Clinton Crime Family Foundation

[Ladewig]

They don't get a salary. They use the foundation to pay expenses.

That's just an aside though. Everything they are doing is legal, its just very distasteful, as the article points out.

Oh, now I understand.

If you ask the mods they will replace "crime" with "distasteful" in the title. Given that we are all striving for accuracy and such.

 

[logger]

The conspiracy widens.

Curious, any dates on those donations? When were they given?

 

[logger]

Oh, now I understand.

If you ask the mods they will replace "crime" with "distasteful" in the title. Given that we are all striving for accuracy and such.

No, I don't want it changed, being that "distasteful" is a crime. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[barehl]

The Clintons have become wealthy from speeches

Glen Beck used to make about $10 million a year from speaking fees and O'Reilley made about $3 million. If memory serves, George Jr. had made about $15 million in five years (which is pretty good for someone so unpopular). Even Jimmy Carter said that he didn't have any money until leaving the Whitehouse. The typical path for extra money include books, speaking fees, and consulting fees. So, are you proposing outlawing all paid speaking, paid speaking for former politicians, or just paid speaking for former presidents? Are you also proposing outlawing pay for books and consulting?

and those speeches have grown exponentially after Mrs Clinton became secretary of state

That explains it. The Clinton speeches have been piling up around my house and the stack grows twice as high every month. The planet is soon going to be completely covered by Clinton speeches. Where is the Republican call for a national emergency to deal with this crisis?

 

[barehl]

would recognize two low rent shady people when looking at the Clintons.

Don't you mean high-rent? I thought they were costing a lot of money.

 

[barehl]

She won't be the nominee, it will be Omalley, who is another liberal loon.

I'm curious. What exactly do you base this conjecture on? Or is it just a gut feeling? If it is a gut feeling who are you saying will be the Republican nominee?

 

[12AX7]

I missed the convention?

No, you gotta remember: he's scared.

Just like his conservative bretheren. They have absolutely nothing to offer the political world; the possibility of a woman (GASP!) and a democrat (DOUBLE GASP!) president scares him.

And if we quit feeding him; maybe he'll go away.

 

[logger]

No, you gotta remember: he's scared.

Just like his conservative bretheren. They have absolutely nothing to offer the political world; the possibility of a woman (GASP!) and a democrat (DOUBLE GASP!) president scares him.

And if we quit feeding him; maybe he'll go away.

Lol
Rent free

 

[RandFan]

Curious, any dates on those donations? When were they given?

Let's assume Media Matters is wrong. If they were right would it matter to you?

IMO: The foundation is ripe for questioning. It could have been misused in all kinds of ways. Go for it.

Do I find the article particularly compelling? No. Not really. Wrong is wrong but it's so far from the most egregious corruption and nonsense emanating out of Washington as to leave me scratching my head for a **** to give.

I'll give an example. We prosecuted teachers who changed students test scores. These folks are going to prison as they should.

Turns out that there were massive irregularities with loan officers changing loan apps to enrich themselves and cost homeowners their homes.

Number of prosecutions = 0

Jon Stewart: Cheating teachers go to jail. Cheating Wall Streeters don’t. What’s up with that?

My outrage meter broke when I found out that Bush bald faced lied about Katrina. I learned that fact defending him on this forum. The following years proved that Bush and co were the most corrupt politicians in my life time. Even Nixon doesn't rate.

Then there was Obama and the drones. War crimes? Yes. Tame compared to Cheney and his lackey but still crimes.

 

[Molinaro]

Curious, any dates on those donations? When were they given?

Funny that you ask someone else for dates when all I get when I ask for examples is a reference to your previous post which contained no examples.

 

[Shalamar]

No, you gotta remember: he's scared.

Just like his conservative bretheren. They have absolutely nothing to offer the political world; the possibility of a woman (GASP!) and a democrat (DOUBLE GASP!) president scares him.

And if we quit feeding him; maybe he'll go away.

This is why they want a conservative one party state in the USA. Only then will they get what they want.

 

[logger]

This is why they want a conservative one party state in the USA. Only then will they get what they want.

Lol

I freely and fully admit it.

 

[RandFan]

This is why they want a conservative one party state in the USA. Only then will they get what they want.

The founding fathers were smart enough to recognize that there is no objectively best ideology. Sadly, conservatives don't give a **** about those pansy founding fathers. Dunning-Krueger anyone? Not you Shalamar. Conservatives.

 

[logger]

The founding fathers were smart enough to recognize that there is no objectively best ideology.

I suppose they figured people would never choose socialism or communism. Only most of the members of a supposed skeptic forum would have a warm spot for those.

Sadly, conservatives don't give a **** about those pansy founding fathers.

Lies

Dunning-Krueger anyone? Not you Shalamar. Conservatives.

The same could be said of the left?

 

[Elf Grinder 3000]

Glen Beck used to make about $10 million a year from speaking fees and O'Reilley made about $3 million. If memory serves, George Jr. had made about $15 million in five years (which is pretty good for someone so unpopular). Even Jimmy Carter said that he didn't have any money until leaving the Whitehouse. The typical path for extra money include books, speaking fees, and consulting fees. So, are you proposing outlawing all paid speaking, paid speaking for former politicians, or just paid speaking for former presidents? Are you also proposing outlawing pay for books and consulting?


That explains it. The Clinton speeches have been piling up around my house and the stack grows twice as high every month. The planet is soon going to be completely covered by Clinton speeches. Where is the Republican call for a national emergency to deal with this crisis?

The problem isn't that the Clinton's have become rich from giving speeches. The problem is that the Clinton's use their political influence to sell speeches.

This is illegal

 

[RandFan]

I suppose they figured people would never choose socialism or communism. Only most of the members of a supposed skeptic forum would have a warm spot for those.

Of course you equivocate "socialism" because it's a HUGE downer for the GOP given the success of Democratic Socialism.

Index of economic freedom.
Human development index.
Social Progress index.

 

[RandFan]

I suppose they figured people would never choose socialism or communism.

Index of economic freedom.
Human development index.
Social Progress index.

By every index, conservative or liberal, Social Democratic nations are A.) the most wealthy. B.) Most healthy. C.) Most advanced.

People choose a mixed socio-economic system because it is demonstrably the best.

There are NO (none, nada, zip) nations that have no social programs that have better outcomes.

Did I say "none"? I meant, none.

 

[logger]

Of course you equivocate "socialism" because it's a HUGE downer for the GOP given the success of Democratic Socialism.

Really?


Socialistic countries aren't doing so well, that is why I used them. Liberals like you have a soft spot for those kinds of ideologies. Look how the left loves countries like Cuba and Venezuela, they slobber all over these dictator ruled countries. You seem to think just because you or others tend to live on the bottom or off others, that is the best way. Sure everyone can be equally miserable. What you are missing and never want to admit is most of those countries are in real financial trouble. Care to admit that?

 

[PS13]

For all those above, you're posts show the kind of character you have.

They created a charitable foundation to enrich themselves, does that not offend you immoral leftists?

Can you really not see what is going on here. Do philanthropists get wealthy from there foundations. Before you liberals play dumb again, there are many ways they use this foundation to enrich themselves.

Many of the left don't seem to either, its called ethics. It is perfectly legal to get rich from a charity you have built.

Stop insulting members here using this back-handed approach. It's very uncivil and you seem to do it in every thread you partake in.

 

[PS13]

You seem to think just because you or others tend to live on the bottom or off others, that is the best way.

And again... while I was posting the post above. Can stop insulting members who are 'on the left' here? It's rude.