• 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

barehl said:
The police cars and firetrucks have meters like taxis. When you call 911 they first ask for a credit card. All the roads are toll roads but no one owns a car anyway.
Click to expand...

Straw man. No one is saying we should eliminate all spending. Just about 75% of the current spending. We can still keep police, defense, and infrastructure spending.

Hospitals let you die if you don't have health insurance. They also throw you out of the hospital if you hit your caps. For those who have high deductibles, they also ask for credit cards first. And, the list of pre-existing conditions runs 267 pages. Not that it matters much anyway because they normally just cancel your policy if you get sick. Our healthcare system consists mostly of prayer, blood-letting, and some medicines we smuggle in from Mexico.
Click to expand...

Straw man. Did hospitals let people die before Obamacare, or before medicare in 1965? I'm OK with some people having to suffer without insurance its a better option than government run health care. The larger point is that the Democratic agenda is closer to fascism.

And when you don't feel that your voice is being heard, you resort to firearms or Molotov cocktails. But we try to target someone who doesn't have a credit card.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. I keep firearms to protect myself and if you have a problem with that tough crap its my 2nd amendment right. The Democrats want to label speech against Islam hate speech. I call this fascism

or at least we could if companies actually paid us money. Most pay us in company script that is only good at the company store. But, someday if we get some money...
Click to expand...

The average company in the S&P pays 30%, the median family of 4 in the US pays less than 1% in federal taxes.

such as dog fighting, drug use, pedophilia, polygamy, dueling, and the right to beat your wife and children. Of course, that poll tax is getting to be a burden...
Click to expand...

This is my favorite quote from you because it is so telling into the mind of the liberal, contradictory and self dilusional.

Can't society legalize polygamy? Many states "legalized" gay marriage. Isn't that freedom? This is an example of how liberals don't support freedom. They support their agenda and try to use the mob to crush opposition. Gay marriage was never about freedom, it was about an agenda. Even though states legalized gay marriage the left wants the supreme court to rule that the people's opinion doesn't matter.

They want a group of 9 judges to decide who can get married and who can't. I would prefer the voters to make that decision.

Liberal Democrats are closer to fascism than anything since the third reich
 
Last edited:
Lothian said:
A quick look at the last two years of accounts of their charity showed the Clintons were not paid. Am I missing anything?
Click to expand...

yes, you are. If $500,000 of the funds were used to pay for high-end travel, meals, hotels, and pedicures, then it is still accurate to say that the Clinton's were getting rich off the charity even though they were not officially getting paid.

I tried getting logger to discuss the figures but that was ignored. I haven't seen hard evidence that the Clinton's are abusing the charity, but I also haven't seen hard evidence that they are not. Some agencies that rate charities by examining their spending and overhead have decided to not rate the Clinton's charity, because the charity uses an unconventional accounting model that does not easily fit into the formulas used by most charity evaluators.

There probably is enough of an issue that it needs to be discussed, but not everyone in this thread is interested in an evidenced-based, rational discussion of the matter.
 
Ladewig said:
yes, you are. If $500,000 of the funds were used to pay for high-end travel, meals, hotels, and pedicures, then it is still accurate to say that the Clinton's were getting rich off the charity even though they were not officially getting paid.
Click to expand...
Only if the charity paid for expenses they would have paid out of their own pocket. I note a fund raising gala where their attendance would have saved them food for the night. Not convinced that someone gets rich on having a free meal.
 
Ladewig said:
I tried getting logger to discuss the figures but that was ignored.
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for his evidence that being "distasteful" is a crime and political figures (particularly former politicians) making money from speaking fees is illegal.
 
logger said:
When I create a post about a Clinton scandal, do I also have to post every other scandal?
Click to expand...


Of course not. It's just that it reflects positively on your intelligence and reasonableness to display an understanding that it might be unethical for anyone, not just liberals, to "become incredibly wealthy working for a charity".

You failed at that, resulting in a display of your intelligence and reasonableness than I'm sure was much lower than you would have liked or is true. I was simply pointing out your mistake so that you can strive to improve yourself in future conversation.
 
Last edited:
logger said:
No, I don't want it changed, being that "distasteful" is a crime. Wouldn't you agree?
Click to expand...

No. Distasteful does not, to the best of my knowledge appear in any set of actual laws. Technically in certain laws around pornography and animal rights some synonyms for it are used, but distasteful is not a legal term. Besides, most distasteful is funny if done properly.
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
Of course not. It's just that it reflects positively on your intelligence and reasonableness to display an understanding that it might be unethical for anyone, not just liberals, to "become incredibly wealthy working for a charity".

You failed at that, resulting in a display of your intelligence and reasonableness than I'm sure was much lower than you would have liked, or is true. I was simply pointing out your mistake so that you can strive to improve yourself in future conversation.
Click to expand...

It is a good thing to try to help others!!!!!:)
 
12AX7 said:
I'm still waiting for his evidence that being "distasteful" is a crime and political figures (particularly former politicians) making money from speaking fees is illegal.
Click to expand...

It is a sure thing bet that you will still be waiting after the 2016 elections. I love the current republicker options. Their next few months should be a laugh riot!!!!!
 
logger said:
No, I don't want it changed, being that "distasteful" is a crime. Wouldn't you agree?
Click to expand...


I don't hold you in such high regard that I would automatically trust your understanding of such matters. You would have to show me the federal (or even relevant state) law that makes "distasteful" a crime before I could agree.
 
Last edited:
Elf Grinder 3000 said:
Straw man. No one is saying we should eliminate all spending. Just about 75% of the current spending. We can still keep police, defense, and infrastructure spending.
Click to expand...
No, this would require taxes and conservatives know that taxes are the handiwork of Satan himself. Remember the holy words of the prophet, Ronald Reagan, government is the problem and we need to drown it in a bathtub.

Did hospitals let people die before Obamacare, or before medicare in 1965?
Click to expand...
Well no, because we had that socialist interference with the true purpose of hospitals and doctors which is to make money. Surely you don't want to keep that socialist blight on capitalism in place.

I keep firearms to protect myself and if you have a problem with that tough crap its my 2nd amendment right.
Click to expand...
That's what I said, if words don't get the point across we resort to guns in our capitalist utopia.

The average company in the S&P pays 30%, the median family of 4 in the US pays less than 1% in federal taxes.
Click to expand...
No, no one will pay taxes in our utopia. There won't be any workplace regulations and no requirement to actually get paid in US currency.

Can't society legalize polygamy? Many states "legalized" gay marriage. Isn't that freedom? This is an example of how liberals don't support freedom.
Click to expand...
Right, how can we be free if pedophilia is illegal? No, in our utopia each state will pass their own marriage laws so your marriage will only be valid in that state. If you move to another state your marriage will be invalidated.
 
Ladewig said:
Some agencies that rate charities by examining their spending and overhead have decided to not rate the Clinton's charity, because the charity uses an unconventional accounting model that does not easily fit into the formulas used by most charity evaluators.
Click to expand...
I don't quite understand this. If 30% of donations go to overhead then a charity has a low rating and overhead higher than this is essentially fraud. An overhead of 10-20% is not unusual. So, exactly how much overhead do they have? If their overhead is 30% then I'll agree that they are taking advantage.
 
Lothian said:
Only if the charity paid for expenses they would have paid out of their own pocket. I note a fund raising gala where their attendance would have saved them food for the night. Not convinced that someone gets rich on having a free meal.
Click to expand...

but I bet they kept the LEFTOVERS! :rolleyes:
 
12AX7 said:
I'm still waiting for his evidence that being "distasteful" is a crime
Click to expand...

Crimeny, I am a humorless liberal and even I understood that part was a joke.
[ETA: although my advice to Logger is that the conservatives would have laughed harder if you had said "politically incorrect" instead of "distasteful."]
............
Lothian said:
Only if the charity paid for expenses they would have paid out of their own pocket. I note a fund raising gala where their attendance would have saved them food for the night. Not convinced that someone gets rich on having a free meal.
Click to expand...

Very much agreed.
As I said, I have no evidence that the Clintons are abusing the system. [ETA: and neither does Logger]

Logger brought the topic up by throwing out a statistic. I think the statistic should be discussed, Logger doesn't.
 
Last edited:
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...

Billary Clintounge are textbook examples of sociopathy. As for bankrupting the country from mismanagement, ever hear of a guy named Obama? His mismanagement plus George Jr.'s middle Eastern debacle, has brought this country to its knees. There's plenty of blame to go around. Please stop being so radically partisan; that is one of the biggest problems in politics.
 
Okay since you liberals can't figure it out [SNIP]. The Clinton crime family foundation is a reference to the mob. This is the way they would do it. Except for them it wouldn't be a charity. So its worse for the Clintons, they set up this charity to pay lavish expenses for them. Bill can see the world while having this charity pay for it. Hillary gets to sell favors from state on her eventual coronation as president. Bill and Hillary ARE two distasteful Arkansas hayseeds becoming wealthy through bribes, special favors and back room deals from a charity no less. It is clearly the most obvious and egregious "distasteful" acts of two "liberal" :eek: politicians in awhile. Its also fun creating this thread because I knew you disgusting libs would be there to defend and swallow all they could possibly poop out. True to form, you libs never disappoint.

I surely hope she gets the nomination, nothing would please more than showing how once again character counts. Lol

Edited by kmortis: 
Removed to comply with Rule 0
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom