Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 2/15/2013 5:33:38 AM EDT
My wife would like to donate to this group but I am hearing disturbing rumblings that they don't like guns. Is this true? And if it is, is there another group doing similar work that does support my right to own guns?
Link Posted: 2/15/2013 5:51:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/15/2013 5:54:05 AM EDT by JC10311]
There was a flury of anti-WWP comments a while back due to a comment made by one of their people saying that guns are icky and scary and that's why we have wounded warriors. I believe there was corrective action taken, but I haven't heard anything recently.

ETA: We contrubute to Paralyzed Veterans of America as much as possible. We've been members for 22 years.
Link Posted: 2/15/2013 5:57:32 AM EDT
They do not do co-branding with firearm, alcohol, tobacco, political, or religious institution or companies. They are not anti those things, but do not wish to lend their protected image to them. They help a great many guys give with confidence.
Link Posted: 2/15/2013 6:07:50 AM EDT
I believe they do some good but when any organization gets as large as they have you have to wonder how much of your donation actually goes to helping soldiers. There office in Jacksonville is unbelievable and built on some super high dollar real estate. Personally I like to donate to smaller organizations with less overhead. There are many but I like these guys http://huntforvets.com/
Link Posted: 2/15/2013 6:08:57 AM EDT
In a word - yes
Link Posted: 2/15/2013 6:09:54 AM EDT
Anti-gun and anti-Christian. Essentially anti-American as they will not partner with the people and ideas that made this country great.

Semper Fi Fund for the win!
Link Posted: 2/15/2013 6:14:15 AM EDT
http://www.examiner.com/article/wounded-warrior-project-faces-fallout-after-snubbing-gun-talk



http://guntalk.libsyn.com/bonus-podcast-after-the-wwp-interview


in short, yes. Also, they make a crapton of money, and there are many other orgs that do the same stuff but are not alti-gun.
Link Posted: 2/15/2013 6:14:16 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SS109:
My wife would like to donate to this group but I am hearing disturbing rumblings that they don't like guns. Is this true? And if it is, is there another group doing similar work that does support my right to own guns?


Special,Operations Warrior Foundation
Link Posted: 2/15/2013 6:16:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/15/2013 6:19:00 AM EDT by BobRoberts]
Originally Posted By teamr2:
I believe they do some good but when any organization gets as large as they have you have to wonder how much of your donation actually goes to helping soldiers. There office in Jacksonville is unbelievable and built on some super high dollar real estate. Personally I like to donate to smaller organizations with less overhead. There are many but I like these guys http://huntforvets.com/


Overhead is going to grow as any organization grows, especially charities, because when it becomes a full time job to do the book keeping or running events, people will need/want to be paid. Efficiency per dollar has an importance, but the larger charities, because of their size and resources, can be more effective in helping those in need. There are plenty of small charities that don't shit because of their size, but are very efficient with their money. Just something to think about.
Link Posted: 2/15/2013 6:18:18 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Skip237:
Anti-gun and anti-Christian. Essentially anti-American as they will not partner with the people and ideas that made this country great.

Semper Fi Fund for the win!


Holy fuck, so they don't lend their image and branding to certain causes for their own reasons and now they are anti- those causes.
Link Posted: 2/15/2013 6:19:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/15/2013 6:20:11 AM EDT by KevinCa316]
Originally Posted By BobRoberts:
Originally Posted By Skip237:
Anti-gun and anti-Christian. Essentially anti-American as they will not partner with the people and ideas that made this country great.

Semper Fi Fund for the win!


Holy fuck, so they don't lend their image and branding to certain causes for their own reasons and now they are anti- those causes.


They don't even accept donations from them if you can wrap your mind around that. You know, being a charity and all...
Link Posted: 2/15/2013 6:22:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/15/2013 6:54:53 AM EDT by mike128]
Check with the local VFW's for projects. There are several VFWs around me, some are better run than others, but they all have their own version of Wounded Warrior, Hero's Haven, donations for local troops overseas, ect. I've volunteered and donated to some of those projects and they are not anti-gun or anti-christian. The money is also spent locally and almost all of it goes directly to the troops.
Link Posted: 2/15/2013 6:25:11 AM EDT
Originally Posted By KevinCa316:
Originally Posted By BobRoberts:
Originally Posted By Skip237:
Anti-gun and anti-Christian. Essentially anti-American as they will not partner with the people and ideas that made this country great.

Semper Fi Fund for the win!


Holy fuck, so they don't lend their image and branding to certain causes for their own reasons and now they are anti- those causes.


They don't even accept donations from them if you can wrap your mind around that. You know, being a charity and all...


They will accept donations from them, but they will not do co-branding which is the issue the church had and the issue the manufacturer had. When does not dealing with religious organizations translate to anti christian?
Link Posted: 2/15/2013 6:28:00 AM EDT
Originally Posted By BobRoberts:
Originally Posted By KevinCa316:
Originally Posted By BobRoberts:
Originally Posted By Skip237:
Anti-gun and anti-Christian. Essentially anti-American as they will not partner with the people and ideas that made this country great.

Semper Fi Fund for the win!


Holy fuck, so they don't lend their image and branding to certain causes for their own reasons and now they are anti- those causes.


They don't even accept donations from them if you can wrap your mind around that. You know, being a charity and all...


They will accept donations from them, but they will not do co-branding which is the issue the church had and the issue the manufacturer had. When does not dealing with religious organizations translate to anti christian?


"With us or against us" I suppose. It's a silly stance to take considering the amount of people whom their organization raises fund for are indeed religious. This is coming from someone who's not in the least bit religious.
Link Posted: 2/15/2013 6:34:16 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/15/2013 6:34:19 AM EDT
Tom Gresham interviewed to head WW guy on gun talk. My company was on the automatic monthly plan, that stopped.
Link Posted: 2/15/2013 6:35:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By BobRoberts:

Overhead is going to grow as any organization grows, especially charities, because when it becomes a full time job to do the book keeping or running events, people will need/want to be paid. Efficiency per dollar has an importance, but the larger charities, because of their size and resources, can be more effective in helping those in need. There are plenty of small charities that don't shit because of their size, but are very efficient with their money. Just something to think about.

"Overhead" - you mean "salary" right?

NAME 2011 TITLE REPORTABLE COMPENSATION OTHER COMPENSATION
Steven Nardizzi

CEO, Executive Director

$319,692

$21,118

Albion Giordano

Deputy Executive Director

$284,692

$24,346

Jeremy Chwat

Chief Program Officer

$171,657

$22,108

Adam Silva

Chief Development Officer

$159,498

$22,910

Bruce Nitsche

Executive Vice President - Special Projects

$135,678

$10,313

John Roberts

Executive Vice President - Mental Health

$140,350

$22,136

Ronald W. Burgess

CFO

$126,015

$16,131

Ralph J. Ibson

Senior Fellow

$151,125

$16,319

Christine Hill

Executive Vice President - Congressional Affairs

$146,250

$16,900

Victoria Nemerson

Executive Vice President - General Counsel

$157,303

$12,150


FYI Nardizzi was paid $163K in 2008.

Nice to see some big-ass pay raises going on there.
Link Posted: 2/15/2013 6:37:29 AM EDT
Right now I would give to Kyle's foundation.
Link Posted: 2/15/2013 6:38:26 AM EDT
Originally Posted By KevinCa316:
Originally Posted By BobRoberts:
Originally Posted By KevinCa316:
Originally Posted By BobRoberts:
Originally Posted By Skip237:
Anti-gun and anti-Christian. Essentially anti-American as they will not partner with the people and ideas that made this country great.

Semper Fi Fund for the win!


Holy fuck, so they don't lend their image and branding to certain causes for their own reasons and now they are anti- those causes.


They don't even accept donations from them if you can wrap your mind around that. You know, being a charity and all...


They will accept donations from them, but they will not do co-branding which is the issue the church had and the issue the manufacturer had. When does not dealing with religious organizations translate to anti christian?


"With us or against us" I suppose. It's a silly stance to take considering the amount of people whom their organization raises fund for are indeed religious. This is coming from someone who's not in the least bit religious.


Its a not any easy row to hoe, for any organization. Most choose to avoid divisive issues, which both religion and guns are in today's world, and focus on a broader appeal. My guess most involved in the program don't give a shit and want to just help the vets, but they need to protect the image of their charity. The smaller organizations can be more selective, because they have less requests, so they can say that this firearms company does or does not align with our goals, lets work with them. A large charity, it may not be worth the time to sort through it all and will instead set very restrictive standards that reduces the chance of brand damage and maximizes contributions.
Link Posted: 2/15/2013 6:39:10 AM EDT
Yes, they are. FUCK the Wounded Warrior Project.
Link Posted: 2/15/2013 6:42:01 AM EDT
Originally Posted By BobRoberts:
Originally Posted By teamr2:
I believe they do some good but when any organization gets as large as they have you have to wonder how much of your donation actually goes to helping soldiers. There office in Jacksonville is unbelievable and built on some super high dollar real estate. Personally I like to donate to smaller organizations with less overhead. There are many but I like these guys http://huntforvets.com/


Overhead is going to grow as any organization grows, especially charities, because when it becomes a full time job to do the book keeping or running events, people will need/want to be paid. Efficiency per dollar has an importance, but the larger charities, because of their size and resources, can be more effective in helping those in need. There are plenty of small charities that don't shit because of their size, but are very efficient with their money. Just something to think about.


I have thought about it quite a bit and have seen the results first hand. I'd rather give to my local soup kitchen or church than to the Red Cross as my money, in my eyes, goes farther as it does not go towards bloated salaries, infrastructure, advertising, bulk mailers, etc.


Link Posted: 2/15/2013 6:42:10 AM EDT
Yes - they are anti-gun. They got the memo from Uncle Barry - soldiers and guns don't mix

They are just another extortion (Charity) self-fulfilling institution that largely spends its cash upon itself rather than distributing it to their cause.
I know wounded vets personally - they get my help and cash direct- No middle man! They have never seen a dime from such programs as wounded warrior or any of the so-called jobs programs for wounded vets (Largely FSA staffed offices with lots of nothing going on) If you don't know a vet to directly help r - Find one


Link Posted: 2/15/2013 6:42:29 AM EDT
USO ftw.
Link Posted: 2/15/2013 6:44:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/15/2013 6:45:06 AM EDT by KevinCa316]
Originally Posted By BobRoberts:
Its a not any easy row to hoe, for any organization. Most choose to avoid divisive issues, which both religion and guns are in today's world, and focus on a broader appeal. My guess most involved in the program don't give a shit and want to just help the vets, but they need to protect the image of their charity. The smaller organizations can be more selective, because they have less requests, so they can say that this firearms company does or does not align with our goals, lets work with them. A large charity, it may not be worth the time to sort through it all and will instead set very restrictive standards that reduces the chance of brand damage and maximizes contributions.


A charity organization shouldn't give 2 shits where the money comes from so long as the money isn't illegal or stolen. They exist to raise money to assist wounded warriors, not take a stance on religion and the second amendment. They've gotten a little too big for their britches and now they're getting a big reality check.
Link Posted: 2/15/2013 6:45:29 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Aimless:

People who virulently hate Guns and God aren't going to do shit for vets, because guess what, those are the kind of people who don't give two shits about wounded vets. [/div]



That's it exactly. The liberal "we care about the military" charade will end, probably sooner than later.
Link Posted: 2/15/2013 6:47:27 AM EDT
Originally Posted By seven-six-two:

Originally Posted By BobRoberts:

Overhead is going to grow as any organization grows, especially charities, because when it becomes a full time job to do the book keeping or running events, people will need/want to be paid. Efficiency per dollar has an importance, but the larger charities, because of their size and resources, can be more effective in helping those in need. There are plenty of small charities that don't shit because of their size, but are very efficient with their money. Just something to think about.

"Overhead" - you mean "salary" right?

NAME2011 TITLEREPORTABLE COMPENSATIONOTHER COMPENSATION
Steven Nardizzi

CEO, Executive Director

$319,692

$21,118

Albion Giordano

Deputy Executive Director

$284,692

$24,346

Jeremy Chwat

Chief Program Officer

$171,657

$22,108

Adam Silva

Chief Development Officer

$159,498

$22,910

Bruce Nitsche

Executive Vice President - Special Projects

$135,678

$10,313

John Roberts

Executive Vice President - Mental Health

$140,350

$22,136

Ronald W. Burgess

CFO

$126,015

$16,131

Ralph J. Ibson

Senior Fellow

$151,125

$16,319

Christine Hill

Executive Vice President - Congressional Affairs

$146,250

$16,900

Victoria Nemerson

Executive Vice President - General Counsel

$157,303

$12,150


FYI Nardizzi was paid $163K in 2008.

