Peter Gleick turns out to be the clever prankster that coaxed Heartland's professional liars into sending him the inside scoop on their charity-status-abusing, million-dollar-donor approach to manipulating the public.
He apparently regrets his trickery. Bloggers pronounce themselves outraged.
Maybe I'm missing the big story here. Gleick fibbed and took advantage of the gullibility of the Heartland extremists to uncover their criminal use of charitable funds for political ends. These are people funneling millions of dollars from right-wing whales into a well-oiled propaganda machine that pays for fake science and fake scientists, a la Bob Carter. He gave them a fake name? Meh.
He apparently regrets his trickery. Bloggers pronounce themselves outraged.
Maybe I'm missing the big story here. Gleick fibbed and took advantage of the gullibility of the Heartland extremists to uncover their criminal use of charitable funds for political ends. These are people funneling millions of dollars from right-wing whales into a well-oiled propaganda machine that pays for fake science and fake scientists, a la Bob Carter. He gave them a fake name? Meh.
Yep, missing the big story. A guy who alleges Heartland is "anti-science", who turns down an opportunity to debate the climate influence issues at a Heartland event, all expenses paid with an honorarium donated to a charity of his choice, finds it necessary to fabricate a straw-man position for them. This leads some people to think that's his best case for his position.
ReplyDeleteWould YOU take money from those crooks?
ReplyDeleteIt could have put Gleick in an awkward position, had he accepted the invitation, expenses paid plus a donation.
I think he did best to stay clear from that bunch of criminals.
It used to be that falsely accusing people of criminal activity was actionable libel. Of course it's just hyperbole. Being on the side of the angels, you name-callers would surely inform the relevant prosecutor(s) of any actual crimes.
ReplyDeleteAs for having direct expenses of a trip being repaid, it's a strange crowd that considers such to be morally tainted, yet sees fraud and deception as alright, when the cause is served.
"It used to be that falsely accusing people of criminal activity was actionable libel."
ReplyDeleteWould that it were so, and we could put the whining hucksters of hysterical hyperbole of the fake scandal "climategate" in irons.
Ironic that one day with Heartlandgate give us direct proof of tax fraud -- dishonest diversion of charitable donations to political propaganda. Yet two years combing thousands of selectively released emails failed to show the slightest hint of any crime . . .
But I like your excuse "Lying Heartland scum haven't been arrested for their fraud yet, so why are you saying mean things about them?"
Good point. Let's join together in the cause: "Heartland criminals deserve their day in court as soon as possible."
Hmmm, no specific crimes mentioned, yet. Is there some particular set of statements made or paid for by Heartland which you deem sufficiently "political" to make their tax status claims even false? (Forget fraudulent, unless you just throw that word in redundantly, for emotional effect.)
ReplyDeleteI also note that several typical indicators of a weak argument are appearing above. Putting words into another's mouth (aka "straw man"), name-calling, failing to meet opposing points. It's enough to make me think you have no case worthy of being argued on its merits.
There's some classic denialist reasoning to get off your Monday:
ReplyDelete"No specific crimes were mentioned, except for the specific crime that you mentioned (fraud) that I am deciding to, quote, 'Forget.'"
Trying remembering instead of forgetting, your panicked defense of the Heartlandgate fraudsters will be that much more coherent . . .
As to meeting opposing points, if your idea of a point is "Nothing is there except what I can't face and thus chose to make myself forget" you might try making more substantial points, which will win you a more in-depth refutation.
"Fraud" is a category of crime. If a prosecutor were to charge a defendant with "fraud", absent some specific, falsifiable facts which, if true, would constitute fraud, any court would simply dismiss it.
ReplyDeleteI note that you claim "fraud" over and over, yet are unable to supply even one specific instance of it, or any instance of something that falsifies Heartland's tax exemption claim.
I'm not panicked, but amused.
""Fraud" is a category of crime."
ReplyDeleteSo you admit a specific crime was mentioned.
You clarify that your objection is that I haven't cited a specific section of the legal code, but a "category."
Of course, "theft" and "rape" or "blackmail" and "homicide" are all categories of crimes as well, frequently used in normal discourse without citing a specific section of the legal code.
Of course if a were a prosecutor, I would not have met the standard for a formal indictment. But, then, if you were a genie, you would not have met the standard for granting me three wishes. You have not granted me three wishes. Therefore, by your own logic, you have failed. QED.
More word-stuffing. Beat that straw man hard!
ReplyDeleteI mention "specific ... facts which ... would constitute fraud" and you construe that as an objection that you have not cited any legal code.
My objection is that you throw vague allegations without any factual foundation. At this point, I am sure you cannot cite any instance of fraud.
I wonder: Is such sloppiness inherent in how Libs think? Or do they just love word games and trickery more than objective truth?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"More word-stuffing."
ReplyDeleteLittle grammar mistake there.
"More word-stuffing:"
Fix'd! You're welcome.
But the bigger question is, where are my three wishes? Your argument is refuted unless you can grant me three wishes, as a genie would.
Your poor right-fundy brain seems more and more confused. First you whined that there was no specific allegation, then your complaint is that I have made the allegation "over and over." Seem like you're having trouble keeping your straw men straight.
I'm happy to see you've heard of objective truth, even if you scorn it when it conflicts with your right-wing fantasies. Unfortunately, it's not enough to hypocritically invoke objective truth. You have to respect it, which is where you fail.
Charities aren't supposed to funnel donations into political lobbying and propaganda. Fact. Heartland did. Fact. You want chapter and verse? Try this: you acknowledge up front that using charitable donations for lobbying is against the law.
As a right-wing fundy -- an ideology devoted to manipulating the truth and denying reality -- I doubt you can bring yourself to admit that. But if you can admit, in honest and straightforward fashion, that using a charity as a front organization for lobbying is fraud, then I'll be happy to cite the evidence of that from the documents Heartland's desperately trying to suppress.
Zzzz... You, and the clamoring herd you so proudly like to represent, are utterly predictable. And boring.
ReplyDeleteI'll be ready to learn about "lobbying" from outfits that accept "charitable donations" when Media Matters is prosecuted for colluding with the DNC and the whitehouse puppet masters. Until then, I'll just note that you have never specified any action you allege to be illegal, and remain content to simply repeat vague, categorical allegations as if that is responsive to my assertion that you have no factual foundation for them.
For the record, you incorrectly surmise my political leanings and I expect you are more interested in the topic as an epithet than for its relevance.
I trust psychoanalysis is not your day job.
What I will happily admit is that the tax code makes it illegal for a tax-exempt charity to coordinate with politicians to promote particular candidates. Short of that, I suspect that your notion of prohibited "lobbying" is exceedingly vague, probably at odds with the 1st Amendment, unsupported by any legislation, and more of a rallying cry than a conviction derived from knowledge of the law and actual facts.
As for your perception of an inconsistency between seeing no specific factual allegation and seeing a vague categorical allegation repeatedly, I will simply note that such confirms my perception of Lib thinking prowess.
Zzzz.
This is such a Great resource that you are providing and you give it away for free. It gives in depth information. Thanks for this valuable information.
ReplyDeleteair duct cleaning Deerfield Beach florida
You have a very good site, well constructed and very interesting i have bookmarked you hopefully you keep posting new stuff 토토사이트
ReplyDeleteThis is a very impressive subject. Thank you for always. I have been reading your article interestingly. If possible, please visit my website to read my posts and leave comments. Have a nice day! 토토
ReplyDelete