It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Originally posted by Crakeur
He's a politician, what do you expect?
Wait for the excuse - clerical error.
Why come up for an excuse when you could just wait for the administration to respond to this
Or.....
Let's do some research
Oh here we go
optimiskeptic.com...
This should prove to be a message for everyone jumping on the political or partisan bandwagon
Don't knee-jerk a response
I'm not talking about you Crackeur, I only quoted you for what you posted to begin my reply
Research first everyone, then respond
Nobody should have posted pro-comments or anti-comments
Everyone should have said... Let's wait for more information!
Originally posted by Dustytoad
reply to post by HunkaHunka
did you read the source?
this is about $1700 since October 2000.
$230 in October 2000
and then
$1480 in February 2005
That's all they got on him? weak...
That's really corrupt to cheat on two flights in the last 10 years... He must not be that corrupt or he would know to cheat more than $1700...edit on 9/13/2012 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Crakeur
He's a politician, what do you expect?
Wait for the excuse - clerical error.
George Soros’ Open Society Institute gave $250,000 to CREW in 2008, which reported revenue of $3 million and a staff of 13 employees that year. Soros is a well-known funder of left-wing nonprofit groups. Other beneficiaries of Soros' money include: the Center for American Progress, Media Matters for America, America Coming Together, and MoveOn.org.
Originally posted by Maxmars
It appears there is more scandal and corruption in the source of the article than the subject.
But that still doesn't explain what the point was.
What does it serve to malign someone who is not a contender in the race?
And why do it so poorly and with so much incompetence as to render yourself (the author,) your single source (Johnathan Strong) and your cited politically connected organization (CREW) damaged beyond any further usefulness.
This lady (Elizabeth Flock) is a disgrace... and was one before publishing this article... so why is it "news"?
Because the editors of US News and World Report wanted to?
Originally posted by Maxmars
What does it serve to malign someone who is not a contender in the race?