Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ggersh who wrote (112611)	7/10/2015 3:01:32 PM
From: Elroy Jetson	3 Recommendations Recommended By dvdw© ggersh Pogeu Mahone Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 219610

The entire fundraising world is filled with what most would call fraud in other contexts. Groups who shell out appearance fees for big names take a big risk. They're on the hook for the fee even if the event loses money. Many of these charities who have high profiles, have a high profile because less than 1/3 of the money donated goes to their intended cause. They become self-perpetuating scams to feed their "professional board members." That's why Joan Irvine and her Mom got Congress to pass a law requiring trusts to hand out 3% to 5% of their assets each year. They were beneficiaries of the trust which owned much of Irvine California and the Board Members were earning more than they were. After the law passed the trust sold the Irvine Company and the Hughes Trust decided to sell their businesses. It was crooked. When I ran a non-profit with two other people we never had a fundraiser. We simply arranged for potential donors to meet researchers or social program people who needed funding for their current or next project. If the donors needed dinner or entertainment to write a check, they were the wrong donors. If they donated, after their check cleared we passed on 100% of the donation to the intended recipient. Charity should be a labor of love, not a promising career.

To: ggersh who wrote (112611)	7/10/2015 6:42:12 PM
From: bart13	1 Recommendation Recommended By carranza2 Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 219610

"Interesting" on your attack against the Shrub, but it has nothing to do with the heavily biased political spin that I posted about. Not one progressive so far can stand or admit to the fact that his $100k payment was way more than offset by the $800,000-1,000,000 additional money... nor that a huge majority of that other party that you keep admiring also voted to attack the ME. Fascinating that you just can't admit that he added that much money for vets, nor that you can't admit that the Dems followed along and voted for killing, crippling and injuring so many soldiers under the Shrub too. And while I'm on the MENA, if you count Saddam, Afghanistan and Iraq as 3 wars then WWII should get triply counted since it involved Germany, Italy and Japan, and WWI should also be doubled or tripled. /sarc And you forgot to count the Vietnam buildup under LBJ, which was way bigger than what the slime ball Nixon added. You also "forgot" to add another D for Obama in MENA. When you count honestly, it's still ~3 to 1. Sorry, spinning facts doesn't work, the same as ad hominems* when your special party loses on just plain raw facts. I continue to be amused at how much heavy political bias will alter someone's approach to real and unspun facts, especially on the example of Obama having been conveniently uncounted. But that's what happens when politics turns into religion or faith, the blinders, rose colored glasses and logical fallacy games go on. * Nothing has changed with me, I still point out BS, bias, spin, wrong or incomplete data, etc. wherever I see it. In this case, it just happens to be coming from those who have given up on a full review of all the facts since their politics demands it so they can not be so fearful and also pretend that things would be so much better with their political religion. Among other things, that's called cognitive dissonance... at best. As usual: bart 1 Dem worshippers here, plus other political party worshippers 0

To: ggersh who wrote (112611)	4/16/2021 12:34:05 AM
From: TobagoJack	Respond to of 219610

Re <<100 years so WWI..... D WWII ....D Korean War.....D Vietnam War....D although Nixon expanded that one more than O has expanded Iraq and Afghanistan First war against Saddam R Afghanistan ......................R Iraq....................................R>> Looks like a D might end the adventure by handing off to others, and if so, amongst the 'others' must be Russia, India, and Pakistan, Iran, and China. Do not know how anyone will play the Great Game IV Some discussions in China scmp.com "China may send peacekeeping force to Afghanistan after US troops leave, observers say" Some discussions in USA thehill.com "Why the US will never leave Afghanistan" Calling it as it is, Saigon is about to fall, and whomever takes over shall need to get with doing commerce. Let us see who amongst players shall tee-up commerce, now that sloganeering might end. Looks like Team USA is not 'going to keep it', and handing 'it' over to somebody(ies) even though the equity investment to date is large news.yahoo.com "Afghanistan war: What has the conflict cost the US?" The next adventure, whether in Crimea or S China Sea, E China Sea, or SE China Sea might work out with higher return and lower cost.