|
|
Â
|
| Quote: |
| The former president of the United States agreed to accept a lifetime achievement award at the June 2014 event after Ms. Nemcova offered a $500,000 contribution to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. The donation, made late last year after the foundation sent the charity an invoice, amounted to almost a quarter of the evening’s net proceeds — enough to build 10 preschools in Indonesia..... "This is primarily a small but telling example of the way the Clintons operate,” said Doug White, who directs the master’s program in fund-raising management at Columbia University. “The model has responsibility; she paid a high price for a feel-good moment with Bill Clinton. But he was riding the back of this small charity for what? A half-million bucks? I find it — what would be the word? — distasteful.” ...... Further, it is extremely rare for honorees, or their foundations, to be paid from a gala’s proceeds, charity experts said — as it is for the proceeds to be diverted to a different cause...... In the charity gala world, it is considered unacceptable to spend more than a third of gross proceeds on costs, and better to spend considerably less. If the donation to the Clinton Foundation were counted as a cost, Happy Hearts would have spent 34 percent of its announced $2.5 million in proceeds on its gala. |
Doesn't equate to:
"Bill Clinton shook down a charity for a half-million dollars"
At all.
Doesn't equate to:
"Bill Clinton shook down a charity for a half-million dollars"
At all.
Hey, maybe if you read the article? I know, I know, since there's no Bigfoot or UFO angle, you're bored, but give it a shot, K?
I'm really not seeing the relevance.
Mr. Clinton’s scheduler replied with a cordial rejection — “Regrettably, he is committed to another event out of town that same evening” — in an email copied to Frank Giustra, the Canadian mining financier who is one of the Clinton Foundation’s largest donors and also a supporter of Ms. Nemcova.
Ms. Nemcova subsequently met with officers at the Clinton Foundation, Ms. Veres Royal said. Afterward, she said, “Petra called me and said we have to include an honorarium for him — that they don’t look at these things unless money is offered, and it has to be $500,000.”
The invitation letter was revised and sent again at the end of August. It moved the gala to 2014, offered to work around Mr. Clinton’s availability, dropped the focus on Indonesia and shifted it to Haiti, and proposed the donation.
It wasn't.
Pound sand, cunt head.
Doesn't equate to:
"Bill Clinton shook down a charity for a half-million dollars"
At all.
Pretty much this. You could certainly argue that Clinton shouldn't have accepted, much less asked for, a fee for showing up at a charity event.
But you could also argue that the charity should not have offered the money, or told him to go screw when he asked for it.
Or even you could argue that getting Clinton to show up, even for that price, was a reasonable gamble to increase donations to the charity for the event. For all anyone knows, it actually worked out in their favor.
Quote:
The donation, made late last year after the foundation sent the charity an invoice, amounted to almost a quarter of the evening’s net proceeds
Yeah, about that....
Guess he sucks at fundraising, huh?
This is true
Quote:
Their lifetime achievement award?
Quote:
The donation, made late last year after the foundation sent the charity an invoice, amounted to almost a quarter of the evening’s net proceeds
Yeah, about that....
Quote:
When charities select an honoree for their fund-raising events, they generally expect that the award recipient will help them raise money by attracting new donors. But the Happy Hearts Fund raised less money at the gala featuring Mr. Clinton than it did at its previous one.
Guess he sucks at fundraising, huh?
How does that prove he did not raise 1.5 M for them? What does the last one, or the next one have to do with the fact that they netted 2M, which 1/4 went to Clinton's charity ( so all the money went to charities, lets not forget that)?
Where was the shake down with this by the way?
Shakedown: the act of taking something (such as money) from someone by using threats or deception
Now return to your arguing with one another.
It's that the NYT is reporting on it.
My dad has been given awards more times than I can remember and it frequently has been a scenario where they need to know how many tables you can fill and how many people you can get for them. Not that that is a great thing either!
Exactly, this sounds like a win for both charities
What a shake down!
Quote:
The donation, made late last year after the foundation sent the charity an invoice, amounted to almost a quarter of the evening’s net proceeds
No, the charity raised less at that event than at prior events.
Because Bill Clinton is a huge draw.
Quote:
Their lifetime achievement award?
Quote:
The donation, made late last year after the foundation sent the charity an invoice, amounted to almost a quarter of the evening’s net proceeds
No, the charity raised less at that event than at prior events.
So how does that change the fact that he raised 1.5M for them? Holy shit, WTF does it have to do with any other event they have had? He generated 1.5M for them in this one, right or wrong?
They made 1.5M in one night. Is that considered a loss?
Quote:
In comment 12306596 montanagiant said:
Quote:
Their lifetime achievement award?
Quote:
The donation, made late last year after the foundation sent the charity an invoice, amounted to almost a quarter of the evening’s net proceeds
No, the charity raised less at that event than at prior events.
So how does that change the fact that he raised 1.5M for them? Holy shit, WTF does it have to do with any other event they have had? He generated 1.5M for them in this one, right or wrong?
It shows that the charity was more than capable of raising that amount of cash on their own and calls into question whether or not they would've been better off without inviting him. When you bring in someone like Clinton, you typically expect to see a significant increase in the amount raised.
And it's highly unlikely this gala wouldn't have raised at least half the $2M on their own, so you have to have your head pretty far up the Clinton's asses to attribute all $1.5M to them.
Quote:
And the reasoning has to be better than "they were graced with the awesome presence of Bill Clinton"
They made 1.5M in one night. Is that considered a loss?
If the total proceeds from the event sans Clinton would've exceeded $1.5M, than yes, it's a loss. And considering they had prior events surpass that mark, it's reasonable to think they could've raised a comparable amount for the Happy Hearts charity without Bill.
Quote:
In comment 12306654 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
And the reasoning has to be better than "they were graced with the awesome presence of Bill Clinton"
They made 1.5M in one night. Is that considered a loss?
If the total proceeds from the event sans Clinton would've exceeded $1.5M, than yes, it's a loss. And considering they had prior events surpass that mark, it's reasonable to think they could've raised a comparable amount for the Happy Hearts charity without Bill.
Did they charge the same ticket prices for their event with BC as they've done for previous events without him?
Perhaps they did, but my point is that there are more financial factors in play besides Clinton's ability to raise money or the amount of money he was paid to show up.
If you got a beef, its much easier to go after Hillary
Quote:
In comment 12306652 giants#1 said:
Quote:
In comment 12306596 montanagiant said:
Quote:
Their lifetime achievement award?
Quote:
The donation, made late last year after the foundation sent the charity an invoice, amounted to almost a quarter of the evening’s net proceeds
No, the charity raised less at that event than at prior events.
So how does that change the fact that he raised 1.5M for them? Holy shit, WTF does it have to do with any other event they have had? He generated 1.5M for them in this one, right or wrong?
It shows that the charity was more than capable of raising that amount of cash on their own and calls into question whether or not they would've been better off without inviting him. When you bring in someone like Clinton, you typically expect to see a significant increase in the amount raised.
And it's highly unlikely this gala wouldn't have raised at least half the $2M on their own, so you have to have your head pretty far up the Clinton's asses to attribute all $1.5M to them.
Horseshit...It does not show that at all. there could be a ton of mitigating factors that came into play we don't know.
The bottom line here is that its a fact 2M was netted for charities and your trying to somehow find something wrong with that.
Are you saying charging speaking fees that clients are willing to pay indicates a lack of integrity?
Quote:
In comment 12306654 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
And the reasoning has to be better than "they were graced with the awesome presence of Bill Clinton"
They made 1.5M in one night. Is that considered a loss?
If the total proceeds from the event sans Clinton would've exceeded $1.5M, than yes, it's a loss. And considering they had prior events surpass that mark, it's reasonable to think they could've raised a comparable amount for the Happy Hearts charity without Bill.
They NETTED 2M total...How on Earth does that equate to a loss? Its still a profit no matter how you much you want to use a bunch of BS to claim otherwise
Quote:
As does integrity. The Clintons have not impressed me with the integrity part
Are you saying charging speaking fees that clients are willing to pay indicates a lack of integrity?
Actually he charged a donation to a different charity. So bottom line here is that all monies went to charitable events which is really the goal when it all is boiled down.
From $50 to $500,000 is significant inflation, no?
Unbelievably so
Link - ( New Window )
You have to add the "Gate" also to really amp it up. "Bilgazigate"
Out of curiosity, when did we ever stop helping the Saudi's militarily?
70-80's we sold them over 100 Billion in military stuff, plus help train them
90's we sent troops to protect the Saudi border during the Gulf War as well as form an alliance with them.
We have had 10K troops stationed there since 2003
So while he may have increased the participation in the event, how about not demanding a huge fee to do so? Or donate it back to the charity.
She booked Cipriani 42nd Street, which greeted guests with Bellini cocktails on silver trays. She flew in Sheryl Crow with her band and crew for a 20-minute set. She special-ordered heart-shaped floral centerpieces, heart-shaped chocolate parfaits, heart-shaped tiramisù and, because orange is the charity’s color, an orange carpet rather than a red one. She imported a Swiss auctioneer and handed out orange rulers to serve as auction paddles, playfully threatening to use hers to spank the highest bidder for an Ibiza vacation.
These people decided to go all out and blow $363k on costs. Fucking disgusting waste of money. The 500k rerouted to the Clinton charity was probably the money best spent.
I suspect they started to draw heat because $863k of $2 million did not go to their charity. And so instead of taking the heat for their gala 10th anniversary with grossly wasteful costs, they pointed the middle finger at Bill Clinton. Who didnt make a fucking dollar off of the event. Maybe people who run charities shouldnt "pull out all the stops" in throwing a party like they had Tyco shareholders money to burn.
But of course, the Clintons are evil (TM).
So while he may have increased the participation in the event, how about not demanding a huge fee to do so? Or donate it back to the charity.
The issue as you see it is based on made up facts in your ridiculous fantasy land.
How are they greedy if all the money went to charities? I would love an explanation for that claim based on what happened here.
Don't get shitty because i pointed out the fact that we have been doing business with them for over 40 years militarily, something i think you should have known
Can you supply some proof of this? some actual examples?
Quote:
I am surprised that most posters are sympathetic to the Clintons.The article highlights something that is clear from everything they do.They are greedy.Not satisfied with the lifestyle of people like myself who they would say does not pay their fair share,and under any circumstance always putting their own interests and getting as much as they can for themselves before the needs of anyone else.
How are they greedy if all the money went to charities? I would love an explanation for that claim based on what happened here.
LOL, don't you read at all? Only 10% of the money the Clinton's raise goes to actual charity. The rest is eaten up by travel and other expenses.
They did not cut the check to him, they paid his charity. Don't understand how that is missed repeatedly in this thread
Geez i don't know why
Quote:
In comment 12306712 Hilary said:
Quote:
I am surprised that most posters are sympathetic to the Clintons.The article highlights something that is clear from everything they do.They are greedy.Not satisfied with the lifestyle of people like myself who they would say does not pay their fair share,and under any circumstance always putting their own interests and getting as much as they can for themselves before the needs of anyone else.
How are they greedy if all the money went to charities? I would love an explanation for that claim based on what happened here.
LOL, don't you read at all? Only 10% of the money the Clinton's raise goes to actual charity. The rest is eaten up by travel and other expenses.
No i don't I need you to supply a link showing this okay?
Quote:
As to why this might raise eyebrows,
Geez i don't know why
Quote:
(And I think it's a good read whether you want a complete carte Blanche for anything Democrat or you want to add -gate to everything
Quote:
In comment 12306725 Bill L said:
Quote:
As to why this might raise eyebrows,
Geez i don't know why
Quote:
(And I think it's a good read whether you want a complete carte Blanche for anything Democrat or you want to add -gate to everything
. But aren't those the two sides here (and the other thread the other night)? I'm pretty sure I saw a couple posts here meant to mock or deflect critique with "Benghazi-gate)
Well then don't sit there and claim "Golly gee i was only asking a question" when you get it shot back at you a bit.
Bill L, you wanting to claim the two sided issue, yet i only see you take one side and its the same one every time. If your going to ask that of someone then don't you think it should apply to yourself as well?
There will be when they refile the financials showing the foreign money. that will also change the %'s of what was spent on charitable grants to the better.
Yes. Like the Saudis, who we've never been in bed with. Or a bunch of other Arab countries who we want to fight against extremism in the middle east (instead of our own sons and daughters).
I urge you to really dig into the countries. Western Europe, Canada and Austrilia are 8. 12 left. Who are we complaining about? The Saudis? We've been arming them forever, sadly. Kuwait is a big ally. That's like $45-50 million off the list; most of the money. Taiwan always has our support. Jamaica ($50k) seem like a good group of guys (fast as shit). Dont know the deal with Thailand.
I honestly dont know a ton about our national interest and histories of selling arms to the remainder. Were we trying to get countries in the middle east involved in all the shit there (Iraq, beginning of ISIS, AQAP etc)? single year over year comp seems like it could be misleading. But importantly the donations seem small by comparison. $50k from Baharain seems immaterial even if you think the worst of the Clintons. Other than Morocco, which gave $2 million and saw a whopping 1% increase in purchases, the other donations are all $1 million or less.
And of course we have no idea what role Clinton played in these approvals. I mean, if memos were coming up saying "dont sell X to country Y" and Sec. Clinton overrode that, it's relevant. But if the normal bureaucracy approved these sales and Clinton was uninvolved or rubber stamped it, I think you'd agree that it isnt relevant. And of course if she shut this all down we'd hear about Left Hillary destroying good American defense contracting jobs.
Quote:
In comment 12306728 montanagiant said:
Quote:
In comment 12306725 Bill L said:
Quote:
As to why this might raise eyebrows,
Geez i don't know why
Quote:
(And I think it's a good read whether you want a complete carte Blanche for anything Democrat or you want to add -gate to everything
. But aren't those the two sides here (and the other thread the other night)? I'm pretty sure I saw a couple posts here meant to mock or deflect critique with "Benghazi-gate)
Well then don't sit there and claim "Golly gee i was only asking a question" when you get it shot back at you a bit.
Bill L, you wanting to claim the two sided issue, yet i only see you take one side and its the same one every time. If your going to ask that of someone then don't you think it should apply to yourself as well?
It is a two-sided issue...otherwise you wouldn't have an argument here. And obviously I'm going to take the same side on it every time.
Quote:
I think the more troubling news is the story in IBT yesterday that there was a direct relationship and huge jump in the amount of weapons sales to about 20 countries that ponied up big donations to the Clinton Foundation. These were a result of State Dept approval while Clinton was Secretary.
Yes. Like the Saudis, who we've never been in bed with. Or a bunch of other Arab countries who we want to fight against extremism in the middle east (instead of our own sons and daughters).
I urge you to really dig into the countries. Western Europe, Canada and Austrilia are 8. 12 left. Who are we complaining about? The Saudis? We've been arming them forever, sadly. Kuwait is a big ally. That's like $45-50 million off the list; most of the money. Taiwan always has our support. Jamaica ($50k) seem like a good group of guys (fast as shit). Dont know the deal with Thailand.
I honestly dont know a ton about our national interest and histories of selling arms to the remainder. Were we trying to get countries in the middle east involved in all the shit there (Iraq, beginning of ISIS, AQAP etc)? single year over year comp seems like it could be misleading. But importantly the donations seem small by comparison. $50k from Baharain seems immaterial even if you think the worst of the Clintons. Other than Morocco, which gave $2 million and saw a whopping 1% increase in purchases, the other donations are all $1 million or less.
