I try to paste what I read as facts, I'll go thru and re read my pastes to see how often I pastes unsubstantiated opinion. I think readers can discern fact from opinion regardless of the messenger. I give those on this forum enough intellectual credit to know that all or a portion of a $750,000 speech fee has nothing to do with whatever Bill Clinton said on that podium and everything to do with what he says in private to his wife and Sec of State.
I just went thru all my pasties starting on page 10 all but 1 arguably contained facts. They are pretty easy reads anyone that questions the source when a link isn't provided can copy it to Google, if they dont believe the facts contained therein.
I just went thru all my pasties starting on page 10 all but 1 arguably contained facts. They are pretty easy reads anyone that questions the source when a link isn't provided can copy it to Google, if they dont believe the facts contained therein.
The articles you have quoted are taking possibly disparate facts and tying them together. E.g. "Israel donated to the Clinton Foundation. The State Dept approved munition sales to Israel. Ergo, Clinton approved these sales because of the donation to the Clinton Foundation."
Two of these things are facts, but the conclusion drawn may be false. Correlation does not equal causation.
I just went thru all my pasties starting on page 10 all but 1 arguably contained facts. They are pretty easy reads anyone that questions the source when a link isn't provided can copy it to Google, if they dont believe the facts contained therein.
The articles you have quoted are taking possibly disparate facts and tying them together. E.g. "Israel donated to the Clinton Foundation. The State Dept approved munition sales to Israel. Ergo, Clinton approved these sales because of the donation to the Clinton Foundation."
Two of these things are facts, but the conclusion drawn may be false. Correlation does not equal causation.
I don't think any pastie claimed that Clinton approved sales to Israel because of donations to the foundation. Ignoring the fact that I didn't paste conclusions... I said I trust that the PJ ATM forum intelligentsia can take the sum total of the facts and quickly and easily draw their own conclusions without lazily accepting the drawn conclusions of the winged publication.
I just went thru all my pasties starting on page 10 all but 1 arguably contained facts. They are pretty easy reads anyone that questions the source when a link isn't provided can copy it to Google, if they dont believe the facts contained therein.
The articles you have quoted are taking possibly disparate facts and tying them together. E.g. "Israel donated to the Clinton Foundation. The State Dept approved munition sales to Israel. Ergo, Clinton approved these sales because of the donation to the Clinton Foundation."
Two of these things are facts, but the conclusion drawn may be false. Correlation does not equal causation.
I'm sure we can all agree that the system is fucked when the possibility of impropriety like this can exist. This is assuming that Bill is still closely tied to the foundation.
But maybe I should stay out of it because I don't know very much about it.
I just went thru all my pasties starting on page 10 all but 1 arguably contained facts. They are pretty easy reads anyone that questions the source when a link isn't provided can copy it to Google, if they dont believe the facts contained therein.
The articles you have quoted are taking possibly disparate facts and tying them together. E.g. "Israel donated to the Clinton Foundation. The State Dept approved munition sales to Israel. Ergo, Clinton approved these sales because of the donation to the Clinton Foundation."
Two of these things are facts, but the conclusion drawn may be false. Correlation does not equal causation.
But you have just summarized a classic conflict of interest.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I just went thru all my pasties starting on page 10 all but 1 arguably contained facts. They are pretty easy reads anyone that questions the source when a link isn't provided can copy it to Google, if they dont believe the facts contained therein.
The articles you have quoted are taking possibly disparate facts and tying them together. E.g. "Israel donated to the Clinton Foundation. The State Dept approved munition sales to Israel. Ergo, Clinton approved these sales because of the donation to the Clinton Foundation."
Two of these things are facts, but the conclusion drawn may be false. Correlation does not equal causation.
But you have just summarized a classic conflict of interest.
Is it? And if it is, who's fault is it with the conflict of interest?
1. The foundation is a worldwide charity group. Is the assumption here that it's simply a front for the Clinton's to increase their wealth? They support progressive causes around the world.
2. The Obama administration knew about the foundation and their donors. They also knew the role of the secretary of state. If it's a conflict then it was an egregious judgment error by the administration to make her secretary.
3. I'm fairly certain Clinton and Obama entered into an MOU about new donations from countries. Second, there was a bureaucratic review of all contributions and in over several hundred document reviews, only once was a concern raised.
I just went thru all my pasties starting on page 10 all but 1 arguably contained facts. They are pretty easy reads anyone that questions the source when a link isn't provided can copy it to Google, if they dont believe the facts contained therein.
The articles you have quoted are taking possibly disparate facts and tying them together. E.g. "Israel donated to the Clinton Foundation. The State Dept approved munition sales to Israel. Ergo, Clinton approved these sales because of the donation to the Clinton Foundation."
Two of these things are facts, but the conclusion drawn may be false. Correlation does not equal causation.
I don't think any pastie claimed that Clinton approved sales to Israel because of donations to the foundation. Ignoring the fact that I didn't paste conclusions... I said I trust that the PJ ATM forum intelligentsia can take the sum total of the facts and quickly and easily draw their own conclusions without lazily accepting the drawn conclusions of the winged publication.
Yes but you're posting paragraphs from editorials and poorly researched reports that draw these very conclusions. I think if you link to these, it's natural to think you agree with them, since you aren't posting opposing points.
And for the record, I don't love Hillary. I voted for Obama. But I also like a good argument and suspicious of most publications on both sides. I can barely read HuffPo anymore because the quality has tanked in the last two years, based on horribly constructed arguments. Others like National Review have always been shit bags. Ironically one of the better sites today is the American Conservative Magazine. I don't usually agree with it, but the articles are well constructed and comments are thoughtful. A lot of fellow progressives hang out there because the quality of the discourse.
I just went thru all my pasties starting on page 10 all but 1 arguably contained facts. They are pretty easy reads anyone that questions the source when a link isn't provided can copy it to Google, if they dont believe the facts contained therein.
The articles you have quoted are taking possibly disparate facts and tying them together. E.g. "Israel donated to the Clinton Foundation. The State Dept approved munition sales to Israel. Ergo, Clinton approved these sales because of the donation to the Clinton Foundation."
Two of these things are facts, but the conclusion drawn may be false. Correlation does not equal causation.
But you have just summarized a classic conflict of interest.
Is it? And if it is, who's fault is it with the conflict of interest?
1. The foundation is a worldwide charity group. Is the assumption here that it's simply a front for the Clinton's to increase their wealth? They support progressive causes around the world.
2. The Obama administration knew about the foundation and their donors. They also knew the role of the secretary of state. If it's a conflict then it was an egregious judgment error by the administration to make her secretary.
3. I'm fairly certain Clinton and Obama entered into an MOU about new donations from countries. Second, there was a bureaucratic review of all contributions and in over several hundred document reviews, only once was a concern raised.
I think the conflict of interest is on Clinton's side. I actually don't think that anyone who is running for President should be allowed to have connections to a foundation that collects donations. They should be legally obligated to cut all ties with any organization that would allow people to donate money to anything other than the campaign itself.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I was actually under that same impression if we're talking the political discussion. Obviously is was the gay community, particularly in NYC and then San Fran, that actually forced action initially and built the cause enough for the Reagans to make it an issue politically, but after that point, I would agree that the Reagans did that.... Not that they had much of a choice of course. I never considered it some great, wonderful thing they did. They were simply fulfilling what I saw as a basic responsibility, and actually, they should have done it sooner than they did, and then done a lot more, faster......
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
This is not an issue I would go to when looking to praise the Reagans.
Me neither. Mostly because the entire handling of HIV/AIDS, along with gay rights, is a festering boil on the face of the US government even now, let alone back in the 80s and 90s. Bringing up the early days of the government's role during the rise of the AIDS epidemic just reminds people of that.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I have always stated that her husbands infidelity will always be brought up. But now she uses her faith and bible stories to get her through it. Religious people are nutzo. I saw the video on the news a few days ago reference the article below and waited awhile to post because I wanted to see the fallout from her black church sermon. god I hate god stuff can not one person stand up and say "enough with this religious shit already"! From this article http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-hillary-clinton-black-churches-20160306-story.htmlClinton, who rose to speak later, said she appreciated Vaughn’s reference to a difficult time.
“What has always guided me and supported me has been my faith, has been my belief in the saving graces and the salvation that faith brings," said Clinton, a life-long Methodist. "And in those difficult times in my life I have often been struck by a particular passage from Scripture and interpretation or analysis of Scripture."
She told the story of the prodigal son, played in this incarnation by the former president of the United States.
The prodigal son in the Bible, she said, had "been out there having a pretty good time committing every sin that you could list."
"When someone has disappointed you, has often disappointed themselves, it is human nature to say you’re not wanted, we know what you’ve been doing.... Go sleep in the bed you made," she said. "But this isn’t what the father did in this parable."
I was actually under that same impression if we're talking the political discussion. Obviously is was the gay community, particularly in NYC and then San Fran, that actually forced action initially and built the cause enough for the Reagans to make it an issue politically, but after that point, I would agree that the Reagans did that.... Not that they had much of a choice of course. I never considered it some great, wonderful thing they did. They were simply fulfilling what I saw as a basic responsibility, and actually, they should have done it sooner than they did, and then done a lot more, faster......
I would give the Reagans ZERO credit for making HIV/AIDS an issue. Reagan didn't even mention it publicly until 4 years after the epidemic was identified by the CDC and didn't make a speech about it for another 2 years. He also suggested that kids with HIV not be allowed to attend school despite assurance from the CDC that they posed no risk to other children. On a personal level, they refused to assist their friend Rock Hudson when he disclosed that he had AIDS.
Thousands of people were infected and died because of the refusal to acknowledge an enormous public health threat. We are still living with the consequences of that indifference.
I was actually under that same impression if we're talking the political discussion. Obviously is was the gay community, particularly in NYC and then San Fran, that actually forced action initially and built the cause enough for the Reagans to make it an issue politically, but after that point, I would agree that the Reagans did that.... Not that they had much of a choice of course. I never considered it some great, wonderful thing they did. They were simply fulfilling what I saw as a basic responsibility, and actually, they should have done it sooner than they did, and then done a lot more, faster......
I would give the Reagans ZERO credit for making HIV/AIDS an issue. Reagan didn't even mention it publicly until 4 years after the epidemic was identified by the CDC and didn't make a speech about it for another 2 years. He also suggested that kids with HIV not be allowed to attend school despite assurance from the CDC that they posed no risk to other children. On a personal level, they refused to assist their friend Rock Hudson when he disclosed that he had AIDS.
Thousands of people were infected and died because of the refusal to acknowledge an enormous public health threat. We are still living with the consequences of that indifference.
Yeah, you're right. I was really remembering that they were indeed the ones in the white house when government acknowledged it and everything. I obviously didn't actually give them positive credit... I just meant that they were the first ones to confront it on any level. I certainly didn't mean to suggest that they did any kind of good job.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Yeah, you're right. I was really remembering that they were indeed the ones in the white house when government acknowledged it and everything. I obviously didn't actually give them positive credit... I just meant that they were the first ones to confront it on any level. I certainly didn't mean to suggest that they did any kind of good job.
I knew what you meant and my harshness wasn't aimed at you, though I realize it sounded that way. It's a sensitive subject with me. I've lost a lot of friends to AIDS.
One of the things that has angered me the most over time is how wrong it's been that so many people had to die before any effort was put into prevention and treatment--and people are still being infected! "How many deaths will it take till he knows that too many people have died?"
With a statement like this it's no wonder why Hillary doesn't want to release the wall street speeches. Wtf? When something happens to you, like a good, dear friend James Brady being shot and suffering, your husband having Alzheimer's, it can't help but change your perspective, and I wish more people would pay attention to those who have gone through these issues.
The other point that I wanted to make too is, it may be hard for your viewers to remember how difficult it was for people to talk about HIV/AIDS back in the 1980s. And because of both President and Mrs. Reagan — in particular Mrs. Reagan — we started a national conversation when before nobody would talk about it, nobody wanted to do anything about it. And that too is something that I really appreciate with her very effective, low-key advocacy. But it penetrated the public conscience and people began to say, "Hey, we have to do something about this too."
And because of both President and Mrs. Reagan — in particular Mrs. Reagan — we started a national conversation when before nobody would talk about it, nobody wanted to do anything about it.
With a statement like this it's no wonder why Hillary doesn't want to release the wall street speeches. Wtf? When something happens to you, like a good, dear friend James Brady being shot and suffering, your husband having Alzheimer's, it can't help but change your perspective, and I wish more people would pay attention to those who have gone through these issues.
JHC, give it a rest already. She came out quickly and apologized for the statement. How in the world do you connect a retracted statement on the day of a funeral with the WS question?
With a statement like this it's no wonder why Hillary doesn't want to release the wall street speeches. Wtf? When something happens to you, like a good, dear friend James Brady being shot and suffering, your husband having Alzheimer's, it can't help but change your perspective, and I wish more people would pay attention to those who have gone through these issues.
JHC, give it a rest already. She came out quickly and apologized for the statement. How in the world do you connect a retracted statement on the day of a funeral with the WS question?
It's the first I'm commenting on her statement...her retraction has nothing to do with what she said about Reagan AND HER RETRACTION DID NOT SAY SHE WAS DEAD WRONG
The connection: I'm trying to figure out how she could possibly say something like that? As it relates to her speeches: Does she read something someone else wrote? Does she not review what she is about to read? Is she a revisionist historian? Is she that out of touch with reality? Is she suffering from some sort of condition like Alzheimer's?
Based on her comments about Nancy, those questions are valid?
Guess Hillary or her speech writer forgot this....
Nancy Reagan Turned Down Rock Hudson’s Plea For Help Nine Weeks Before He Died Rock Hudson was desperately trying to get treatment for AIDS in France in 1985. Much of that story has been told, but one part hasn’t: After a simple plea came in for White House help to get Hudson transferred to another hospital, First Lady Nancy Reagan turned down the request.
With a statement like this it's no wonder why Hillary doesn't want to release the wall street speeches. Wtf? When something happens to you, like a good, dear friend James Brady being shot and suffering, your husband having Alzheimer's, it can't help but change your perspective, and I wish more people would pay attention to those who have gone through these issues.
JHC, give it a rest already. She came out quickly and apologized for the statement. How in the world do you connect a retracted statement on the day of a funeral with the WS question?
It's the first I'm commenting on her statement...her retraction has nothing to do with what she said about Reagan AND HER RETRACTION DID NOT SAY SHE WAS DEAD WRONG
The connection: I'm trying to figure out how she could possibly say something like that? As it relates to her speeches: Does she read something someone else wrote? Does she not review what she is about to read? Is she a revisionist historian? Is she that out of touch with reality? Is she suffering from some sort of condition like Alzheimer's?
Based on her comments about Nancy, those questions are valid?
I'm saying give it a rest with your ongoing effort to connect disparate items into one narrative.
Her retraction said "While the Reagans were strong advocates for stem cell research and finding a cure for Alzheimer's Disease," the statement said, "I misspoke about their record on HIV-AIDS. For that, I'm sorry."
So no, she didn't say "I was DEAD wrong".
Now when Bernie said about white people.. “don’t know what it’s like to be living in a ghetto. You don’t know what it’s like to be poor.”
What was the story there? 1. Is he an idiot? 2. Is he a racist? 3. Is he early stage Alzheimer's? 4. Did he spend his entire life in white, cushy Burlington Vermont and Capitol Hill, never having been exposed to the white ghettos in immigrant Chicago, Cleveland, and WV? 5. Does he think only black people are poor?
Although more than 5,500 people had died from the disease by the start of 1985, the government had taken few significant steps toward addressing the disease — with the Reagan administration recommending a $10 million cut in AIDS spending down to $86 million in its federal budget proposal released in February 1985.
President Reagan did not give his first major public address on the disease until a year later, on May 31, 1987 — well after the number of AIDS deaths in the United States topped 25,000.
Larry Kramer not giving a shit about her retraction:
I wonder if Hillary had any notion of how hateful what she said is to so many people who were going to support her. For the first time I really questioned whether I’m going to vote for her. [Nancy] never said dipshit! And she … oh please, don’t get me started. She and Ronnie weren’t going to, in any way, talk about AIDS because they have a ballet dancer son whom the world believes to be gay and which they don’t want to confront. I’m just so disappointed in her that I may just vote for Bernie. And I’m hearing that from a lot of gay people. The gay population is up in arms over this. I don’t think that she realizes that this is a big issue for us, what she has said in her stupidity. I think the gay population is entitled to an apology and that we should demand an apology in return for our vote and support.
Comments
I give those on this forum enough intellectual credit to know that all or a portion of a $750,000 speech fee has nothing to do with whatever Bill Clinton said on that podium and everything to do with what he says in private to his wife and Sec of State.
They are pretty easy reads anyone that questions the source when a link isn't provided can copy it to Google, if they dont believe the facts contained therein.
Two of these things are facts, but the conclusion drawn may be false. Correlation does not equal causation.
Ignoring the fact that I didn't paste conclusions... I said I trust that the PJ ATM forum intelligentsia can take the sum total of the facts and quickly and easily draw their own conclusions without lazily accepting the drawn conclusions of the winged publication.
But maybe I should stay out of it because I don't know very much about it.
Interesting...can't link thou. Discussed the hacked Hillary emails and compares to release emails. Insight on the missing emails.
1. The foundation is a worldwide charity group. Is the assumption here that it's simply a front for the Clinton's to increase their wealth? They support progressive causes around the world.
2. The Obama administration knew about the foundation and their donors. They also knew the role of the secretary of state. If it's a conflict then it was an egregious judgment error by the administration to make her secretary.
3. I'm fairly certain Clinton and Obama entered into an MOU about new donations from countries. Second, there was a bureaucratic review of all contributions and in over several hundred document reviews, only once was a concern raised.
And for the record, I don't love Hillary. I voted for Obama. But I also like a good argument and suspicious of most publications on both sides. I can barely read HuffPo anymore because the quality has tanked in the last two years, based on horribly constructed arguments. Others like National Review have always been shit bags. Ironically one of the better sites today is the American Conservative Magazine. I don't usually agree with it, but the articles are well constructed and comments are thoughtful. A lot of fellow progressives hang out there because the quality of the discourse.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
She was being magnanimous. One first lady to another. .
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
I saw the video on the news a few days ago reference the article below and waited awhile to post because I wanted to see the fallout from her black church sermon.
god I hate god stuff
can not one person stand up and say "enough with this religious shit already"!
From this article http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-hillary-clinton-black-churches-20160306-story.html Clinton, who rose to speak later, said she appreciated Vaughn’s reference to a difficult time.
“What has always guided me and supported me has been my faith, has been my belief in the saving graces and the salvation that faith brings," said Clinton, a life-long Methodist. "And in those difficult times in my life I have often been struck by a particular passage from Scripture and interpretation or analysis of Scripture."
She told the story of the prodigal son, played in this incarnation by the former president of the United States.
The prodigal son in the Bible, she said, had "been out there having a pretty good time committing every sin that you could list."
"When someone has disappointed you, has often disappointed themselves, it is human nature to say you’re not wanted, we know what you’ve been doing.... Go sleep in the bed you made," she said. "But this isn’t what the father did in this parable."
Thousands of people were infected and died because of the refusal to acknowledge an enormous public health threat. We are still living with the consequences of that indifference.
One of the things that has angered me the most over time is how wrong it's been that so many people had to die before any effort was put into prevention and treatment--and people are still being infected! "How many deaths will it take till he knows that too many people have died?"
When something happens to you, like a good, dear friend James Brady being shot and suffering, your husband having Alzheimer's, it can't help but change your perspective, and I wish more people would pay attention to those who have gone through these issues.
The other point that I wanted to make too is, it may be hard for your viewers to remember how difficult it was for people to talk about HIV/AIDS back in the 1980s. And because of both President and Mrs. Reagan — in particular Mrs. Reagan — we started a national conversation when before nobody would talk about it, nobody wanted to do anything about it. And that too is something that I really appreciate with her very effective, low-key advocacy. But it penetrated the public conscience and people began to say, "Hey, we have to do something about this too."
And because of both President and Mrs. Reagan — in particular Mrs. Reagan — we started a national conversation when before nobody would talk about it, nobody wanted to do anything about it.
The connection: I'm trying to figure out how she could possibly say something like that? As it relates to her speeches:
Does she read something someone else wrote?
Does she not review what she is about to read?
Is she a revisionist historian?
Is she that out of touch with reality?
Is she suffering from some sort of condition like Alzheimer's?
Based on her comments about Nancy, those questions are valid?
Nancy Reagan Turned Down Rock Hudson’s Plea For Help Nine Weeks Before He Died
Rock Hudson was desperately trying to get treatment for AIDS in France in 1985. Much of that story has been told, but one part hasn’t: After a simple plea came in for White House help to get Hudson transferred to another hospital, First Lady Nancy Reagan turned down the request.
Her retraction said "While the Reagans were strong advocates for stem cell research and finding a cure for Alzheimer's Disease," the statement said, "I misspoke about their record on HIV-AIDS. For that, I'm sorry."
So no, she didn't say "I was DEAD wrong".
Now when Bernie said about white people.. “don’t know what it’s like to be living in a ghetto. You don’t know what it’s like to be poor.”
What was the story there?
1. Is he an idiot?
2. Is he a racist?
3. Is he early stage Alzheimer's?
4. Did he spend his entire life in white, cushy Burlington Vermont and Capitol Hill, never having been exposed to the white ghettos in immigrant Chicago, Cleveland, and WV?
5. Does he think only black people are poor?
Or was it a mistake? Works both ways.
Although more than 5,500 people had died from the disease by the start of 1985, the government had taken few significant steps toward addressing the disease — with the Reagan administration recommending a $10 million cut in AIDS spending down to $86 million in its federal budget proposal released in February 1985.
President Reagan did not give his first major public address on the disease until a year later, on May 31, 1987 — well after the number of AIDS deaths in the United States topped 25,000.
I wonder if Hillary had any notion of how hateful what she said is to so many people who were going to support her. For the first time I really questioned whether I’m going to vote for her.
[Nancy] never said dipshit! And she … oh please, don’t get me started. She and Ronnie weren’t going to, in any way, talk about AIDS because they have a ballet dancer son whom the world believes to be gay and which they don’t want to confront.
I’m just so disappointed in her that I may just vote for Bernie. And I’m hearing that from a lot of gay people. The gay population is up in arms over this. I don’t think that she realizes that this is a big issue for us, what she has said in her stupidity.
I think the gay population is entitled to an apology and that we should demand an apology in return for our vote and support.