• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Clinton Crime Family Foundation

16.5 said:
k.

This thread is about the Clinton Family Foundation. Case in point, Hillary put a political operative on the payroll that Obama had specifically vetoed.

It is funny, I posted that a few times, yet not getting a whole lot of commentary from her fans. I mean we got this off topic stuff in response to a typical off topic post from Iron Man.

anything, tho, remotely on topic?
Click to expand...

On topic? Sure. I made a serious reply in post #19.
By the middle of page two, I decided that this was not the right thread to seriously discuss things.
 
logger said:
Once again, this thread is not about the foundation being wrong or wrong in what they're doing, it is about the distasteful people running it. More specifically it is about showing everyone how low liberals will go to defend the indefensible, and its been quite fun.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

In any event.

1.) That you think it is "indefensible" doesn't make it so. It's a subjective value. I don't like them. I respect them. I put it all into context. Wrong is wrong but it's so removed from the distasteful nature of torturing, killing, lying, that I'm happy to condemn Bill and Hill I think it trivial in the grand scheme of things.

2.) Most liberals I know won't defend criminal acts or gross negligence that leads to the deaths of thousands. The GOP does this as a matter of fact.

3.) I think the foundation is ripe for criticism and analysis. Have at it.
 
16.5 said:
I usually at least attempt to conduct a 30 second investigation before I post something completely hand waving something away like you did.

Oh well:

Take a gander, Politico's article on it is the very top!
Click to expand...


And that 1st article does not support the wording of your statement. No surprise there.

You said Obama hates him and that's why he blocked his appointment to the state department. Yet the article merely says that top Obama aids rebuffed him.

And from that you conclude hate? From that you conclude him being hired for anything is inherently bad? Someone who fails to get hired by the state department is therefore unfit for any job?

The article provides nothing more than office gossip relating to his value as a consultant and speculation and conspiracy theories relating to his hiring.

But since it paints a picture you like, you are all over it, lapping it up.
 
What amazes me is how successful the right wing has been making this stuff seem more nefarious than the rest of them.

From the Business Insider:
Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department
Even by the standards of arms deals between the United States and Saudi Arabia, this one was enormous. A consortium of American defense contractors led by Boeing would deliver $29 billion worth of advanced fighter jets to the United States' oil-rich ally in the Middle East.
Click to expand...
But, given the cost of those jets surely rises annually, the amount needs some context.
The United States has long been Saudi Arabia’s leading arms supplier. From 1950 through 2006, Saudi Arabia bought or was granted from the United States weapons, military equipment and services worth $79.8 billion. Almost a fifth of all American arms sales during that period went to Saudi Arabia—or 19% of all U.S. arms sales during the period. The proportion underscores the importance of Saudi Arabia to the American defense industry.
Click to expand...
In comparison, Israel has received $53.6 billion in U.S. military grants between 1949 and 2007. The Bush administration agreed to a colossal increase in annual military aid to Israel, however. militaries. Annual military grants to Israel represent over 20% of the Israeli defense budget. U.S. military aid will increase from $2.4 billion in 2008 to $3.1 billion a year through 2018. About 75% of the aid is spent on American weaponry and services. (Israel itself in 2006 was the 9th biggest arms exporter in the world.)
Click to expand...

Saudi Arabia buys billions in arms from the US every year and I'm pretty sure the Secretary of State would be involved in the negotiations. So what's different here than every year before for the last couple decades?

Getting back to the Business Insider charges:
These extra sales were part of a broad increase in American military exports that accompanied Obama’s arrival in the White House. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period.
Click to expand...
In order for that to be significant one has to ask which countries we are talking about here and what might be the other variables besides donations to the Clinton Foundation?

More about the other variables from the context link above:
The Bush administration timed the announcement of its $30 billion, 10-year military aid agreement with Israel to coincide with a separate deal to sell $16.7 billion in weaponry to Saudi Arabia. ... Saudi Arabia plans to spend $50-60 billion upgrading existing weapons systems, improving command and control, and expanding the size, training, and capabilities of the Saudi armed forces. Nevertheless, Saudi Arabia still depends on the United States to guarantee its security. Saudi power has been exercised almost exclusively on domestic soil, countering terrorism, suppressing dissidents and, as in most authoritarian Arab regimes, maintaining an iron grip on Saudi society. The United States, through what the Bush administration called the Gulf Security Dialogue, is seeking to improve the deterrent and defensive capabilities of Saudi and other Gulf Cooperation Council militaries regarding Iran.
Click to expand...
So you have the Iraq debacle, the rise of unrest in Syria, a President (Obama) that is not as empathetic with Bibi Netanyahu as Bush was, and an oil rich country that wanted to increase their military spending on US hardware, and people want to make this about donations to the Clinton Foundation?

Let me offer a different scenario, not exactly ethical but not the political corruption being claimed. These countries are used to doing business by bribe. They offered big donations while Clinton knew full well the deals were destined to be approved donations or not.

And don't forget, the military industrial complex has a massive lobbying presence in the same government circles as the buyers. For example, searching for Boeing contributions to the Clinton Foundation' I got this (mentioned in the other articles):
For Hillary Clinton and Boeing, a beneficial relationship:
On a trip to Moscow early in her tenure as secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton played the role of international saleswoman, pressing Russian government officials to sign a multibillion-dollar deal to buy dozens of aircraft from Boeing.
A month later, Clinton was in China, where she jubilantly announced that the aerospace giant would be writing a generous check to help resuscitate floundering U.S. efforts to host a pavilion at the upcoming World’s Fair. ...
The November 2009 episode was an indicator of a mutually beneficial relationship between one of the world’s major corporations and a potential future president. Clinton functioned as a powerful ally for Boeing’s business interests at home and abroad, while Boeing has invested resources in causes beneficial to Clinton’s public and political image. ... In 2010, two months after Boeing won its $3.7 billion Russia deal, the company announced a $900,000 contribution to the William J. Clinton Foundation intended to rebuild schools in earthquake-ravaged Haiti.
Click to expand...

So what does it mean? Corruption beyond the pale or business as usual?

Given how much cronyism in the Bush administration completely devastated the Iraq post-war outcome, it's hard to get all that excited about the donations. Bush's cronies including Cheney got rich, Iraq rebuilding completely failed, and the US economy tanked.

Clinton facilitates deals that gets billion dollar contracts for US corporations, donations to charity, arms deals for allies we do arms deals with anyway and yes, money destined to increase Clinton's power and influence.

I'm watching MSNBC right now and they just showed clips of the Republican candidates all claiming we need to cut taxes on corporations which is more trickle down failure. The corporations that would benefit are flush with cash but not creating jobs, have higher than ever profits while they've kept wages for workers stagnant, and supposedly the tax rate is holding them back despite the fact many of the same corporations don't pay those rates anyway because of all the loopholes they have available to them.

Yes, our government is currently ruled by the rich. Yes Obama didn't come through quite as cleanly as I would have liked. Yes, Hillary Clinton is right up there with the big boys when it comes to business as usual. Hell, she looks damn competent there, impressive.

What are our choices? Give me Hillary any day. At least there's a chance of not completely gutting the middle class of what's left.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
What are our choices? Give me Hillary any day. At least there's a chance of not completely gutting the middle class of what's left.
Click to expand...
This is really the bottom line, at least for me. It's not a mystery why the conservatives on this forum spend pretty much zero time talking in detail about the qualities and accomplishments of prominent Republicans. Try and find threads started by conservatives supporting prominent Republicans. It's not easy. It's all about dragging down the opposition.

If you can't defend who you support, the only chance to win is to attack those you don't support. Talk about a "skeptical" approach :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
logger said:
When you start a thread about the other side doing the exact same thing, lm sure we would condemn it, so your continued thread derails can stop.
Click to expand...

You seem to be missing repeated posts reminding you that YOU do not control the comments of other posters. You started the thread. Congratulations. Now others can state their opinions, draw analogies (get 16.5 on it, he'll start calling them ad homs and tu quoques for you), an voice opinions.


Lol
Ok, fine whatever you say.
Click to expand...

Methinks you're not serious. On the off chance that this is a sincere moment, though, let's give it a try.

Go away and don't come back until you have an actual argument to make and not just an assertion based on your hack partisan beliefs. Show us where the "crime" is. You backed off of that. Show us how they make their money from the Foundation. Failed on that, too. Now you're down to asserting that they move money around using the Foundation. Prove it.
 
