Gooseboy's Magnum Opus

[RickyTavy]

@chehse

@RickyTavy

He was talking about the rise of a movement where people would listen to Science and data

And instead they chose a teenage Scandinavian retard who dropped out of school.

That “retard” speaks English as a second language than does the pampered ignoramus in the White House that you fluff. Oh, and the easiest way to spot a Deplorable post here is to do a quick scan for illiteracy.

[cypriot]

I read Greta’s China proposal somewhere. She suggests an overwhelming first strike on major population centers, followed by strikes on key infrastructure, like the Three Gorges Dam. A naval blockade is next to ensure mass starvation. Additionally, she suggests using Russia and India to block any overland routes. Obviously, her plan is to promise to spare India in exchange for their support, but it’s a bamboozle. Once China is depopulated, India comes next.

Greta is absolutely serious about cutting greenhouse gases and pollution!

[RickyTavy]

Oh well, I guess the current spate of Deplorable pedophilia is a break from their usual fixiation with homoerotica.

[IcebergSlim]

The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.

This is complete and utter nonsense…

You would have to be entirely uninformed about 501 c 3 reporting requirements to not laugh at that assertion.

And there’s more like it…it’s not a “pass thru” charity…it’s a foundation…with a “corpus” or “principal”…

[PregnantAnneFrank]

What’s up with Greta being a degenerate like that? I thought she was on our side?

[Dr_Manhattan]

@asaratis

and in rides little RickyTickyTutu to the rescue!

That kills me!

[Bigly]

Arguing over a made-up problem is a way to get you to accept that the problem exists in the first place. It’s all part of the anti-scientific mind control operation.

[asaratis]

@IcebergSlim

This is complete and utter nonsense…

Did you bother to read the article linked?

The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last month.

The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.

The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.

On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the foundation.

In all, the group reported $84.6 million in “functional expenses” on its 2013 tax return and had more than $64 million left over — money the organization has said represents pledges rather than actual cash on hand.

Some of the tens of millions in administrative costs finance more than 2,000 employees, including aid workers and health professionals around the world.

But that’s still far below the 75 percent rate of spending that nonprofit experts say a good charity should spend on its mission.

Charity Navigator, which rates nonprofits, recently refused to rate the Clinton Foundation because its “atypical business model . . . doesn’t meet our criteria.”

Charity Navigator put the foundation on its “watch list,” which warns potential donors about investing in problematic charities. The 23 charities on the list include the Rev. Al Sharpton’s troubled National Action Network, which is cited for failing to pay payroll taxes for several years.

Other nonprofit experts are asking hard questions about the Clinton Foundation’s tax filings in the wake of recent reports that the Clintons traded influence for donations.

“It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons,” said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group where progressive Democrat and Fordham Law professor Zephyr Teachout was once an organizing director.

In July 2013, Eric Braverman, a friend of Chelsea Clinton from when they both worked at McKinsey & Co., took over as CEO of the Clinton Foundation. He took home nearly $275,000 in salary, benefits and a housing allowance from the nonprofit for just five months’ work in 2013, tax filings show. Less than a year later, his salary increased to $395,000, according to a report in Politico.

Braverman abruptly left the foundation earlier this year, after a falling-out with the old Clinton guard over reforms he wanted to impose at the charity, Politico reported. Last month, Donna Shalala, a former secretary of health and human services under President Clinton, was hired to replace Braverman.

Nine other executives received salaries over $100,000 in 2013, tax filings show.

The nonprofit came under fire last week following reports that Hillary Clinton, while she was secretary of state, signed off on a deal that allowed a Russian government enterprise to control one-fifth of all uranium producing capacity in the United States. Rosatom, the Russian company, acquired a Canadian firm controlled by Frank Giustra, a friend of Bill Clinton’s and member of the foundation board, who has pledged over $130 million to the Clinton family charity.

The group also failed to disclose millions of dollars it received in foreign donations from 2010 to 2012 and is hurriedly refiling five years’ worth of tax returns after reporters raised questions about the discrepancies in its filings last week.

An accountant for the Clinton Foundation did not return The Post’s calls seeking clarification on its expenses Friday, and a spokesperson for the group refused comment.

[CLB]

[CLB]

Damn! I had no idea Greta wanted to genocide the two biggest contributors to pollution and greenhouse gas on the planet! Well done you bumbling stunted idiot! Hope she survives the Wu Flu.

[DMK]

[RickyTavy]

@asaratis

…and in rides little RickyTickyTutu to the rescue!

@RickyTavy

…money the Clintons could not touch,…

Maybe they couldn’t actually touch it, but they surely knew how to pass it on to employees and friends, likely most of which were both.

Charity watchdog: Clinton Foundation a ‘slush fund’

The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.

Or, instead of being an easily suckered Deplorable who can only regurgitate truncated bits of what you are fed by rightard media, you could go to a credible source:

Charity watchdog gives Clinton Foundation the highest possible rating

Eileen Sullivan,

Associated Press

[asaratis]

This thread was intended (by the nature of the OP) to be contentious.

[RickyTavy]

[quote=“asaratis, post:91, topic:7746, full:true”]

@IcebergSlim

This is complete and utter nonsense…

Did you bother to read the article linked?[/quote]

Yes, I read what you regurgitated from one of Murdoch’s rags. I countered with an article from the AP that showed how you were suckered, simp.

[Ocasio2018]

[Ocasio2018]

[Ocasio2018]

[IcebergSlim]

[quote=“asaratis, post:91, topic:7746, full:true”]

@IcebergSlim

This is complete and utter nonsense…

Did you bother to read the articled linked?

The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last month.

But that’s still far below the 75 percent rate of spending that nonprofit experts say a good charity should spend on its mission.

Charity Navigator, which rates nonprofits, recently refused to rate the Clinton Foundation because its “atypical business model . . . doesn’t meet our criteria.”

Charity Navigator put the foundation on its “watch list,” which warns potential donors about investing in problematic charities.

That someone who was good enough to work at McKinsey should be hired for such a gig is hardly surprising…what’s surprising is that he originally took the job for so little.

Here’s the current page for Charity Navigator

Charity Navigator - Rating for Clinton Foundation

The article COMPLETELY misrepresents how a foundation, rather than a “pass through” charity operates…it is the kind of tripe you can only sell to readers of the NYPost.

[Ocasio2018]

[Ocasio2018]