Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 22, 2015, 11:12:42 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
86226 Posts in 2275 Topics by 1068 Members
Latest Member: cdenny
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Recent Posts
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10

 11 
 on: May 21, 2015, 11:56:20 AM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog
"According to French initiative, if sides fail to reach agreement by deadline, Paris will officially recognize Palestine"

What kind of an initiative is this? How does that produce any incentive for Fatah to make necessary compromises for peace, when they will get what they want, if they simply wait long enough?

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4659872,00.html

 12 
 on: May 21, 2015, 10:56:26 AM 
Started by captainccs - Last post by Crafty_Dog
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/comic/eyes-open/
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/comic/assaults-2/

 13 
 on: May 21, 2015, 10:18:25 AM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by DougMacG
"... the only reason that there's been such a long delay is that Hillary deliberately delivered the 550,000 emails in hard copies, instead of in electronic ... She knew that the paper files couldn't be searched like electronic files. ...
She thinks we are all stupid and that we don't get it. But we do: Hillary set up her home server to circumvent the Freedom of Information Act, she did just that, and once caught, she wiped her server clean and got rid of everything she didn't want us to see."
[/quote]

Too bad to live in a world where Dick Morris can make this most obvious observation that none of the so-called mainstream networks or newspapers can. 

Rush L had a long montage of msm reporting on how Hillary finally answered questions.

No she didn't.

 14 
 on: May 21, 2015, 09:21:53 AM 
Started by ccp - Last post by Crafty_Dog
Should We Be Excluding GOP Candidates From Debates This Early?
Fox News and CNN are drawing a line in the sand -- er, on the debate stage. If you want to be part of the big show in the first Republican presidential debates, you have to be in the top ten in polling. Otherwise, you’re consigned to other appearances on the network, or as Byron York called it, “the kiddie table.”
“The CNN Republican primary debate on September 16 will be divided into two parts featuring two different sets of candidates: those who rank in the top 10 according to public polling, and the remaining candidates who mean a minimum threshold of one percent in public polling, the On Media blog has learned.”
For college basketball fans, think of the second CNN debate as the NIT Tournament. If everyone agrees you won the second debate, you get to chant, “We’re number eleven! We’re number eleven!”
Ace makes the case that at this point, no serious candidate should be left out:
People don’t know enough to make informed judgments yet. That is the point of a debate -- and that’s the point of a first debate, surely.
We are in the very beginnings of this process, and FoxNews is using polls of uninformed people (and I don’t mean that negatively; most of us are uniformed at this point) to decide who is allowed to run for President.
And yes, this poll -- based on nothing but name recognition -- will in fact knock five or six people out of the contest entirely. Once you’re excluded from a debate, you are labeled “fringe” forever -- and good luck trying to get free media, volunteers, and donors once you’ve been labeled fringe.
. . . This isn’t a normal year. We have a lot of serious candidates. So do we stick with the usual, or do we adjust our practices to take into consideration the unusualness of this season?
I think the latter. My proposal is that they split debate night into two panels, over two nights. (Or two panels on one night-- but that would be a long night, with around three hours total debate time plus time in between.)
The top six in the polls would do a random draw to be split between the panels, three and three. Everyone else would do another random draw to determine which panel they’d be in.
You’d end up having about 6-8 people per panel, which is a workable number.
Note that the Fox “solution” solves little -- having ten people on the stage, answering the same questions, will be a huge [bad word for mess]! It’s barely an improvement over having fifteen -- do the math. Assuming about an hour, all told, answering questions (once the questions themselves, commercials, and basic traffic direction are excluded), ten people would have about six minute each to answer questions.
Fifteen people would have four minutes each.
So we’re fighting to get “four minutes of actual answers per candidate” up to six minutes?
A lot of us have the cynical suspicion that some of the candidates know they have no shot at the nomination, and are running to achieve some lesser goal: the vice-presidential slot, a cabinet post, a television gig, bigger speaking fees and book deals after the election. Last cycle’s experience demonstrated that even the longest of long-shots can end up being the flavor-of-the-month.

 15 
 on: May 21, 2015, 09:09:41 AM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog
How best to support our troops/our veterans?

    Wounded Warrior Warning

    Emotional Appeals? Caveat Emptor

    By Mark Alexander · May 20, 2015

    "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." —John Adams (1770)

    It appears that some Leftmedia talkingheads have finally decided to ask some tough questions about the corrupt practices of the Clintons, Bill and Demo presidential hopeful Hillary, and their flush Clinton Family Foundation.

    Charity Watch has the CFF on its "watch list," and Bill Allison, senior fellow at the non-partisan Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group, has likened the CFF to a "slush fund" for the Clintons. And for good reason: The Clintons took in more than $140 million in donations in 2013, but spent a comparatively paltry $9 million on direct aid.

    Seeing the corrupt Clinton Machine subjected to some scrutiny by the media is a welcome sight indeed, but it's also a temporary one. It won't be long before the Clintons' media sycophants have circled the wagons around their Demo darlings and once again trained their guns on Republican presidential hopefuls.

    But I digress...

    This week, midway between Armed Forces Day and Memorial Day, a Marine officer requested I ask some tough questions about another foundation amid charges of questionable practices.

    He forwarded me an email assailing the integrity of the Wounded Warrior Project (WWP) — a Florida-based organization that spends so much of its revenue on advertising that it is now the most widely recognized veteran support organization.

    My Marine colleague asked that we investigate the email claims, and we did.

    On behalf of our readers, including tens of thousands of military Patriots and their families who have or are considering financially supporting WWP, here is what we've determined concerning the questions raised by a widely circulated email.

    That email makes claims about exorbitant salaries being paid to WWP executives and then referenced a website "that exposed exactly how the charity spends the money it receives from patriotic Americans." It then concludes, "WWP might as well be run by the Mafia," and references an article at an online site called "Veterans Today" as the source.

    Notably, that article has now been removed, and for the record, Veterans Today is a purveyor of mindless "conspiracy theories" and borderline neo-Nazi propaganda. Thus, neither the original email nor its "source" is credible.

    That errant email notwithstanding, I have noted the enormous amount of donor dollars WWP spends asking for more donor dollars, and so further reviewed WWP's history and financial statements.

    For background, the WWP was founded in 2003 by John Melia, who himself suffered severe injuries in a 1992 Somalia helicopter crash. In 2005, the United Spinal Association granted $2.7 million to WWP to "develop into a stand-alone charity with its own identity and programs." WWP became an independent charitable organization shortly thereafter, certified by the IRS as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit.

    WWP's mission is to "honor and empower Wounded Warriors" and to "foster the most successful, well-adjusted generation of wounded service members in our nation's history." Its stated objective is to "raise awareness and enlist the public's aid for the needs of injured service members, help injured service members aid and assist each other and provide unique, direct programs and services to meet the needs of injured service members."

    Fact is, WWP makes great strides to achieve its mission — all well and good. But to determine the degree to which WWP's revenues support that mission, our team reviewed the two most recent audited financial statements available, 2012 and 2013, as well as the WWP's marketing material and website.

    In 2013, WWP took in almost $305 million in donations and claimed service to about 35,000 registered alumni and 4,000 others defined as "family or caregivers of a registered alumni." Those donations were up from $200 million in 2012, due primarily to massive advertising expenditures.

    With its proceeds, WWP funds about 15 programs and writes grants to other veteran support groups. But what we found most alarming is the amount of funding paid for advertising and administration.

    Many veteran support organizations are run effectively by volunteers — but not WWP.

    According to Charity Navigator, the nation's largest oversight and review organization for charitable groups, WWP allocates about 55% of its revenue to program expenses while the remaining 45% is used for fundraising, salaries, consulting, meetings, events and travel.

    WWP received a "D" rating from the American Institute of Philanthropy and only a C+ by Charity Watch. Indeed, WWP ranks substantially below other national veteran support groups like Fisher House Foundation, Operation Homefront and the Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors.

    WWP's CEO Steven Nardizzi, a lawyer who now receives a $375,000 salary, served up a legalese rebuttal to the evaluations from Charity Watch and Charity Navigator, insisting in The Chronicle of Philanthropy that those rating organizations were "horribly ineffective and misinformed."

    However, facts are stubborn things, and an organization's audited financial statements can certainly expose a lot of facts.

    While WWP expenditures appear to qualify under the legal parameters for 501(c)(3) nonprofits, only about 55 cents of every dollar WWP takes in goes to direct benefits for a wounded warrior. We have no objection to WWP's considerable efforts to raise funds, but it should raise questions when such a large percentage of donations fail to make it to our wounded warriors.

    My recommendation?

    The growth of veteran support organizations since 2001, some of them worthy of your investment, is as viral as those surprise military homecoming videos — and most of those organizations are appealing to similar sentiments.

    Of course, no American Patriot would oppose supporting veterans, particularly those who have suffered severe injuries. I know more than a few of them, and last year The Patriot Post helped build a house to accommodate the needs of a young soldier who lost both legs to an IED in Afghanistan.  But, when organizations pitch strong sentimental appeals asking for your money, whether those appeals be for starving children in Africa or disabled Veterans at home, caveat emptor.  When investing your dollars to support veterans, seek out good third-party evaluations to determine how much of those dollars will actually support that mission, and choose one where at least 75% of revenues do just that.

    Pro Deo et Constitutione -- Libertas aut Mors
    Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis

 16 
 on: May 21, 2015, 09:08:32 AM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog
How best to support our troops/our veterans?

    Wounded Warrior Warning

    Emotional Appeals? Caveat Emptor

    By Mark Alexander · May 20, 2015

    "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." —John Adams (1770)

    It appears that some Leftmedia talkingheads have finally decided to ask some tough questions about the corrupt practices of the Clintons, Bill and Demo presidential hopeful Hillary, and their flush Clinton Family Foundation.

    Charity Watch has the CFF on its "watch list," and Bill Allison, senior fellow at the non-partisan Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group, has likened the CFF to a "slush fund" for the Clintons. And for good reason: The Clintons took in more than $140 million in donations in 2013, but spent a comparatively paltry $9 million on direct aid.

    Seeing the corrupt Clinton Machine subjected to some scrutiny by the media is a welcome sight indeed, but it's also a temporary one. It won't be long before the Clintons' media sycophants have circled the wagons around their Demo darlings and once again trained their guns on Republican presidential hopefuls.

    But I digress...

    This week, midway between Armed Forces Day and Memorial Day, a Marine officer requested I ask some tough questions about another foundation amid charges of questionable practices.

    He forwarded me an email assailing the integrity of the Wounded Warrior Project (WWP) — a Florida-based organization that spends so much of its revenue on advertising that it is now the most widely recognized veteran support organization.

    My Marine colleague asked that we investigate the email claims, and we did.

    On behalf of our readers, including tens of thousands of military Patriots and their families who have or are considering financially supporting WWP, here is what we've determined concerning the questions raised by a widely circulated email.

    That email makes claims about exorbitant salaries being paid to WWP executives and then referenced a website "that exposed exactly how the charity spends the money it receives from patriotic Americans." It then concludes, "WWP might as well be run by the Mafia," and references an article at an online site called "Veterans Today" as the source.

    Notably, that article has now been removed, and for the record, Veterans Today is a purveyor of mindless "conspiracy theories" and borderline neo-Nazi propaganda. Thus, neither the original email nor its "source" is credible.

    That errant email notwithstanding, I have noted the enormous amount of donor dollars WWP spends asking for more donor dollars, and so further reviewed WWP's history and financial statements.

    For background, the WWP was founded in 2003 by John Melia, who himself suffered severe injuries in a 1992 Somalia helicopter crash. In 2005, the United Spinal Association granted $2.7 million to WWP to "develop into a stand-alone charity with its own identity and programs." WWP became an independent charitable organization shortly thereafter, certified by the IRS as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit.

    WWP's mission is to "honor and empower Wounded Warriors" and to "foster the most successful, well-adjusted generation of wounded service members in our nation's history." Its stated objective is to "raise awareness and enlist the public's aid for the needs of injured service members, help injured service members aid and assist each other and provide unique, direct programs and services to meet the needs of injured service members."

    Fact is, WWP makes great strides to achieve its mission — all well and good. But to determine the degree to which WWP's revenues support that mission, our team reviewed the two most recent audited financial statements available, 2012 and 2013, as well as the WWP's marketing material and website.

    In 2013, WWP took in almost $305 million in donations and claimed service to about 35,000 registered alumni and 4,000 others defined as "family or caregivers of a registered alumni." Those donations were up from $200 million in 2012, due primarily to massive advertising expenditures.

    With its proceeds, WWP funds about 15 programs and writes grants to other veteran support groups. But what we found most alarming is the amount of funding paid for advertising and administration.

    Many veteran support organizations are run effectively by volunteers — but not WWP.

    According to Charity Navigator, the nation's largest oversight and review organization for charitable groups, WWP allocates about 55% of its revenue to program expenses while the remaining 45% is used for fundraising, salaries, consulting, meetings, events and travel.

    WWP received a "D" rating from the American Institute of Philanthropy and only a C+ by Charity Watch. Indeed, WWP ranks substantially below other national veteran support groups like Fisher House Foundation, Operation Homefront and the Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors.

    WWP's CEO Steven Nardizzi, a lawyer who now receives a $375,000 salary, served up a legalese rebuttal to the evaluations from Charity Watch and Charity Navigator, insisting in The Chronicle of Philanthropy that those rating organizations were "horribly ineffective and misinformed."

    However, facts are stubborn things, and an organization's audited financial statements can certainly expose a lot of facts.

    While WWP expenditures appear to qualify under the legal parameters for 501(c)(3) nonprofits, only about 55 cents of every dollar WWP takes in goes to direct benefits for a wounded warrior. We have no objection to WWP's considerable efforts to raise funds, but it should raise questions when such a large percentage of donations fail to make it to our wounded warriors.

    My recommendation?

    The growth of veteran support organizations since 2001, some of them worthy of your investment, is as viral as those surprise military homecoming videos — and most of those organizations are appealing to similar sentiments.

    Of course, no American Patriot would oppose supporting veterans, particularly those who have suffered severe injuries. I know more than a few of them, and last year The Patriot Post helped build a house to accommodate the needs of a young soldier who lost both legs to an IED in Afghanistan.  But, when organizations pitch strong sentimental appeals asking for your money, whether those appeals be for starving children in Africa or disabled Veterans at home, caveat emptor.  When investing your dollars to support veterans, seek out good third-party evaluations to determine how much of those dollars will actually support that mission, and choose one where at least 75% of revenues do just that.

    Pro Deo et Constitutione -- Libertas aut Mors
    Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis


 17 
 on: May 20, 2015, 08:45:03 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by G M
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/18/federalization-of-law-enforcement-would-remove-bulwark-for-second-amendment/

 18 
 on: May 20, 2015, 07:00:48 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog
Blame Hillary For Email Delay
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on TheHillaryDaily.com on May 19, 2015
Hillary Deliberately Caused Delay Of Email Release By Submitting Only Paper Copies
Hillary Clinton ended her 37-day boycott of the press today when she spent a few minutes claiming she wants her emails released by the State Department ASAP.

But here's the thing: the only reason that there's been such a long delay is that Hillary deliberately delivered the 550,000 emails in hard copies, instead of in electronic files.

Why does that make a difference?

Because that meant every single one of the 550,000 pages has to be manually scanned. And, to make it even harder, Hillary made sure that some of the documents were copies on both sides. That took 5 weeks of 12 people working full time to complete.

And Hillary knew that would create just one more obstacle and cause an enormous delay.

She also knew that the paper files couldn't be searched like electronic files. And she didn't want to make it easy to connect the dots.

So her fervent wish for the release of the documents is as phone as her claims that she did nothing wrong when she set up her home-brew server and use it for her official State Department documents.

She thinks we are all stupid and that we don't get it. But we do: Hillary set up her home server to circumvent the Freedom of Information Act, she did just that, and once caught, she wiped her server clean and got rid of everything she didn't want us to see.

We get it Hillary.
The 2016 Buzz -- All The Latest News on the Candidates and Issues. 

Click Here to view the 2016 Buzz!

 19 
 on: May 20, 2015, 03:55:43 PM 
Started by captainccs - Last post by Crafty_Dog
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/05/20/claim-turkish-govt-arming-islamist-groups-in-syria/

 20 
 on: May 20, 2015, 12:35:36 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog
http://www.islandpacket.com/2015/05/19/3754777/driver-with-sawed-off-shotgun.html?rh=1

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!