• 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

logger said:
Lol
You're going to be waiting for a long time, it was said very early on no crime was committed.
Click to expand...

Lol.

Just as well you said everything *but* that, otherwise it would have been a very short thread (and just as evidence-free, ironically).

Thx for the lulz.
 
logger said:
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!
Click to expand...
Baloney, you've just bought the lies.

Tax rates owed are never the tax rates they actually pay, and don't even start on the lies about the ACA. That does belong in another thread.
 
logger said:
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.
Click to expand...

I like it. The fun defense.
Maybe Fox News will start using it. They can make up absurd news story titles and then claim that it was all done in fun.
 
logger said:
Lol
Clinton said she was broke when they left the Whitehouse, remember the foundation is just a front for them, its a professional way of moving money around.
Click to expand...
In my opinion she is out of touch with the reality.
 
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...

Yep.

Fodder for the base.
 
logger said:
... remember the foundation is just a front for them, its a professional way of moving money around.
Click to expand...

Remember, Dick Cheney is a well-known pedophile ...

Charities do move money around - that's what they are for.
 
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...

This. Bash evil liberals, offer nothing even remotely better.

Minoosh said:
Obamacare is the direct result of corporations not hiring.
Click to expand...

Absolutely correct. Yay for job creators!

Minoosh said:
Is that really what you meant to say?
Click to expand...

Yeah, he didn't think that through.
 
It's difficult to sort through the facts on the Clinton Foundation. (Keep in mind all recent Presidents have similar foundations, it's just that the Clintons raise more money.)

If you look at any right wing website you find scandal and innuendo as well as claims like only 6% or only10% actually went to charities.

But this article on HuffPo has a different take on the news media that sells scandal and the other sources that point out all the foreign country donations and imply there was a quid pro quo when there is no direct evidence of said deal.

Why Reporters Ignore the Real Story of the Clinton Foundation
Now the Times is suggesting that the Clinton Foundation, a charitable organization responsible for saving and improving millions of lives every year, has been financially mismanaged and misused for personal enrichment, among other problems. And those accusations have been amplified not only by the Clintons' traditional enemies on the Republican right, who mortally fear a Hillary 2016 electoral juggernaut, but in a rather deranged column by Dowd as well. ...

Worse than the reliance on backstairs gossip, however, were the factual errors featured in the Times story, particularly concerning the Clinton Foundation's finances. As President Clinton himself noted in an open letter posted on the foundation website, the article incorrectly described the foundation's financial condition and history -- because the reporters didn't understand how nonprofits are required to report their cash flows on IRS document. In his letter, which will interest anyone who wants to understand what he has been doing for the past decade, the former president explained: [read the letter in the link] ...

if Dowd and her Times colleagues were honestly interested in what the Clinton Foundation does with its funds, including the millions raised annually by President Clinton himself, all they would have to do is get off their asses and go look at its projects, which can be found all over the world. (Disclosure: This topic interests me so much that I recently visited Clinton Foundation projects in Africa with the former president and his daughter Chelsea.)

That they never bother to do so, because reporting those stories would ruin their preferred narrative, tells us everything we need to know -- not about the Clintons, of course, but about themselves.
Click to expand...

Searching for where does the money go and I found the same thing. No one actually reports on the projects. Instead they look for scandal, because scandal sells the news. And the right wing sucks it up and spits it back out all chewed up in the way only the right wing can chew up facts.

You can find what the projects are on the Foundation site and in the Wiki entry

I have no doubt that is trumped up a bit as every organization like that does. But it's still obvious the Foundation is involved in some major global improvement efforts.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
It's difficult to sort through the facts on the Clinton Foundation. (Keep in mind all recent Presidents have similar foundations, it's just that the Clintons raise more money.)

If you look at any right wing website you find scandal and innuendo as well as claims like only 6% or only10% actually went to charities.

But this article on HuffPo has a different take on the news media that sells scandal and the other sources that point out all the foreign country donations and imply there was a quid pro quo when there is no direct evidence of said deal.

Why Reporters Ignore the Real Story of the Clinton Foundation


Searching for where does the money go and I found the same thing. No one actually reports on the projects. Instead they look for scandal, because scandal sells the news. And the right wing sucks it up and spits it back out all chewed up in the way only the right wing can chew up facts.

You can find what the projects are on the Foundation site and in the Wiki entry

I have no doubt that is trumped up a bit as every organization like that does. But it's still obvious the Foundation is involved in some major global improvement efforts.
Click to expand...

Curious deletion of text there. Let me help:

Perhaps not every dollar: Some of the money earned by the Clintons has paid their personal expenses, some has paid off millions of dollars in old legal debts incurred during those earlier fake scandals, and some has gone toward political campaigns, including Hillary's presidential race.
Plus that $750,000 they paid Sid Blumenthal, you know, for reasons.

Now that is charity!

Sounds like old Joe Conason might be running a bit of cover for the presumptive Candidate?

maybe I'll read his books Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth, and The Hunting of the President: The Ten-Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton, with Gene Lyons.

I dunno. seems legit
 
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.
Click to expand...
No, it's actually about an attempt to prove that the people running it are distasteful. That has not happened yet.

More specifically it is about showing everyone how low liberals will go to defend the indefensible, and its been quite fun.
Click to expand...
Why would anyone on this forum need to defend a handful of rhetoric, suspicion, and innuendo? The lint in your pocket has more value.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom