The Anonymous Donor May Stand Up
BREAKING: Crikey runs a teaser
Crikey understands The New York Times will tomorrow reveal the identity of Heartland’s “Anonymous Donor”, an individual who has donated $13.7 million to the Heartland Institute since 2007 and at times has provided 60% of the institute’s funding.
Posts
20 comments:
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.
No matter who the donor is, just remember that billionaire Warren Buffett got 95 billion in TARP bailout money, and your Democrat party did nothing. In fact, they praised the decision. In return, Buffett was instructed to go on tv, and ask to have his taxes raised.
No matter who the donor is, just remember that Al Gore is fat.
[Also: Buffett got 95 billion? Crikey, that's real money.]
Does the good chocolate bar Dr. believe that Obama gave the money to Buffett who gave it to Heartland?
Nutbar spins frothing as usual. Cite that to a Reuters ranter:
http://blogs.reuters.com/rolfe-winkler/2009/08/04/buffetts-betrayal/
"Berkshire Hathaway, in which Buffett owns 27 percent, according to a recent proxy filing, has more than $26 billion invested in eight financial companies that have received bailout money. The TARP at one point had nearly $100 billion invested in these companies ...."
Kept the financial system from meltdown when those companies froze and quit lending anything to anyone, check.
Paid back at a profit, check.
Misstated and distorted by nutbar, check.
Is Cadbury a witty take on "chocolate bunnies"? Or is a shrill brain damaged clock witty twice a day? (obviously, I am greatly flattering Jay-Jay)
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.
There you go, from the horses mouth, Hank Roberts himself. Perfectly fine to give the billionaire's company billions of dollars...as long as he pushes the company line. I also completely disagree with your recollection of history, I don't think there was ever any loan problems...unless your a far left winger...
Correct me if I'm wrong but the housing crisis happened because the banks made loans to people who couldn't afford them, the government forced them. You know who said as much, Hanky Panky Roberts. Liberal doyenne, Mayor Michael Bloomberg. He had to tell your stupid teammates on What are We Occupying We Have no Money in These Banks Wallstreet. Now, according to Mr. Roberts, these banks were placing massive, 15ft long hooks outside the bank doors and luring unsuspecting citizens inside.
Question: when someone uses a charge card from Macy's, falls behind on the payments and has to pay a fee, is that predatory lending by the mall?
hahahahahahaahaha in your face roberts.
Here's what Hanky Panky Roberts conveniently left out: of those companies that Berkshire Hathaway is invested in, Buffett has over $7 billion of his own person wealth invested. No conflict of interest there.
PhD in moronic stupidity?
What a child...
"Correct me if I'm wrong"
You're wrong. That was easy.
Jay, how did you come by your figure that Warren Buffet received $95 billion dollars in TARP money?
You are aware that TARP was a George Bush-era program, yes?
Deep Climate has a very good guess.
Rob
To the usual suspects, add Dick Scaife, such lesser angels as the publisher of American Farmer, and since Ralph Reed is a heartland conference regular, the top end of Jack Abramoff's client list.
A sad thing has happened.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/peter-gleick-admits-to-deception-in-obtaining-heartland-climate-files/?scp=1&sq=heartland&st=cse
Yeah, a sad thing sure has happened - you tricked me into reading something by Andy Rivkin.
Curse you, Snapple.
Gleick in his own words
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/-the-origin-of-the-heartl_b_1289669.html
Far from Gleik's credibility having taken a hit Revkin by judging Gleick thus has lost any credibility still clinging to him. Join the Curry Wing of the Heartland Club Andy.
Oh! And Jay, I would stop bouncing your atoms around as that will melt your choc's, enthalpy and entropy and all.
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.
@Jeffrey Davis
the fact that TARP began under Bush is irrelevant because Obama would have come up with an identical program, possibly under a different name anyway. Please see Hank Robert's post, I found it on a Reuter's page. Now, according to Hank Robert's the chart by Thomson Reuters is a fake. I will confess that I don't know anything about Thomson Reuters but I would think there would be no reason for them to falsely display how much money the mentioned companies received.
The pieces do not fit.
The evidence points towards the memo being fake. Whoever faked it had access to the reports.
The evidence points away from Gleik faking it.
The evidence also points away from Heartland faking it in some false flag operation.
What alternative am I missing? If I had to pick an option then Gleik faking, followed by the memo being genuine are the most likely options. but they are too far from plausible that I think I am missing some other possibility.
You know Gleiks email to the HI in which he passed himself off as one of them could be very interesting if he asked for specific documents he could only know about from possessing the memo.
> according to Hank Robert's
That's more lying spin
from the nutbar again.
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.
@Hank Roberts
okay you just said what I wrote was nonsense, so I assume you don't believe the Reuters story, and since the graphic is the most important item in the story, I assumed you did not believe it.
What's up with that donor story. I've between waiting for days... Did I miss it?
Post a Comment