgie Boy does, then the Clinton Foundation is the only place you can donate your money. All of those places you guys listed are for suckers:lol:
Anyone that gives ANY money to a political party/candidate is incredibly ignorant/naive politically.
Giving away $75K? That's just plain stupid.
Some of the young, idealistic, whipper snappers here....and their tag alongs, the Progressive dopes, ignore all the Clinton shenanigans over the last 30 years.
Bill and Hillary have devoted their entire lives to pulling the wool over the heads of Americans and fleecing them for all they are worth.
Decades of practice and trial and error on how to do it smoothly, under the radar and get away with it. They are Master, white collar Crooks!
Georgie boy, the Clintons and many so called journalists(I use that term very loosely), will LIE to your face....when ever it suits them to accomplish their nefarious agendas!
And all of them operational long before the Clinton's set up their ...a.....Foundation to funnel money.
Ditto!
Yep!
:lamo
I've been reading in the Washington Post and elsewhere how Obama is a bit frustrated that when he goes to Africa for a 'see-how-concerned-and-caring-I-am-about-you tour', it isn't Carter or Clinton and it certainly isn't Obama that folks there admire, but it is George W. Bush. Bill Clinton toots his horn very loudly and makes grandiose claims about his concern for AIDS on the Clinton Foundation website, but it is President Bush who gets most of the credit for measurable advances made against AIDS. And those people also know that since he left office, George and Laura, with little or no fanfare, have made regular trips to Africa to do hands on work with the people there. That is genuine concern for people with AIDS.
Alternately, even as President Obama has advocated huge outlays in 'stimulus spending' with little to show as results for all that spending, he has slashed a huge percentage of the AIDs funding for Africa. And, by implication, blames that on the Republicans.
Maybe the Clinton's helped him secure his job at ABC, and he owed them something.
That is an issue that Bush gets high marks for. Pity that the partisan left won't give credit where credits due. But then, we see the same in reverse too!
No doubt.
But I would have thought they would rather have him help them on TV (as subtley as possible) rather then give them some money which they do not need.
Maybe they wanted both from him.
Ahhhhhh American politics...where honor goes to die.
President Bush was pretty inept or incompetent in some ways, pretty good in some ways, and I rate him pretty mediocre over all. He absolutely was no conservative as he used big government to address almost every issue or problem. I railed against his environmental, immigration, energy, entitlement, and education policies. He was helpless to stop runaway spending by a self-serving Congress and, like most, I was frustrated at his often ill advised and badly thought out prosecution of the war in Iraq.
But despite all that, I have never wavered in my belief that he was and is a really good guy with all the right motives and with his heart in the right place. So much of his personal efforts to make lives better or more bearable was done intentionally out of the lime light and without media coverage. You don't hear much about Clinton or Obama going out of their way, without intentional publicity, to do anything for anybody. Bush did and does that a lot. And my hat is off to him for that.
But if George Stephanopoulos was concerned bout AIDS, he wouldn't have given that money to the Clintons. It would have given it to the Bushes or one of the many organizations working hands on to fight AIDS. And it really insults my intelligence, and I imagine all of yours, that he thinks we are all too dumb to figure that out.
Ok, but my point was that Bush should be acknowledge for that which he did that's good, by the left, but hard core partisans won't do that, as the hard core partisan right won't do for Obama. Nobody's right all the time, but more importantly, nobody's wrong all the time. For example, the fringe right that loves the fact that the US violated international law and Pakistanis sovereign borders to get OBL, they refuse to give Obama any credit for the mission, minimize and marginalize him on it. Though the "decider" received all the credit from them on "mission accomplished"
I have to say that I don't watch his show, but assumed that when possible he would be helping them that way, no?
But Obama didn't get OBL. The Navy Seals did. Obama gets credit for authorizing the mission, yes. But you can surely see how some don't think it makes him look good to then take credit for getting Bin Laden. Had he given the Seals all the applause and credit, he would have looked really good, and would have been properly acknowledged by both the left and right. He didn't and hasn't done that. And that is primarily the difference between him and a G W Bush. President Bush didn't take personal credit for much of anything. The closest he came to it was with a lot of 'we', but there was very little "I".
But I do acknowledge what you are saying. There are those who would criticize President Obama or President Bush for simply getting out of bed and saying good morning on any given day. Those won't acknowledge that the focus of their criticism ever did anything right.
So are we doing the same to George Stephanopoulus? I don't think so. In this matter the criticism is legitimate and so far as I see from most members, not exaggerated.
Anyone that gives ANY money to a political party/candidate is incredibly ignorant/naive politically.
Giving away $75K? That's just plain stupid.
ABC News chief anchor George Stephanopoulos
ABC News chief anchor George Stephanopoulos got deeper in hot water Thursday with his network, which revised upward to $75,000 the amount of money he contributed to the Clinton Foundation without full disclosure to the network or viewers -- while he was covering Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and foundation controversies.
Guess it slipped his mind. This jerk felt fine interviewing the author of "Clinton Cash", trying to smear and discredit him, as he himself is supporting the Clintons.
No integrity. What a hack.
I tend to agree with you, but having seen his apology on TV last night, I thought he handled it pretty well, admitting his poor judgment on TV.
Hes only pretending to be sorry because he got busted. He is not sorry about being a Clinton sycophant, no one is.
He did not say he was sorry for being a Clinton sycophant, he said he was sorry for not having disclosed his financial ties to the Clinton Foundation to the public or to his employer. Can you see the difference?
This also begs the question, are there any other prominent "journalists" that donate money to a politically affiliated organization? This guy was going to go ahead and moderate a some debates!
I'm confused.
Is donating to the Clinton Foundation the same as donating to Hillary's run for Presidency?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?