Molinaro said:
And that 1st article does not support the wording of your statement. No surprise there.

You said Obama hates him and that's why he blocked his appointment to the state department. Yet the article merely says that top Obama aids rebuffed him.

And from that you conclude hate? From that you conclude him being hired for anything is inherently bad? Someone who fails to get hired by the state department is therefore unfit for any job?

The article provides nothing more than office gossip relating to his value as a consultant and speculation and conspiracy theories relating to his hiring.

But since it paints a picture you like, you are all over it, lapping it up.
Click to expand...

lol, I knew that all I would get is some minor quibbling about the wording, some strawmen and a hand wave.

Arguments from incredulity are *********** awesome!!!!:rolleyes:

why do I waste my time?
 
logger said:
When you start a thread about the other side doing the exact same thing, lm sure we would condemn it...
Click to expand...

:dl:

Foolmewunz said:
You seem to be missing repeated posts reminding you that YOU do not control the comments of other posters. You started the thread. Congratulations. Now others can state their opinions, draw analogies (get 16.5 on it, he'll start calling them ad homs and tu quoques for you), an voice opinions.
Click to expand...

No. He'd never do that. He said so.

16.5 said:
Hillary 2016, Not Actually Convicted of a Crime yet.

Makes one hell of a fine campaign slogan, don't it?
Click to expand...

Yes it does. And it fits on a bumper sticker!

Unlike the Republican/conservative slogan: "GOP 2016: We Can't Seem To Find A Candidate Who's NOT Bat **** Crazy And Panders To The Nutjob Base, So We'll Go With Whomever The Last Guy Standing Is, Even If Even WE Don't Like Him".
 
12AX7 said:
:dl:



No. He'd never do that. He said so.



Yes it does. And it fits on a bumper sticker!

Unlike the Republican/conservative slogan: "GOP 2016: We Can't Seem To Find A Candidate Who's NOT Bat **** Crazy And Panders To The Nutjob Base, So We'll Go With Whomever The Last Guy Standing Is, Even If Even WE Don't Like Him".
Click to expand...

That'll be the only one who hasn't had his proud 'Murican values photo op with a kid diddler. I don't think they have a candidate that fits that description yet.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I'm watching MSNBC right now and they just showed clips of the Republican candidates all claiming we need to cut taxes on corporations which is more trickle down failure. The corporations that would benefit are flush with cash but not creating jobs, have higher than ever profits while they've kept wages for workers stagnant, and supposedly the tax rate is holding them back despite the fact many of the same corporations don't pay those rates anyway because of all the loopholes they have available to them.
Click to expand...

A little education at the risk of a thread derail. Republicans want to lower the corporate rate because we are one of the highest in the world. Many corporations have left. Obamacare is the direct result of corporations not hiring.

Back to the thread!
 
DavidJames said:
This is really the bottom line, at least for me. It's not a mystery why the conservatives on this forum spend pretty much zero time talking in detail about the qualities and accomplishments of prominent Republicans. Try and find threads started by conservatives supporting prominent Republicans. It's not easy. It's all about dragging down the opposition.

If you can't defend who you support, the only chance to win is to attack those you don't support. Talk about a "skeptical" approach :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Lol
Pot meet kettle!
 
Foolmewunz said:
You seem to be missing repeated posts reminding you that YOU do not control the comments of other posters.
Click to expand...

But I certainly can steer the conversation back from BDS or whatever derails would come up.



Go away and don't come back until you have an actual argument to make and not just an assertion based on your hack partisan beliefs. Show us where the "crime" is. You backed off of that. Show us how they make their money from the Foundation. Failed on that, too. Now you're down to asserting that they move money around using the Foundation. Prove it.
Click to expand...

Lol
I repeatedly said there was never a crime committed, as usual you're not reading the whole thread. I'm sure you're busy serving coffee, but a little time reading the thread again would be in order.

Now once again the word "crime" in the title was just a fun way to parallel it with something the mob would do. If you were intelligent enough to just read the article that was posted, you'd see that this whole thread is about the Clintons "distasteful" shenanigans. I'm just putting this up to give you libs the chance to defend the indefensible, remember character counts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom