• 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

I'm shocked! High profile public figure gets money for promoting something.

Why hasn't anybody thought of this before? It seems so OBVIOUS in retrospect....
 
I'm enjoying watching logger make fools of these liberals. Here's a soundtrack to go along with this ass-kicking:

 
TragicMonkey said:
Worse than Adopol Potler? I doubt that very much; he was quite the stinker!
Click to expand...

Steady on there, you have it quite wrong. He was an Armenian pastry chef, who achieved some notoriety when he (allegedly) accidentally baked an antique nose flute into a family-sized apple strudel in 1986.

I suspect the fellow you're thinking of is Podolph Hitpot. Easy mistake to make if you're an over-tired dyslexic. Apparently.
 
Last edited:
I swear if it's not liberals it's socialists. Both ruining the USA as we know it. And don't even get me started on the socialist liberals. Some say that one day there will even be liberal socialists here in the good 'ol USA. Oh and did I mention that they are all brown.
 
First off, I can't see anything in that article to indicate that any of the Clintons have, as logger put it, become wealthy from the charity. The so-called scandal appears to have to do with the Clinton Foundation getting money from another charitable organization under questionable circumstances.

Second, the Clintons are not liberals. They are, at best, moderates. Over the last 40 years the political atmosphere of the US has become so absurdly distorted that what, in the 70s would have been considered very conservative is now considered moderate. Even people who are a bit right of moderate get labelled as communists now. Actual liberals look at the majority of the Democratic party, including people like Clinton and Obama, and just lament that these moderate-to-conservative people, who clearly are primarily focused on benefiting big business and the wealthy, are the best we can do. The only alternative is so-called conservatives who are actually little more than sociopaths trying to leach as much wealth as they can from the country before it goes completely bankrupt from their mismanagement.
 
Stimpson J. Cat said:
First off, I can't see anything in that article to indicate that any of the Clintons have, as logger put it, become wealthy from the charity. The so-called scandal appears to have to do with the Clinton Foundation getting money from another charitable organization under questionable circumstances.

Second, the Clintons are not liberals. They are, at best, moderates. Over the last 40 years the political atmosphere of the US has become so absurdly distorted that what, in the 70s would have been considered very conservative is now considered moderate. Even people who are a bit right of moderate get labelled as communists now. Actual liberals look at the majority of the Democratic party, including people like Clinton and Obama, and just lament that these moderate-to-conservative people, who clearly are primarily focused on benefiting big business and the wealthy, are the best we can do. The only alternative is so-called conservatives who are actually little more than sociopaths trying to leach as much wealth as they can from the country before it goes completely bankrupt from their mismanagement.
Click to expand...

You're the first post that has attempted to at least discuss this topic. For all those above, you're posts show the kind of character you have. You would fit perfectly with the Clintons.

Now SJC you seem to be caught up with the word liberal. There isn't much they pontificate on that isn't very much to the left. There aren't very many moderates left.

Your comment about the rich leaching from the economy is quite interesting. That would come from an opinion that thinks all property belongs to the government. They earned it, it is theirs to do what they like, wouldn't you agree. Now as to people who truly leach on others, wouldn't that be people who steal property they didn't earn(liberals) to give it to another.

Lets get back to what the Clintons have done. They created a charitable foundation to enrich themselves, does that not offend you immoral leftists?

The charity :rolleyes: gives about 15% in actual grants. Their answer is their staff is directly paid to handle the lavish giving :rolleyes: with hefty salaries of course.
 
logger said:
You're the first post that has attempted to at least discuss this topic. For all those above, you're posts show the kind of character you have. You would fit perfectly with the Clintons.

Now SJC you seem to be caught up with the word liberal. There isn't much they pontificate on that isn't very much to the left. There aren't very many moderates left.

Your comment about the rich leaching from the economy is quite interesting. That would come from an opinion that thinks all property belongs to the government. They earned it, it is theirs to do what they like, wouldn't you agree. Now as to people who truly leach on others, wouldn't that be people who steal property they didn't earn(liberals) to give it to another.

Lets get back to what the Clintons have done. They created a charitable foundation to enrich themselves, does that not offend you immoral leftists?

The charity :rolleyes: gives about 15% in actual grants. Their answer is their staff is directly paid to handle the lavish giving :rolleyes: with hefty salaries of course.
Click to expand...

By your own description you're barking up the wrong tree. The scathing indictment should be of the charity, not of a former politician.
 
Stimpson J. Cat said:
First off, I can't see anything in that article to indicate that any of the Clintons have, as logger put it, become wealthy from the charity. The so-called scandal appears to have to do with the Clinton Foundation getting money from another charitable organization under questionable circumstances.

Second, the Clintons are not liberals. They are, at best, moderates. Over the last 40 years the political atmosphere of the US has become so absurdly distorted that what, in the 70s would have been considered very conservative is now considered moderate. Even people who are a bit right of moderate get labelled as communists now. Actual liberals look at the majority of the Democratic party, including people like Clinton and Obama, and just lament that these moderate-to-conservative people, who clearly are primarily focused on benefiting big business and the wealthy, are the best we can do. The only alternative is so-called conservatives who are actually little more than sociopaths trying to leach as much wealth as they can from the country before it goes completely bankrupt from their mismanagement.
Click to expand...

The Clintons have become wealthy from speeches and those speeches have grown expendentially after Mrs Clinton became secretary of state

Companies donate money to the clintons and get special treatment, like the Uranium firm.

Mrs Clinton deleted all her emails relating to the IRS and Benghazi. She is nothing more than a liar out for her own gain. Its disgusting
 
logger said:
Your comment about the rich leaching from the economy is quite interesting. That would come from an opinion that thinks all property belongs to the government.
Click to expand...

I think you might be mistaken. It is possible to leach from the economy without holding "that all property belongs to the government." Surely the oft-cited tragedy of the commons would be an example of how people might leach of the economy without subscribing to pure socialism, wouldn't it?

The charity :rolleyes: gives about 15% in actual grants. Their answer is their staff is directly paid to handle the lavish giving :rolleyes: with hefty salaries of course.
Click to expand...

I have read other interpretations of the foundation's percentages. How did you conclude that the 15%-interpretation is the most accurate?

ETA
to remove unthinking statement by me
 
Last edited:
Elf Grinder 3000 said:
The Clintons have become wealthy from speeches and those speeches have grown expendentially after Mrs Clinton became secretary of state

Companies donate money to the clintons and get special treatment, like the Uranium firm.

Mrs Clinton deleted all her emails relating to the IRS and Benghazi. She is nothing more than a liar out for her own gain. Its disgusting
Click to expand...

I thought that was the capitalist attribute conservatives liked best? The kind of wealth-building so admired by the right. What am I missing?

Oh, I know. The right is jealous of how effective she is playing the game they thought they owned.

From late last year:
In a reversal from 2012, liberal billionaires top the list of biggest super PAC donors with a little more than two weeks to go before Election Day. Three of the top five givers lean Democrat, while the king of unlimited money mountain — environmental crusader Tom Steyer of California — is lapping the competition, a Sunlight analysis finds." (http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2014/10/24/revenge-of-the-democrats/)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom