|
|
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. |
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?