And of course we have no idea what role Clinton played in these approvals. I mean, if memos were coming up saying "dont sell X to country Y" and Sec. Clinton overrode that, it's relevant. But if the normal bureaucracy approved these sales and Clinton was uninvolved or rubber stamped it, I think you'd agree that it isnt relevant. And of course if she shut this all down we'd hear about Left Hillary destroying good American defense contracting jobs.
Maybe all true. But wouldn't you agree that when everyone, republican and democrat and Obama said that the foundation should not accept foreign donations while she was at State (and now that she's running) that they should have follow d that "advice"?
Anyway, if it's no problem to you, then it's no problem. I'm not trying to change your mind. It's troubling to me but I'm also okay if it's only troubling to me.
Quote:
their 'charity'.
Can you supply some proof of this? some actual examples?
The same donors to the charity also pay huge sums for the Clinton's to speak. Ironically, Bill's speaking fees skyrocketed when Hilary was SOS. And as I said, the foundation pays their staff that they also use for political purposes and they get to travel in style. One charity watchdog group called the Clinton Foundation 'a slush fund'.
But yeah, it's just like giving to Medecins Sans Frontieres.
Link - ( New Window )
But yeah, it's just like giving to Medecins Sans Frontieres. Link - ( New Window )
Way to move the target. You've not yet explained how what happened in the article you've linked qualifies as a shake down.
What is the source for that?
Quote:
In comment 12306732 Bill L said:
Quote:
In comment 12306728 montanagiant said:
Quote:
In comment 12306725 Bill L said:
Quote:
As to why this might raise eyebrows,
Geez i don't know why
Quote:
It is a two-sided issue...otherwise you wouldn't have an argument here. And obviously I'm going to take the same side on it every time.
And you know what that is fine, but don't sit here with the "Aw shucks i was just asking a question" when you were doing more then that.
Quote:
What is the source for that?
Jonah Goldberg of National Review.
Quote:
What is the source for that?
LOL...its from Jonah Goldberg at the National Review. He is still mad because his mom never could sell her "Clinton's murdered Vince Foster" theory to anything more then extremist's
Quote:
In comment 12306716 buford said:
Quote:
their 'charity'.
Can you supply some proof of this? some actual examples?
The same donors to the charity also pay huge sums for the Clinton's to speak. Ironically, Bill's speaking fees skyrocketed when Hilary was SOS. And as I said, the foundation pays their staff that they also use for political purposes and they get to travel in style. One charity watchdog group called the Clinton Foundation 'a slush fund'.
Great, can you actually show the quotes and the proof that they are abusing the foundations money? Its easy to keep saying it, but it really would go far in backing your claims if you actually showed some kind of evidence of this? That is unless your just running with unproven accusations and innuendo
I'm not crazy about her, but listening to the likes of buford, I'm rooting for her like hell. If they hate her so much, she must really scare them. And she should. Clintons have continually owned the GOP for two decades.
Quote:
In comment 12306745 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
What is the source for that?
LOL...its from Jonah Goldberg at the National Review. He is still mad because his mom never could sell her "Clinton's murdered Vince Foster" theory to anything more then extremist's
It is tongue in cheek. A little too close to home for some people though, apparently. This notion that it's all just some big conspiracy, that everyone is out to get the Clinton's, is the best sales job the two of them and their acolytes have ever pulled off. They're shady as fuck. This story is shady as fuck. Not criminal, but the sort of petty bullshit that even some of the lesser evil folks have come to expect of the Clintons. And yet since we lack the aforementioned Dave Chappell standard of proof of anything criminal, we're left with Thriller.
From $50 to $500,000 is significant inflation, no?
Raising $2000000 for charity. The nerve on 'em.
Quote:
In comment 12306721 montanagiant said:
Quote:
In comment 12306716 buford said:
Quote:
their 'charity'.
Can you supply some proof of this? some actual examples?
The same donors to the charity also pay huge sums for the Clinton's to speak. Ironically, Bill's speaking fees skyrocketed when Hilary was SOS. And as I said, the foundation pays their staff that they also use for political purposes and they get to travel in style. One charity watchdog group called the Clinton Foundation 'a slush fund'.
Great, can you actually show the quotes and the proof that they are abusing the foundations money? Its easy to keep saying it, but it really would go far in backing your claims if you actually showed some kind of evidence of this? That is unless your just running with unproven accusations and innuendo
Ahem
Link - ( New Window )
Pretty clear from the article that he would not do the event absent the $500k honorarium. Did he raise $1.5M - yeah if none of that money would have been raised without. That isn't clear from the article though.
It's going to be a long elections season. And it won't really start until the Republican herd gets thinned out a bit. Personal, I think HRC is more than competent enough to be POTUS, but, these "issues" keep popping up.
But yeah, it's just like giving to Medecins Sans Frontieres. Link - ( New Window )
There is nothing to that story, number 974 in a series of jumping to ridiculous conclusions about the Clintons:
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 12306721 montanagiant said:
Quote:
In comment 12306716 buford said:
Quote:
their 'charity'.
Can you supply some proof of this? some actual examples?
The same donors to the charity also pay huge sums for the Clinton's to speak. Ironically, Bill's speaking fees skyrocketed when Hilary was SOS. And as I said, the foundation pays their staff that they also use for political purposes and they get to travel in style. One charity watchdog group called the Clinton Foundation 'a slush fund'.
Great, can you actually show the quotes and the proof that they are abusing the foundations money? Its easy to keep saying it, but it really would go far in backing your claims if you actually showed some kind of evidence of this? That is unless your just running with unproven accusations and innuendo
No, these are facts. If you didn't live in a bubble you would have heard of it.
But it doesn't really matter. We could have pictures of Bill and Hillary murdering little children and you would still vote for them. This is why politics such so much.
Quote:
In comment 12306759 buford said:
Quote:
In comment 12306721 montanagiant said:
Quote:
In comment 12306716 buford said:
Quote:
their 'charity'.
Can you supply some proof of this? some actual examples?
The same donors to the charity also pay huge sums for the Clinton's to speak. Ironically, Bill's speaking fees skyrocketed when Hilary was SOS. And as I said, the foundation pays their staff that they also use for political purposes and they get to travel in style. One charity watchdog group called the Clinton Foundation 'a slush fund'.
Great, can you actually show the quotes and the proof that they are abusing the foundations money? Its easy to keep saying it, but it really would go far in backing your claims if you actually showed some kind of evidence of this? That is unless your just running with unproven accusations and innuendo
Ahem Link - ( New Window )
Page Not Found. Fitting.
Quote:
In comment 12306759 buford said:
Quote:
In comment 12306721 montanagiant said:
Quote:
In comment 12306716 buford said:
Quote:
their 'charity'.
Can you supply some proof of this? some actual examples?
The same donors to the charity also pay huge sums for the Clinton's to speak. Ironically, Bill's speaking fees skyrocketed when Hilary was SOS. And as I said, the foundation pays their staff that they also use for political purposes and they get to travel in style. One charity watchdog group called the Clinton Foundation 'a slush fund'.
Great, can you actually show the quotes and the proof that they are abusing the foundations money? Its easy to keep saying it, but it really would go far in backing your claims if you actually showed some kind of evidence of this? That is unless your just running with unproven accusations and innuendo
Ahem Link - ( New Window )
Need a lozenge?
Your link says this:
Quote:
In comment 12306759 buford said:
Quote:
In comment 12306721 montanagiant said:
Quote:
In comment 12306716 buford said:
Quote:
their 'charity'.
Can you supply some proof of this? some actual examples?
The same donors to the charity also pay huge sums for the Clinton's to speak. Ironically, Bill's speaking fees skyrocketed when Hilary was SOS. And as I said, the foundation pays their staff that they also use for political purposes and they get to travel in style. One charity watchdog group called the Clinton Foundation 'a slush fund'.
Great, can you actually show the quotes and the proof that they are abusing the foundations money? Its easy to keep saying it, but it really would go far in backing your claims if you actually showed some kind of evidence of this? That is unless your just running with unproven accusations and innuendo
No, these are facts. If you didn't live in a bubble you would have heard of it.
But it doesn't really matter. We could have pictures of Bill and Hillary murdering little children and you would still vote for them. This is why politics such so much.
So as i thought, you don't actually have any proof of this stuff, your just talking out of your ass while your head is stuck up it.
Do you think while you up there you could find a copy of the Constitution and tell us all again how it is "Not our right to vote, its a privilege"?
He's going to go down as Jimmy Carter part deux in a lot of ways, but that doesn't make him a bad person.
Quote:
Mark it down. Economic recovery. Bin Laden. Obamacare. Those 3 ensure his legacy.
He's going to go down as Jimmy Carter part deux in a lot of ways, but that doesn't make him a bad person.
+1
Try the second one you useless cunt.
Quote:
Mark it down. Economic recovery. Bin Laden. Obamacare. Those 3 ensure his legacy.
He's going to go down as Jimmy Carter part deux in a lot of ways, but that doesn't make him a bad person.
He was given that label before he took the oath. Some people will hold onto it regardless.
Quote:
In comment 12306852 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
Mark it down. Economic recovery. Bin Laden. Obamacare. Those 3 ensure his legacy.
He's going to go down as Jimmy Carter part deux in a lot of ways, but that doesn't make him a bad person.
He was given that label before he took the oath. Some people will hold onto it regardless.
The shoe has fit, to an extent. Lukewarm recovery (though nowhere near the doldrums of the late-70's), chaos in the Middle East and a strained relationship with Israel, and a Commander in Chief who seems decent enough and is certainly very smart but largely ineffective, and for what in the eyes of their critics seem like similar reasons.
LOL. Republicans are so cute.
Quote:
In comment 12306759 buford said:
Quote:
In comment 12306721 montanagiant said:
Quote:
In comment 12306716 buford said:
Quote:
their 'charity'.
Can you supply some proof of this? some actual examples?
The same donors to the charity also pay huge sums for the Clinton's to speak. Ironically, Bill's speaking fees skyrocketed when Hilary was SOS. And as I said, the foundation pays their staff that they also use for political purposes and they get to travel in style. One charity watchdog group called the Clinton Foundation 'a slush fund'.
Great, can you actually show the quotes and the proof that they are abusing the foundations money? Its easy to keep saying it, but it really would go far in backing your claims if you actually showed some kind of evidence of this? That is unless your just running with unproven accusations and innuendo
No, these are facts. If you didn't live in a bubble you would have heard of it.
But it doesn't really matter. We could have pictures of Bill and Hillary murdering little children and you would still vote for them. This is why politics such so much.
"The Clintons are bad bad people. I don't have any nonpartisan proof of this, but you really really really have to believe me. Just like Bengahzi."
By the way, I found your link.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/clinton-foundation-sidney-blumenthal-salary-libya-118359.html
Then I found another article on the same site.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/sidney-blumenthal-fake-clinton-scandals-118389.html
ERIC SHAWN: That sounds really bad but it’s actually incredibly misleading, because it’s the way the charity works. They don’t give grants to other charities — they do most of it themselves, so that they actually have spending of about 80 percent, according to the IRS figures. They say 88 percent. You know, Bill, the experts for charity say that’s very good. They usually want a charity to give about 80 percent of [garbled]…
BILL O’REILLY: …So their own people whom they hire do the work in Haiti, do the work in the other Third World nations, paid by the Clinton Foundation themselves [garbled] going in for infrastructure, for salaries, travel, for them to do the charitable work, rather than giving it to someone else.
ERIC SHAWN: Or partners that they work with, as opposed to being the charity [garbled]…
BILL O’REILLY: So right now the amount of money from the $2 billion that’s going out is okay.
ERIC SHAWN: Yeah. According to experts, that’s okay.
BILL O’REILLY: But 20 percent left over — that’s a lot of money left over. Wanna point that out.
ERIC SHAWN: For staples..
Note: Eric Shawn is an American television news reporter for the Fox News Channel.
And while we are at it, the reason why Hillary has a very good chance of surviving her semi- and quasi-scandals can be found way over on her right, where much of the Republican party resides. This race will be decided in a lot of battleground states with 1) no love of Obama, but also 2)no love of where Republican leaders are taking their states.
Not just liberals, but also many moderates fear giving control of both houses of Congress plus the Presidency to a successively more right leaning party. That type of person will overlook a lot in the Clintons. And don't underestimate Bill as a campaigner on Hill's behalf.
And, of course, whomever comes out of this wacky Republican primary race with 19 or so name candidates will have an awful lot of mud of their own to wash off before taking on Hillary. And all of the messiness Rand Paul is going to generate without having a prayer of getting the candidacy.
ERIC SHAWN: That sounds really bad but it’s actually incredibly misleading, because it’s the way the charity works. They don’t give grants to other charities — they do most of it themselves, so that they actually have spending of about 80 percent, according to the IRS figures. They say 88 percent. You know, Bill, the experts for charity say that’s very good. They usually want a charity to give about 80 percent of [garbled]…
BILL O’REILLY: …So their own people whom they hire do the work in Haiti, do the work in the other Third World nations, paid by the Clinton Foundation themselves [garbled] going in for infrastructure, for salaries, travel, for them to do the charitable work, rather than giving it to someone else.
ERIC SHAWN: Or partners that they work with, as opposed to being the charity [garbled]…
BILL O’REILLY: So right now the amount of money from the $2 billion that’s going out is okay.
ERIC SHAWN: Yeah. According to experts, that’s okay.
BILL O’REILLY: But 20 percent left over — that’s a lot of money left over. Wanna point that out.
ERIC SHAWN: For staples..
Note: Eric Shawn is an American television news reporter for the Fox News Channel.
Well some charity groups beg to differ....
We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity's atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity. We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that appropriately captures its business model.
What does it mean that this organization isn’t rated?
It simply means that the organization doesn't meet our criteria. A lack of a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment by Charity Navigator.
Also...
Link - ( New Window )
And while we are at it, the reason why Hillary has a very good chance of surviving her semi- and quasi-scandals can be found way over on her right, where much of the Republican party resides. This race will be decided in a lot of battleground states with 1) no love of Obama, but also 2)no love of where Republican leaders are taking their states.
Not just liberals, but also many moderates fear giving control of both houses of Congress plus the Presidency to a successively more right leaning party. That type of person will overlook a lot in the Clintons. And don't underestimate Bill as a campaigner on Hill's behalf.
And, of course, whomever comes out of this wacky Republican primary race with 19 or so name candidates will have an awful lot of mud of their own to wash off before taking on Hillary. And all of the messiness Rand Paul is going to generate without having a prayer of getting the candidacy.
The question isn't if there is a Republic to vote for, but why are there no other Democrats to vote for? Why is it this early in the process and Hilary is locked in? It's as if you don't, as Democrats, get a choice. You are stuck with Hilary. Maybe you are happy with that. But somehow I doubt it.
ERIC SHAWN: That sounds really bad but it’s actually incredibly misleading, because it’s the way the charity works. They don’t give grants to other charities — they do most of it themselves, so that they actually have spending of about 80 percent, according to the IRS figures. They say 88 percent. You know, Bill, the experts for charity say that’s very good. They usually want a charity to give about 80 percent of [garbled]…
BILL O’REILLY: …So their own people whom they hire do the work in Haiti, do the work in the other Third World nations, paid by the Clinton Foundation themselves [garbled] going in for infrastructure, for salaries, travel, for them to do the charitable work, rather than giving it to someone else.
ERIC SHAWN: Or partners that they work with, as opposed to being the charity [garbled]…
BILL O’REILLY: So right now the amount of money from the $2 billion that’s going out is okay.
ERIC SHAWN: Yeah. According to experts, that’s okay.
BILL O’REILLY: But 20 percent left over — that’s a lot of money left over. Wanna point that out.
ERIC SHAWN: For staples..
Note: Eric Shawn is an American television news reporter for the Fox News Channel.
Well some charity groups beg to differ.... Quote:Why isn't this organization rated?
We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity's atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity. We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that appropriately captures its business model.
What does it mean that this organization isn’t rated?
It simply means that the organization doesn't meet our criteria. A lack of a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment by Charity Navigator.
I don't see how the Charity Navigator blurb is in any way negative towards the O'Reilly Factor transcript. Please explain "beg to differ".
Crazy, crazy, milquetoast, who the fuck are you, crazy, I could live with it, I could live with it, crazy, crazy, PLEASE SHUT THE FUCK UP, I'd rather vote for Bernie, maybe, maybe, crazy. That's my preview of the field.
Link - ( New Window )
Meh. He's been writing for the right's journal of record for a decade plus, he has sold a few million books, you may not like him but he's no hackier than your garden variety op-ed journalist.
So, you get two potential outcomes here. Either the National Review did the kind of unbiased reporting Politico tends to, or they are actually part of the big lie Politico is describing. They have done it before.
From Wiki:
The magazine's current editor is Rich Lowry. Many of the magazine's commentators are affiliated with think-tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute. Prominent guest authors have included Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Sarah Palin in the on-line and paper edition.
Here is their current Washington Editor:
Quote:
In comment 12306783 montanagiant said:
Quote:
In comment 12306759 buford said:
Quote:
In comment 12306721 montanagiant said:
Quote:
In comment 12306716 buford said:
Quote:
their 'charity'.
Can you supply some proof of this? some actual examples?
The same donors to the charity also pay huge sums for the Clinton's to speak. Ironically, Bill's speaking fees skyrocketed when Hilary was SOS. And as I said, the foundation pays their staff that they also use for political purposes and they get to travel in style. One charity watchdog group called the Clinton Foundation 'a slush fund'.
Great, can you actually show the quotes and the proof that they are abusing the foundations money? Its easy to keep saying it, but it really would go far in backing your claims if you actually showed some kind of evidence of this? That is unless your just running with unproven accusations and innuendo
No, these are facts. If you didn't live in a bubble you would have heard of it.
But it doesn't really matter. We could have pictures of Bill and Hillary murdering little children and you would still vote for them. This is why politics such so much.
"The Clintons are bad bad people. I don't have any nonpartisan proof of this, but you really really really have to believe me. Just like Bengahzi."
By the way, I found your link.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/clinton-foundation-sidney-blumenthal-salary-libya-118359.html
Then I found another article on the same site.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/sidney-blumenthal-fake-clinton-scandals-118389.html
So once again per those links we have a bunch of theories, accusations, and slanted opinions about the Charity they run. Where is the absolute proof positive of what they are accused of? Where is the proven criminal act?
100M spent and counting, the FBI, Secret Service, AK State Police, numerous Govt investigative depts, Congress, House, a corrupt Ind prosecutor in Starr, illegal wiretaps, and out of all of that array of power and money tasked with finding proof of some tangible wrongdoing you have a red dress that Bill ran a batch on.
For 20+ years the all we have heard is all this wrong doing, all these criminal acts, all this obvious corruption done by these two people and you have as a sum total after all the ranting and wailing about them, a shitty little red dress.
The question isn't if there is a Republic to vote for, but why are there no other Democrats to vote for? Why is it this early in the process and Hilary is locked in? It's as if you don't, as Democrats, get a choice. You are stuck with Hilary. Maybe you are happy with that. But somehow I doubt it.
Buford seeing as she routinely is polling 65% among Dems which is literally almost un-unprecedented for a non sitting president, I would say us Dems are plenty comfortable with her as a choice. Of course the Right isn't, they have made that abundantly clear over the past 2 decades. Frankly though she is not running for their votes.
Let's face it, you don't care if she tortures puppies. It's all party first, and damn everything else.
Yeah, fuck those craven people!
As for crazy, crazy is in the eye of the beholder. For example, I would consider as example of crazy being orchestrating a 16-day government shutdown for a reason that never had any chance of succeeding.
So, you get two potential outcomes here. Either the National Review did the kind of unbiased reporting Politico tends to, or they are actually part of the big lie Politico is describing. They have done it before.
From Wiki:
Quote:
Current editor and contributors:
The magazine's current editor is Rich Lowry. Many of the magazine's commentators are affiliated with think-tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute. Prominent guest authors have included Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Sarah Palin in the on-line and paper edition.
Here is their current Washington Editor:
Quote:
Eliana Johnson (born c. 1984) is an American conservative writer who has worked for National Review magazine. In August 2014, she was promoted from media editor to the position of Washington Editor for National Review. Her predecessor, Robert Costa, had left to join the for The Washington Post in November 2013. She had previously worked as a producer at Fox News on Sean Hannity's television program Hannity and as a staff reporter at The New York Sun.
I guess you are under the impression that Politico is unbiased. That's sad. At any rate, the article was about how biased the media is, and how they protect the Clintons and how useful idiots like you fall for it. No wonder you didn't get it.
I would call crazy having seven separate investigations into Benghazi come back with the exact same conclusion, including the most recently completed investigation by your own party, but still insisting on another investigation.
Let's face it, you don't care if she tortures puppies. It's all party first, and damn everything else.
Actually you are laughable. Your point was to lecture us that we don't like Hillary. My point was the party seems plenty comfortable with her. If she wasn't liked in the party you don't think there would be a younger candidate being pushed? You don't like her that's fine, just don't try and tell Democrats who we like based on your preferences and your obvious Clinton conspiracy fetish.
Bill was a competent president, albeit he did make some mistakes.
Hillary might be the most dishonest, hard to trust, and lets face it - the biggest bitch ever to run for presidency. I do not see the appeal for her whatsoever. There are going to be 5-6 dems running now.... and believe it or not, some are actually better suited for the office than she is.
Its definitely questionable, would love to see the rational and if its a legit one.
Let me ask you this Greg, do you think there is any candidate running for President that if faced with the same scrutiny they have had, would not have some questionable aspects to past dealings?
I would call crazy having seven separate investigations into Benghazi come back with the exact same conclusion, including the most recently completed investigation by your own party, but still insisting on another investigation.
Not surprising, they spent 50M to investigate supposed illegal land deals and ended up with a seamen stained dress in their face
Quote:
Intelligence service is a legitimate charitable expense? Yes or no?
Its definitely questionable, would love to see the rational and if its a legit one.
Let me ask you this Greg, do you think there is any candidate running for President that if faced with the same scrutiny they have had, would not have some questionable aspects to past dealings?
I believe you are right... but would any of them have as many questionable aspects as Hillary?
Quote:
In comment 12307365 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
Intelligence service is a legitimate charitable expense? Yes or no?
Its definitely questionable, would love to see the rational and if its a legit one.
Let me ask you this Greg, do you think there is any candidate running for President that if faced with the same scrutiny they have had, would not have some questionable aspects to past dealings?
I believe you are right... but would any of them have as many questionable aspects as Hillary?
If they have been in the public eye and held as many prominent positions? Very well could be.
There is a very small number of people that could survive the kind of pressure, scrutiny, rumors, and accusations that they have.
Its definitely questionable, would love to see the rational and if its a legit one.
Are you agreeing that he was paid for "Intelligence service"?
Quote:
Intelligence service is a legitimate charitable expense? Yes or no?
Its definitely questionable, would love to see the rational and if its a legit one.
Let me ask you this Greg, do you think there is any candidate running for President that if faced with the same scrutiny they have had, would not have some questionable aspects to past dealings?
Questionable to the level of the Clintons? They're like the Michael Jordan of political grifters.
I have no illusions about the sliminess of politicians as a class, regardless of party. Normal people with healthy senses of humility, who don't lust for power, There are degrees,though. I have nothing but contempt for Obama, but I don't think he's corrupt and venal. Bill and Hillary Clinton absolutely are.
while the Clinton Foundation looked like a (political) slush fund, with more serious conflicts of interest, she being at State, and they ignored it?
That is a double standard,
when IRS being political in any way is totally illegal and fundamentally un-American in the first place.
what is in those emails? (the 'private server' ones, that we don't have access to)
2) I'm still waiting to learn how this was a 'shake down'.
3) Buford, we get it. You don't like Hillary. Stop lecturing the rest of us on how we should feel about her. It's tiring.
But, acting like the moderator does not add anything to the debate.
but having the IRS investigate and intimidate political groups is 'its time for another revolution' stuff.
totally out of bounds, deeply un-American, disgusting and far worse than typical Washington greed and graft by millions of miles.
and we will never know if hill was involved, because she dumped her harddrive in a river or something
Quote:
who else do you have?
Let's face it, you don't care if she tortures puppies. It's all party first, and damn everything else.
Actually you are laughable. Your point was to lecture us that we don't like Hillary. My point was the party seems plenty comfortable with her. If she wasn't liked in the party you don't think there would be a younger candidate being pushed? You don't like her that's fine, just don't try and tell Democrats who we like based on your preferences and your obvious Clinton conspiracy fetish.
You 'like' her because you buy into the false persona that she (with help from the media) have crafted for her. And how the media doesn't report on the things that she and her husband do. It's not all a conspiracy, unless you think the NYTimes and Washington Post are RW conspiracy rags.
And while Bill Clinton did have a somewhat successful term as President, he is just as guilty as Hilary is. If a Republican candidate did one tenth of what the Clinton's did, they'd be toast.
2) Happy Hearts charity wants him to appear at their fundraiser.
3) Happy Hearts is made aware of Clinton's fee, in the form of a donation to his foundation
4) Petra Nemcova, the charity's founder, agrees to pay this fee.
5) Clinton shows up to collect his "award". Many celebrities also attend. Much money is raised.
The final step is, of course, Greg from LI starting this thread to take an epic shit on the Clintons. I'm surprised that the thread wasn't titled, "After Hillary Clinton killed Vince Foster, she stole $500,000 from poor, blind, Republican orphans and used the money to pay for abortions for illegal immigrant in Benghazi"
2) I'm still waiting to learn how this was a 'shake down'.
3) Buford, we get it. You don't like Hillary. Stop lecturing the rest of us on how we should feel about her. It's tiring.
I'm glad you are back to supporting the Clintons. Back in 08 you were very anti Clinton. Only a couple months till the primaries, I'm super pumped.
Let's face it, you don't care if she tortures puppies. It's all party first, and damn everything else.
The pot calling the kettle black. This is shameful un-self awareness.
This time around, I may be forced to sport a Hillary '16 bumper sticker on the family sedan or take up residence on the couch.
And the alternative, be it Rubio (Dude is taking fear mongering to new heights), Bush (Because his brother was such a raging success... Jeb 2016!), Walker (Can't even say Obama is a Christian), is just way too scary.
The only semi-decent one is Paul, though even some of his ideas don't jive with my thinking.
ght out
Then what is the reason? That's why I am asking. If you don't think she won't get votes because she is a woman and a clinton, then I don't know what to tell you. Like I said... hillary jones doesn't even announce for presidency.
And the alternative, be it Rubio (Dude is taking fear mongering to new heights), Bush (Because his brother was such a raging success... Jeb 2016!), Walker (Can't even say Obama is a Christian), is just way too scary.
The only semi-decent one is Paul, though even some of his ideas don't jive with my thinking.
I'm glad you are on top of the important issues there....
When was she a national figure? When she was fired from the Watergate Investigation team? She has no accomplishments. Even in the posts she has had she has not shown any major accomplishment that would tag her as a candidate. It's all manipulation.
As a woman, I am insulted that she is promoted as a model for the modern woman. She is a throwback to the old way women got power, by marrying it. It disgusts me the way the media vilifies women who have made it on their own, but props up Hilary who has not. She is no role model.
Quote:
I'm still not a big HRC fan, but I will support her because I agree with her on most every issue.
And the alternative, be it Rubio (Dude is taking fear mongering to new heights), Bush (Because his brother was such a raging success... Jeb 2016!), Walker (Can't even say Obama is a Christian), is just way too scary.
The only semi-decent one is Paul, though even some of his ideas don't jive with my thinking.
I'm glad you are on top of the important issues there....
Like Benghazi?
I did not say that so don't put words in my mouth. I said people will vote for her because she is a woman and a clinton. I don't see how that can be argued. If bill never becomes president there's a good chance hillary never becomes senator or secretary of state. Hell she still may be a republican.
And I agree she is smart, but many candidates on both sides are very smart or else they wouldn't be here. So again, I want to know why I as a voter should vote for her.
She voted for the war against Iraq and Afghanistan
Her tenure as secretary is amid controversy.
She has already been deemed the most dishonest candidate.
Many of her ideas as first lady were failures.
She used the state of new York to become senator.
And I'll let the Republicans throw in some more fire. Despite your claims of how smart she is... she is a user and abuser.
Quote:
who else do you have?
Let's face it, you don't care if she tortures puppies. It's all party first, and damn everything else.
The pot calling the kettle black. This is shameful un-self awareness.
I don't give a crap about the Republican Party. They can prop up Jeb Bush all they want, but he's never getting my vote.
And again, it's not about whether you libs should vote for a Republican. It's about why you don't have a better candidate than Hilary. I have some friends that are liberals and they don't want Hilary at all, but would not vote for a Republican. I can respect that. I can't respect people who just are in the tank for Hilary because. Because why, I have no idea. Even her strongest supporters don't know why they are supporting her. And they ignore any and all criticism of her and her many faults.
Quote:
In comment 12307669 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
I'm still not a big HRC fan, but I will support her because I agree with her on most every issue.
And the alternative, be it Rubio (Dude is taking fear mongering to new heights), Bush (Because his brother was such a raging success... Jeb 2016!), Walker (Can't even say Obama is a Christian), is just way too scary.
The only semi-decent one is Paul, though even some of his ideas don't jive with my thinking.
I'm glad you are on top of the important issues there....
Like Benghazi?
Since you brought it up, the mess that is Libya is 100% of Clinton and Obama. That was their thing from the beginning and it was botched badly.
So again, what did HRC accomplish as Secretary of State that makes you want to turn over the entire foreign policy of the US to her?
Gary from The East End : Admin : 7:46 am : link : reply
My wife was (and is) a big big Hillary Clinton supporter. There some friction in the "from the East End" household over this issue, I can tell you.
This time around, I may be forced to sport a Hillary '16 bumper sticker on the family sedan or take up residence on the couch''
It's a less harmful option than the lawyers. Haha. If I get out there I will toot the horn.
I will never-NEVER-give the time of day to people who are advised by Wolfowitz, Bremer, Bolton, & the like.
I will never-NEVER-give the time of day to people who are advised by Wolfowitz, Bremer, Bolton, & the like.
Would you actually pretend the last six plus years have seen effective foreign policy? Some of the decisions were inevitable, some understandable, but on the aggregate it looks like an utter clusterfuck.
(terrible, but what the fuck can you do, it's the nature of the beast, hope for enforcement and vote them all out of office, both sides)
and things that are fundamentals to our freedoms and way of life
(using the State, its Power in the IRS to intimidate political groups on any and all sides..
....or, getting suckered into ill advised invasions, if that's your' point of view)
and, no, they are not of the same order at all.
We need to know IF the Foundation was used as a political slush fund,
IF there were any squid pro-quos...which WOULD HAVE BEEN in the simple graft category....
IF they had not used the IRS to investigate the OTHER sides political groups,
which now makes that a fundamental, since they would be using the power of the State in such a way as is fundamentally out of bounds in a way the simple graft is not, and in a way the changed outcomes and was unavailable to the other side apparently.
Fundamental. As in Constitutional. As in Why we are Americans and What they fight for. As in, all bets are off. Rigging the process. One side seems to have internalized whatever critques of the 'other side' so deeply that they just don't care.
what about Libya was botched?
Libya had a civil war which brought down a dictator in which US along with 27 other countries provided a navy blockade and sorties to help rebels hasten the ouster of Kadaffi.
This has morphed into a 4 sided Civil War in LIbya.
I am unsure what different action US could have taken to make this outcome different except an Iraq style invasion of the country.
For the HRC haters:
1) She was the first woman to give the commencement speech at Wellesley. In that speech, she tweaked then MA Senator Edward Brooks. She was subsequently covered in Life Magazine, a pretty popular magazine back in the 1960s. So she was a national figure.
2) She got into Yale. On her own! Not as Bill's wife! buford, did you get into Yale? Did I? I heard it's a pretty good school.
3) Her getting fired from the Watergate committee is a nice story in the right wing media bubble. But it's never been verified, much like a lot of HRC stories.
Quote:
Because she's a Clinton and a woman is incredibly insulting. She's smart as a tack and was already a national figure before she met Bill.
When was she a national figure? When she was fired from the Watergate Investigation team? She has no accomplishments. Even in the posts she has had she has not shown any major accomplishment that would tag her as a candidate. It's all manipulation.
As a woman, I am insulted that she is promoted as a model for the modern woman. She is a throwback to the old way women got power, by marrying it. It disgusts me the way the media vilifies women who have made it on their own, but props up Hilary who has not. She is no role model.
You honestly make HRC look like Fredo, some bumbling idiot who couldn't put two sentences together. She's a helluva lot smarter than you or I. And even if she hadn't married Bill, I think she would have done very, very well for herself.
But you like Carly Fiorina, who was one of the worst CEOs of all time & has literally no record whatsoever that matches Hillary's.
Quote:
In comment 12307685 buford said:
Quote:
In comment 12307669 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
I'm still not a big HRC fan, but I will support her because I agree with her on most every issue.
And the alternative, be it Rubio (Dude is taking fear mongering to new heights), Bush (Because his brother was such a raging success... Jeb 2016!), Walker (Can't even say Obama is a Christian), is just way too scary.
The only semi-decent one is Paul, though even some of his ideas don't jive with my thinking.
I'm glad you are on top of the important issues there....
Like Benghazi?
Since you brought it up, the mess that is Libya is 100% of Clinton and Obama. That was their thing from the beginning and it was botched badly.
So again, what did HRC accomplish as Secretary of State that makes you want to turn over the entire foreign policy of the US to her?
Name me accomplishments of Condi Rice. Name me accomplishments of Colin Powell. Name me accomplishments of Madeline Albright. Name me accomplishments of Christopher Warren.
"Haters"? really?
I am not a republican and could sit down and watch Fox. Not a democrat either.
Hillary repulses me. What has she accomplished politically? Being the first woman to speak somewhere or going to Yale are entirely meaningless as qualifications for president.
San Fran, from my perspective, part of the problem is that you treat this stuff like competing teams. "We will win and embarrass those guys." It's fine with something harmless like the Giants vs. Eagles, but with politics, it seems wrong.
How can you be objective with that kind of emotional investment?
& I'm sick of people acting like she's done absolutely nothing in her life. She's a helluva lot more qualified to be president than any Republican running. I'll take her track record over Rubio, Bush, Walker, Paul, Cruz, Carson, Fiorina, & the 7,000 other Republicans currently running.
apparently you're very stupid. That chart says 10% went to OTHER charities. Many/most charities do their charitable work in-house (including the charities I've been most involved in). So they have high spend on shit like rent, salaries etc.
It's sad how much people will lie about the Clintons.
But I agree with her on the issues, she's going probably be the party's nominee, & I'm tired of listening to people piss all over her, mostly just trumping up discredited reports or absurd rumors.
& I'm sick of people acting like she's done absolutely nothing in her life. She's a helluva lot more qualified to be president than any Republican running. I'll take her track record over Rubio, Bush, Walker, Paul, Cruz, Carson, Fiorina, & the 7,000 other Republicans currently running.
It seems to me that this leads to fanaticism and lack of judgement.
"I am a Giants fan. So Eli is the best quarterback ever."
If that is someone's reasoning--self conscious reasoning, especially--he isn't worthy of rational engagement. A number of things you've said are factually weak (not all of them), but why point if out if truth isn't what you are after.
You're a delusional fanboy if you think the landscape is better now than it was six years ago. We can disagree as to the why, but there is not an ally in the region in less peril, or an adversary in greater peril, than was the case in January 2009. A millenarian cult controls a state-sized swath of territory and is committing some of the worst human rights violations in recorded history. To support his legacy in the Middle East is blind, delusional homerism.
I totally agree.. She's as smart as a tack. And so are you!
HILLARY SANFRANLAWYERFAN 2016
Quote:
the party's positions. If HRC is the Democratic nominee, I'm going to vote for her because...she's a Democrat!
& I'm sick of people acting like she's done absolutely nothing in her life. She's a helluva lot more qualified to be president than any Republican running. I'll take her track record over Rubio, Bush, Walker, Paul, Cruz, Carson, Fiorina, & the 7,000 other Republicans currently running.
It seems to me that this leads to fanaticism and lack of judgement.
"I am a Giants fan. So Eli is the best quarterback ever."
If that is someone's reasoning--self conscious reasoning, especially--he isn't worthy of rational engagement. A number of things you've said are factually weak (not all of them), but why point if out if truth isn't what you are after.
I agree with the party's platform on most issues! I don't understand why the correlation that I'd therefore vote for HRC somehow confounds you. I don't get it. On issue after issue, I agree with Hillary & the Democratic Party. I think they are right on the issues for this nation, so thus I want them to win.
For the HRC haters:
1) She was the first woman to give the commencement speech at Wellesley. In that speech, she tweaked then MA Senator Edward Brooks. She was subsequently covered in Life Magazine, a pretty popular magazine back in the 1960s. So she was a national figure.
2) She got into Yale. On her own! Not as Bill's wife! buford, did you get into Yale? Did I? I heard it's a pretty good school.
3) Her getting fired from the Watergate committee is a nice story in the right wing media bubble. But it's never been verified, much like a lot of HRC stories.
#1 or 2 shoukd have any affect on why people should vote for her.
Again no one is saying here that she isn't smart. She is. She was also an excellent lawyer. But these aren't reasons why she should be president.
while the Clinton Foundation looked like a (political) slush fund, with more serious conflicts of interest, she being at State, and they ignored it?
That is a double standard,
when IRS being political in any way is totally illegal and fundamentally un-American in the first place.
what is in those emails? (the 'private server' ones, that we don't have access to)
Let me help you out, YOU have not had your facts straight on ANY of the posts you have made in this thread. The very first one regarding the 10% is all that is used for charitable causes is an utter load of crap. Their foundation is different in that while they distribute monies to specific charities under their wing, the vast amount of the money is used for ongoing areas they have already established and that are on-going. That is why you keep seeing the shady disclaimer of "Charitable grants" used by those when they claim this 10% is utter horseshit.
& I agree that giving a commencement speech or going to Yale Law shouldn't make you president. But they indicate a pretty successful individual, not the Fredo Clinton that buford has in her imagination.
You can blame it on whatever you want. That's an unsophisticated answer though. Frankly I think one of the unheralded causes of the Syrian catastrophe, the initial vacuum from which ISIS emerged, was the local and global reaction to the assassination of Hariri in Lebanon, which the Assads had long used as a financial carrot to reward regime allies. The decline of Syria's economic sway in Lebanon helped undercut Assad's base of power at a time when the region was in foment. Either way, the point is you are apt to find explanations that serve your "team" rather than ones that reflect reality rather than a partisan narrative. 2003 was what it was, in hindsight a bad decision and a worse execution but one that does not constitute the start of a straight-line narrative of inevitability linking invasion to the loss of most of Anbar to ISIS.
Again, I wish Obama had left a small contingent of troops in Iraq, but Maliki is the real one to blame. And as far as ISIS, they've been in Iraq long before they became known as ISIS. They were al Qaeda in Iraq. They propped up when we stumbled in there.
You don't want to re-litigate history. Fine. But ISIS was created when we invaded.
Yale. Wow. Just give all Yalers frigging jobs in the executive.....not!
Have a good day. I'm outta here; gotta enjoy the weekends.
Again, I wish Obama had left a small contingent of troops in Iraq, but Maliki is the real one to blame. And as far as ISIS, they've been in Iraq long before they became known as ISIS. They were al Qaeda in Iraq. They propped up when we stumbled in there.
You don't want to re-litigate history. Fine. But ISIS was created when we invaded.
Well there was no need to stay since we had achieved "Mission Accomplished" two weeks after we went in there right?
Quote:
In comment 12307301 buford said:
Quote:
who else do you have?
Let's face it, you don't care if she tortures puppies. It's all party first, and damn everything else.
The pot calling the kettle black. This is shameful un-self awareness.
I don't give a crap about the Republican Party. They can prop up Jeb Bush all they want, but he's never getting my vote.
And again, it's not about whether you libs should vote for a Republican. It's about why you don't have a better candidate than Hilary. I have some friends that are liberals and they don't want Hilary at all, but would not vote for a Republican. I can respect that. I can't respect people who just are in the tank for Hilary because. Because why, I have no idea. Even her strongest supporters don't know why they are supporting her. And they ignore any and all criticism of her and her many faults.
"You libs" pretty much sums up the gist of my comment. Your ignorance is only exceeded by your disingenuousness. I certainly slant left and have never claimed otherwise, but I subscribe to no one line of political/social thought.
You, on the other hand, are a ravening beast whenever anyone has the effrontery to bash your very obvious affiliation with an ultra-conservative viewpoint.
Do I care about your viewpoint? No more than I care about the looney left's viewpoints. Just don't even try to state that you aren't a full-blooded, rabid rightist. It demeans you and is an insult to anyone with a functioning bullshit meter.
Quote:
2011. When '11 came, we left & handed off the nation to Maliki, who was an absolute disaster & pissed off the Sunnis. That was totally smart, considering ISIS is made up of Sunnis & thus wouldn't be really receptive of being marginalized.
Again, I wish Obama had left a small contingent of troops in Iraq, but Maliki is the real one to blame. And as far as ISIS, they've been in Iraq long before they became known as ISIS. They were al Qaeda in Iraq. They propped up when we stumbled in there.
You don't want to re-litigate history. Fine. But ISIS was created when we invaded.
Well there was no need to stay since we had achieved "Mission Accomplished" two weeks after we went in there right?
Montana you're better than this nonsense, and if you're not save it for shit-slinging with Gene. That insipid banner had absolutely nothing to do with what happened eight years later. SanFran is right in a sense, Maliki had a lot to do with what has happened since. But there was nothing inevitable about his becoming a Tehran-aligned autocrat, and a couple years worth of military and political leadership failures had a fair amount to do with that. I thought pulling out was probably the right move, certainly with the beauty of hindsight I can feel otherwise. But the Administration seized on Maliki's posturing as an excuse to do "what the Iraqis wanted" and coupled with the wider disengagement strategy it had a lot to do with what followed.
Even if you don't have a ton of sympathy for the Iraqi military (and I do, they and their families have suffered plenty over the last three or four decades), religious minorities and the women and girls of the country who will be the foremost victims of anything ISIS touches do deserve a fair amount more.
Quote:
In comment 12307757 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
2011. When '11 came, we left & handed off the nation to Maliki, who was an absolute disaster & pissed off the Sunnis. That was totally smart, considering ISIS is made up of Sunnis & thus wouldn't be really receptive of being marginalized.
Again, I wish Obama had left a small contingent of troops in Iraq, but Maliki is the real one to blame. And as far as ISIS, they've been in Iraq long before they became known as ISIS. They were al Qaeda in Iraq. They propped up when we stumbled in there.
You don't want to re-litigate history. Fine. But ISIS was created when we invaded.
Well there was no need to stay since we had achieved "Mission Accomplished" two weeks after we went in there right?
Montana you're better than this nonsense, and if you're not save it for shit-slinging with Gene. That insipid banner had absolutely nothing to do with what happened eight years later. SanFran is right in a sense, Maliki had a lot to do with what has happened since. But there was nothing inevitable about his becoming a Tehran-aligned autocrat, and a couple years worth of military and political leadership failures had a fair amount to do with that. I thought pulling out was probably the right move, certainly with the beauty of hindsight I can feel otherwise. But the Administration seized on Maliki's posturing as an excuse to do "what the Iraqis wanted" and coupled with the wider disengagement strategy it had a lot to do with what followed.
lol...It was there..I took the shot, you have to admit it epitomized that whole fiasco, BUT I will acknowledge your correct that it does not further the discussion, so no real place for it here.
Here we go again
Do you have any actual evidence of this?
All I read is noise and baseless accusations and rehashing tired cliches from the '90's. Pin something on her that sticks and I will listen, but all I read is a whole lot of nothing
All I read is noise and baseless accusations and rehashing tired cliches from the '90's. Pin something on her that sticks and I will listen, but all I read is a whole lot of nothing
Its the strategy of "Throwing it against the wall and see what sticks".
Make an accusation, when nothing comes from it make another and keep pounding with the first accusation, rinse and repeat.
I will never-NEVER-give the time of day to people who are advised by Wolfowitz, Bremer, Bolton, & the like.
Again you are all about party. I wouldn't vote for Bush as I said and he has a lot of those advisors. But candidates like Rubio and Walker are their own men and would follow their own path.
For the HRC haters:
1) She was the first woman to give the commencement speech at Wellesley. In that speech, she tweaked then MA Senator Edward Brooks. She was subsequently covered in Life Magazine, a pretty popular magazine back in the 1960s. So she was a national figure.
2) She got into Yale. On her own! Not as Bill's wife! buford, did you get into Yale? Did I? I heard it's a pretty good school.
3) Her getting fired from the Watergate committee is a nice story in the right wing media bubble. But it's never been verified, much like a lot of HRC stories.
Wow. What a list! She got into Yale! So did George Bush who also got better grades than John Kerry.
Quote:
In comment 12307688 rut17 said:
Quote:
In comment 12307685 buford said:
Quote:
In comment 12307669 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
I'm still not a big HRC fan, but I will support her because I agree with her on most every issue.
And the alternative, be it Rubio (Dude is taking fear mongering to new heights), Bush (Because his brother was such a raging success... Jeb 2016!), Walker (Can't even say Obama is a Christian), is just way too scary.
The only semi-decent one is Paul, though even some of his ideas don't jive with my thinking.
I'm glad you are on top of the important issues there....
Like Benghazi?
Since you brought it up, the mess that is Libya is 100% of Clinton and Obama. That was their thing from the beginning and it was botched badly.
So again, what did HRC accomplish as Secretary of State that makes you want to turn over the entire foreign policy of the US to her?
Name me accomplishments of Condi Rice. Name me accomplishments of Colin Powell. Name me accomplishments of Madeline Albright. Name me accomplishments of Christopher Warren.
Are they running for President?
oh...and the cost, but hey, one thing at a time.