Nice to see some big-ass pay raises going on there.


Came here to post this.

Link Posted: 2/15/2013 6:48:28 AM EDT
Originally Posted By seven-six-two:

Originally Posted By BobRoberts:

Overhead is going to grow as any organization grows, especially charities, because when it becomes a full time job to do the book keeping or running events, people will need/want to be paid. Efficiency per dollar has an importance, but the larger charities, because of their size and resources, can be more effective in helping those in need. There are plenty of small charities that don't shit because of their size, but are very efficient with their money. Just something to think about.

"Overhead" - you mean "salary" right?

NAME2011 TITLEREPORTABLE COMPENSATIONOTHER COMPENSATION
Steven Nardizzi

CEO, Executive Director

$319,692

$21,118

Albion Giordano

Deputy Executive Director

$284,692

$24,346

Jeremy Chwat

Chief Program Officer

$171,657

$22,108

Adam Silva

Chief Development Officer

$159,498

$22,910

Bruce Nitsche

Executive Vice President - Special Projects

$135,678

$10,313

John Roberts

Executive Vice President - Mental Health

$140,350

$22,136

Ronald W. Burgess

CFO

$126,015

$16,131

Ralph J. Ibson

Senior Fellow

$151,125

$16,319

Christine Hill

Executive Vice President - Congressional Affairs

$146,250

$16,900

Victoria Nemerson

Executive Vice President - General Counsel

$157,303

$12,150


FYI Nardizzi was paid $163K in 2008.

Nice to see some big-ass pay raises going on there.


Wow. Pretty sad when non-profits CEO's are earning more than the CEO of my 100 million dollar employer.

Link Posted: 2/15/2013 6:48:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/15/2013 6:49:25 AM EDT by RenegadeX]

Originally Posted By BobRoberts:
Originally Posted By KevinCa316:
Originally Posted By BobRoberts:
Originally Posted By Skip237:
Anti-gun and anti-Christian. Essentially anti-American as they will not partner with the people and ideas that made this country great.

Semper Fi Fund for the win!


Holy fuck, so they don't lend their image and branding to certain causes for their own reasons and now they are anti- those causes.


They don't even accept donations from them if you can wrap your mind around that. You know, being a charity and all...


They will accept donations from them, but they will not do co-branding which is the issue the church had and the issue the manufacturer had. When does not dealing with religious organizations translate to anti christian?

No they do no accept proceeds from religious, alcohol, or firearm companies.

WWP does not co-brand, create cause marketing campaigns or receive a percentage or a portion of proceeds from companies in which the product or message is sexual, political or religious in nature, or from alcohol or firearms companies
Link Posted: 2/15/2013 6:48:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/15/2013 6:49:13 AM EDT by EightySecond]

Originally Posted By KevinCa316:
In a word - yes

this, and so is Under Armour that produces their clothing.
Link Posted: 2/15/2013 6:49:32 AM EDT
Originally Posted By seven-six-two:

Originally Posted By BobRoberts:

Overhead is going to grow as any organization grows, especially charities, because when it becomes a full time job to do the book keeping or running events, people will need/want to be paid. Efficiency per dollar has an importance, but the larger charities, because of their size and resources, can be more effective in helping those in need. There are plenty of small charities that don't shit because of their size, but are very efficient with their money. Just something to think about.

"Overhead" - you mean "salary" right?

NAME2011 TITLEREPORTABLE COMPENSATIONOTHER COMPENSATION
Steven Nardizzi

CEO, Executive Director

$319,692

$21,118

Albion Giordano

Deputy Executive Director

$284,692

$24,346

Jeremy Chwat

Chief Program Officer

$171,657

$22,108

Adam Silva

Chief Development Officer

$159,498

$22,910

Bruce Nitsche

Executive Vice President - Special Projects

$135,678

$10,313

John Roberts

Executive Vice President - Mental Health

$140,350

$22,136

Ronald W. Burgess

CFO

$126,015

$16,131

Ralph J. Ibson

Senior Fellow

$151,125

$16,319

Christine Hill

Executive Vice President - Congressional Affairs

$146,250

$16,900

Victoria Nemerson

Executive Vice President - General Counsel

$157,303

$12,150


FYI Nardizzi was paid $163K in 2008.

Nice to see some big-ass pay raises going on there.


And if the CFO is worth 400K on the open market, has he just made a 300k donation to the charity? Obviously, their stakeholders dont have an issue with it. Talent for running an organization is expensive, but it can be the difference between a successful organization which helps the most individuals or one that just takes money. Being effective is more important than efficiency in charity, we are talking about help people right? There is nothing out of line with the salaries given the size of the organization and the money it draws in, its less than what can be made in the public sector and more than the public.
Link Posted: 2/15/2013 6:51:28 AM EDT
Most charities are out to make money, not help people.
Link Posted: 2/15/2013 6:52:04 AM EDT
Originally Posted By seven-six-two:

Originally Posted By BobRoberts:

Overhead is going to grow as any organization grows, especially charities, because when it becomes a full time job to do the book keeping or running events, people will need/want to be paid. Efficiency per dollar has an importance, but the larger charities, because of their size and resources, can be more effective in helping those in need. There are plenty of small charities that don't shit because of their size, but are very efficient with their money. Just something to think about.

"Overhead" - you mean "salary" right?

NAME2011 TITLEREPORTABLE COMPENSATIONOTHER COMPENSATION
Steven Nardizzi

CEO, Executive Director

$319,692

$21,118

Albion Giordano

Deputy Executive Director

$284,692

$24,346

Jeremy Chwat

Chief Program Officer

$171,657

$22,108

Adam Silva

Chief Development Officer

$159,498

$22,910

Bruce Nitsche

Executive Vice President - Special Projects

$135,678

$10,313

John Roberts

Executive Vice President - Mental Health

$140,350

$22,136

Ronald W. Burgess

CFO

$126,015

$16,131

Ralph J. Ibson

Senior Fellow

$151,125

$16,319

Christine Hill

Executive Vice President - Congressional Affairs

$146,250

$16,900

Victoria Nemerson

Executive Vice President - General Counsel

$157,303

$12,150


FYI Nardizzi was paid $163K in 2008.

Nice to see some big-ass pay raises going on there.


What a joke. I like their cause, but I'm not going to contribute to someone's salary when it's over 6 figures.
I'd rather give my money to the animal shelter where the people make minimum wage and they don't have enough funding to pay for vaccinations for the animals.


Link Posted: 2/15/2013 6:54:47 AM EDT
The CEO of WWP is not even a Veteran. He is a lawyer if that tells you anything. Yes they are anti-gun and the majority of the money they receive goes to salaries and fund raising. Very little makes it to the wounded veterans.
Link Posted: 2/15/2013 6:55:54 AM EDT
Originally Posted By RenegadeX:

Originally Posted By BobRoberts:
Originally Posted By KevinCa316:
Originally Posted By BobRoberts:
Originally Posted By Skip237:
Anti-gun and anti-Christian. Essentially anti-American as they will not partner with the people and ideas that made this country great.

Semper Fi Fund for the win!


Holy fuck, so they don't lend their image and branding to certain causes for their own reasons and now they are anti- those causes.


They don't even accept donations from them if you can wrap your mind around that. You know, being a charity and all...


They will accept donations from them, but they will not do co-branding which is the issue the church had and the issue the manufacturer had. When does not dealing with religious organizations translate to anti christian?

No they do no accept proceeds from religious, alcohol, or firearm companies.

WWP does not co-brand, create cause marketing campaigns or receive a percentage or a portion of proceeds from companies in which the product or message is sexual, political or religious in nature, or from alcohol or firearms companies


can you read? their is a difference between "co-brand, create cause marketing campaigns or receive a percentage" and Mr. Larue cutting them a quietly cutting a check to them. If he wants to put out a press release or advertise that 10% of profits will go to WWP, then he is co-branding.
Link Posted: 2/15/2013 6:57:50 AM EDT
I listened to them on Guntalk. They are anti gun as hell and got called on it.
Link Posted: 2/15/2013 6:58:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/15/2013 7:01:45 AM EDT by AKengineer]

Originally Posted By BobRoberts:
Originally Posted By RenegadeX:


No they do no accept proceeds from religious, alcohol, or firearm companies.

WWP does not co-brand, create cause marketing campaigns or receive a percentage or a portion of proceeds from companies in which the product or message is sexual, political or religious in nature, or from alcohol or firearms companies


can you read? their is a difference between "co-brand, create cause marketing campaigns or receive a percentage" and Mr. Larue cutting them a quietly cutting a check to them. If he wants to put out a press release or advertise that 10% of profits will go to WWP, then he is co-branding.

They are lying hypocrites. They do events with Playboy and Dos Equis. They also co branded with guns until some big donors told them to stop doing it.


Exhibit A:http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/product/09990

Exhibit B: http://www.examiner.com/video/interviews-at-charity-event-at-playboy-manson-for-wounded-warrior-project

Exhibit C:http://toughmudder.com/post-party/
Link Posted: 2/15/2013 7:05:37 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/15/2013 7:08:35 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Blademan:
Originally Posted By seven-six-two:

Originally Posted By BobRoberts:

Overhead is going to grow as any organization grows, especially charities, because when it becomes a full time job to do the book keeping or running events, people will need/want to be paid. Efficiency per dollar has an importance, but the larger charities, because of their size and resources, can be more effective in helping those in need. There are plenty of small charities that don't shit because of their size, but are very efficient with their money. Just something to think about.

"Overhead" - you mean "salary" right?

NAME2011 TITLEREPORTABLE COMPENSATIONOTHER COMPENSATION
Steven Nardizzi

CEO, Executive Director

$319,692

$21,118

Albion Giordano

Deputy Executive Director

$284,692

$24,346

Jeremy Chwat

Chief Program Officer

$171,657

$22,108

Adam Silva

Chief Development Officer

$159,498

$22,910

Bruce Nitsche

Executive Vice President - Special Projects

$135,678

$10,313

John Roberts

Executive Vice President - Mental Health

$140,350

$22,136

Ronald W. Burgess

CFO

$126,015

$16,131

Ralph J. Ibson

Senior Fellow

$151,125

$16,319

Christine Hill

Executive Vice President - Congressional Affairs

$146,250

$16,900

Victoria Nemerson

Executive Vice President - General Counsel

$157,303

$12,150


FYI Nardizzi was paid $163K in 2008.

Nice to see some big-ass pay raises going on there.


Came here to post this.



Yet nobody has a problem with how much Wayne LaPierre pockets.
Link Posted: 2/15/2013 7:11:46 AM EDT
Originally Posted By OKSoda:
Originally Posted By Blademan:
Originally Posted By seven-six-two:

Originally Posted By BobRoberts:

Overhead is going to grow as any organization grows, especially charities, because when it becomes a full time job to do the book keeping or running events, people will need/want to be paid. Efficiency per dollar has an importance, but the larger charities, because of their size and resources, can be more effective in helping those in need. There are plenty of small charities that don't shit because of their size, but are very efficient with their money. Just something to think about.

"Overhead" - you mean "salary" right?

NAME2011 TITLEREPORTABLE COMPENSATIONOTHER COMPENSATION
Steven Nardizzi

CEO, Executive Director

$319,692

$21,118

Albion Giordano

Deputy Executive Director

$284,692

$24,346

Jeremy Chwat

Chief Program Officer

$171,657

$22,108

Adam Silva

Chief Development Officer

$159,498

$22,910

Bruce Nitsche

Executive Vice President - Special Projects

$135,678

$10,313

John Roberts

Executive Vice President - Mental Health

$140,350

$22,136

Ronald W. Burgess

CFO

$126,015

$16,131

Ralph J. Ibson

Senior Fellow

$151,125

$16,319

Christine Hill

Executive Vice President - Congressional Affairs

$146,250

$16,900

Victoria Nemerson

Executive Vice President - General Counsel

$157,303

$12,150


FYI Nardizzi was paid $163K in 2008.

Nice to see some big-ass pay raises going on there.


Came here to post this.



Yet nobody has a problem with how much Wayne LaPierre pockets.


EXACTLY. PLUS THE NRA IS ANTI-GUN!!!1!

Link Posted: 2/15/2013 7:14:07 AM EDT
donate to the USO instead.
Link Posted: 2/15/2013 7:17:24 AM EDT
Originally Posted By GoCart-Mozart:

EXACTLY. PLUS THE NRA IS ANTI-GUN!!!1!

[/div]

So are people bitching about how much they earn cause they're anti-gun, or cause of how much they earn?

I think people's problem are with both issues. But you seem like a smart guy, so I'm sure you already know that.

For $800K to 1mil I think we can do a lot better. But hey, send them your money, they desperately need it.
Link Posted: 2/15/2013 7:18:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By BobRoberts:
Originally Posted By RenegadeX:

Originally Posted By BobRoberts:
Originally Posted By KevinCa316:
Originally Posted By BobRoberts:
Originally Posted By Skip237:
Anti-gun and anti-Christian. Essentially anti-American as they will not partner with the people and ideas that made this country great.

Semper Fi Fund for the win!


Holy fuck, so they don't lend their image and branding to certain causes for their own reasons and now they are anti- those causes.


They don't even accept donations from them if you can wrap your mind around that. You know, being a charity and all...


They will accept donations from them, but they will not do co-branding which is the issue the church had and the issue the manufacturer had. When does not dealing with religious organizations translate to anti christian?

No they do no accept proceeds from religious, alcohol, or firearm companies.

WWP does not co-brand, create cause marketing campaigns or receive a percentage or a portion of proceeds from companies in which the product or message is sexual, political or religious in nature, or from alcohol or firearms companies


can you read? their is a difference between "co-brand, create cause marketing campaigns or receive a percentage" and Mr. Larue cutting them a quietly cutting a check to them. If he wants to put out a press release or advertise that 10% of profits will go to WWP, then he is co-branding.

What an ironic statement, considering your complete lack of comprehending what you quoted, and the fact that it disproves your assertions.
You are wrong, the company is antigun, and you've just quoted one of the many pieces of evidence that prove it.
Link Posted: 2/15/2013 7:30:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/15/2013 7:35:11 AM EDT by dogsplat]

Originally Posted By Rugerlvr:
USO ftw.

You mean the USO who likes to partner with moveon.org?

That USO?



Link Posted: 2/15/2013 7:38:18 AM EDT
Originally Posted By dogsplat:

Originally Posted By Rugerlvr:
USO ftw.

You mean the USO who likes to partner with moveon.org?

That USO?





The USO did that one time apparently, and will take donations from anyone, even leftists.
Link Posted: 2/15/2013 7:40:31 AM EDT
There have been anti-gun hints from them and their people IIRC. They also are supposedly not the very efficient when it comes to managing the donations they receive.
Link Posted: 2/15/2013 9:57:33 AM EDT
My dad who was giving to Wounded Warrior Project checked them out on www.charitynavigator.org and saw the bad reviews. He is now going to give to SemperFi this year.
Link Posted: 2/15/2013 9:59:03 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SS109:
My dad who was giving to Wounded Warrior Project checked them out on www.charitynavigator.org and saw the bad reviews. He is now going to give to SemperFi this year.




In 2012 I did the same. Sent my check to Semper Fi Fund and sent WW an email explaining why.
Link Posted: 2/15/2013 10:43:09 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Rugerlvr:
Originally Posted By dogsplat:

Originally Posted By Rugerlvr:
USO ftw.

You mean the USO who likes to partner with moveon.org?

That USO?





The USO did that one time apparently, and will take donations from anyone, even leftists.


And I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with charities playing politics which can only be done via selectively refusing donations. Moveon's money is just as green.
Link Posted: 2/15/2013 10:46:34 AM EDT
I watched it unfold on their facebook page., hoping they would clear the air in a positive manner.

They didn't.

They are anti gun. They believed the fair weather liberals they thought would support them.

Fuck them.
Link Posted: 2/15/2013 10:54:00 AM EDT
SOWF, USO, and Fisher House are great charities to give to.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top