I think she said something incredibly stupid. I don't know exactly what she was thinking or why she said it, but she did offer a retraction and a politician's apology. How much any of us want to hold this against her is our own personal choice, of course. My view is I'm not sure what a second apology would accomplish.
The words were said. She retracted them. Any damage done by them is damage done. She can't undo it. It was a mistake. A big mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. If you were a Hillary backer before this, despite all of her warts as a candidate, you are probably going to be inclined to forgive her for this.
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.
Kramer made this statement before the retraction, according to Slate.
Bernie's problem with African Americans is much deeper and perpetual than Hillary's one off statement about Nancy Reagan. You should be more focused on how Bernie can cut into her 50+ point lead on that front, rather than Hillary's 8 point lead in the gay community.
I think she said something incredibly stupid. I don't know exactly what she was thinking or why she said it, but she did offer a retraction and a politician's apology. How much any of us want to hold this against her is our own personal choice, of course. My view is I'm not sure what a second apology would accomplish.
The words were said. She retracted them. Any damage done by them is damage done. She can't undo it. It was a mistake. A big mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. If you were a Hillary backer before this, despite all of her warts as a candidate, you are probably going to be inclined to forgive her for this.
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.
I thought you were writing about her time as Sec'y of State, not running for POTUS. Her time as Secy, the obligation is on the administration. And other than accusations online by disreputable sources and opinion pieces, followed by analysis by reputable sources, there hasn't been any issues. If there was a remote chance of something there, you can be damned sure the GOP congress would have funded some investigations.
Further, Politifact did some research on the Foundation after Carly accused it of only spending 6% of its donations on charitable work. Its work with outside experts concluded, and I quote "Daniel Borochoff, president and founder of CharityWatch, told us by phone that its analysis of the finances of the Clinton Foundation and its affiliates found that about 89 percent of the foundation budget is spent on programming (or “charity”), higher than the 75 percent considered the industry standard. Here's the link: http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/
Now regarding your comment about her role with the foundation, I think she meets the bar that you are advocating. Hillary (nor Bill for that matter) does not take a salary from the Foundation. Hillary served on the BOD after her time as Sec'y, but no longer serves on the board. She has no legal, advisory or financial connection. Not that I think you are saying this, but to expect the Foundation to shut down since she is running for POTUS would be a bridge too far.
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.
The Clinton's have the best attorneys money can buy. I would love to see the legal costs the Clinton's and the foundation pay and have paid. I'm sure as sec of state some of those legal costs were paid by taxpayers. It's ridiculous to think that there are laws written for and about first ladys that become senators that become sec of state that become president and even more ridiculous to think that before every move was made throughout that process the Clinton attorneys weren't digging to see if the money funnels and their actions were cutting the mustard. It's obvious they were advised exactly how to legally increase there personal fortunes from the positions they held (like every other political figure) As for those dogged GOP'ers trying to take her down, they live comfortably in glass houses.
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?
Or was it a mistake? Works both ways.
Who is talking about Bernie? If you quote Bernie in it's entirety like I did Hillary I would be glad to offer my opinion.
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.
The Clinton's have the best attorneys money can buy. I would love to see the legal costs the Clinton's and the foundation pay and have paid. I'm sure as sec of state some of those legal costs were paid by taxpayers. It's ridiculous to think that there are laws written for and about first ladys that become senators that become sec of state that become president and even more ridiculous to think that before every move was made throughout that process the Clinton attorneys weren't digging to see if the money funnels and their actions were cutting the mustard. It's obvious they were advised exactly how to legally increase there personal fortunes from the positions they held (like every other political figure) As for those dogged GOP'ers trying to take her down, they live comfortably in glass houses.
How about you go and read form 990 on the Clinton Foundation's public tax filings to see if your myriad of accusations are true. Or better yet, spend some time thinking about how Bernie can actually increase his delegate count, or appeal to moderate Democrats, Democrats over 40, African-Americans and all the other groups that he is losing in a landslide. Rather, you prefer to cut and past bullshit in your attempt to bring down HIllary rather than elevating your own candidate.
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.
The Clinton's have the best attorneys money can buy. I would love to see the legal costs the Clinton's and the foundation pay and have paid. I'm sure as sec of state some of those legal costs were paid by taxpayers. It's ridiculous to think that there are laws written for and about first ladys that become senators that become sec of state that become president and even more ridiculous to think that before every move was made throughout that process the Clinton attorneys weren't digging to see if the money funnels and their actions were cutting the mustard. It's obvious they were advised exactly how to legally increase there personal fortunes from the positions they held (like every other political figure) As for those dogged GOP'ers trying to take her down, they live comfortably in glass houses.
How about you go and read form 990 on the Clinton Foundation's public tax filings to see if your myriad of accusations are true. Or better yet, spend some time thinking about how Bernie can actually increase his delegate count, or appeal to moderate Democrats, Democrats over 40, African-Americans and all the other groups that he is losing in a landslide. Rather, you prefer to cut and past bullshit in your attempt to bring down HIllary rather than elevating your own candidate.
I didn't know the 990 would list Bill and Hillary personal attorney fees? I'll go look thou... Your head is stuffed so far up Hillary ass you think everyone that opposed Hillary supports Sanders.
As I said before I paste facts...you don't like then added together.
You prefer to look at things in isolation, like your Bernie quote, leaving out the rest of what he said. You prefer to isolate all the shady shit the Clinton's have done with the hope that most don't have the intelligence to add up all of the evidence throughout all the years including the circumstantial evidence and conclude that Hillary is the ultimate Manchurian candidate that will say and do anything to amass power and wealth. It's great that you are all into her/them, I'm just saying once in awhile pull your head from her vagina you just might learn something.
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.
The Clinton's have the best attorneys money can buy. I would love to see the legal costs the Clinton's and the foundation pay and have paid. I'm sure as sec of state some of those legal costs were paid by taxpayers. It's ridiculous to think that there are laws written for and about first ladys that become senators that become sec of state that become president and even more ridiculous to think that before every move was made throughout that process the Clinton attorneys weren't digging to see if the money funnels and their actions were cutting the mustard. It's obvious they were advised exactly how to legally increase there personal fortunes from the positions they held (like every other political figure) As for those dogged GOP'ers trying to take her down, they live comfortably in glass houses.
How about you go and read form 990 on the Clinton Foundation's public tax filings to see if your myriad of accusations are true. Or better yet, spend some time thinking about how Bernie can actually increase his delegate count, or appeal to moderate Democrats, Democrats over 40, African-Americans and all the other groups that he is losing in a landslide. Rather, you prefer to cut and past bullshit in your attempt to bring down HIllary rather than elevating your own candidate.
If you go look back at one of my bullshit posts you will see where the foundation admitted to omitting some important information from the tax filings, so I'm not to sure relying on them will give us an accurate portrayal. Anyway I looked and I didn't see any personal attorney fees on the 990. Again you may have isolated my words foundation from the Clintons.
"The Clinton's have the best attorneys money can buy. I would love to see the legal costs the Clinton's and the foundation pay and have paid."
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.
The Clinton's have the best attorneys money can buy. I would love to see the legal costs the Clinton's and the foundation pay and have paid. I'm sure as sec of state some of those legal costs were paid by taxpayers. It's ridiculous to think that there are laws written for and about first ladys that become senators that become sec of state that become president and even more ridiculous to think that before every move was made throughout that process the Clinton attorneys weren't digging to see if the money funnels and their actions were cutting the mustard. It's obvious they were advised exactly how to legally increase there personal fortunes from the positions they held (like every other political figure) As for those dogged GOP'ers trying to take her down, they live comfortably in glass houses.
How about you go and read form 990 on the Clinton Foundation's public tax filings to see if your myriad of accusations are true. Or better yet, spend some time thinking about how Bernie can actually increase his delegate count, or appeal to moderate Democrats, Democrats over 40, African-Americans and all the other groups that he is losing in a landslide. Rather, you prefer to cut and past bullshit in your attempt to bring down HIllary rather than elevating your own candidate.
I didn't know the 990 would list Bill and Hillary personal attorney fees? I'll go look thou... Your head is stuffed so far up Hillary ass you think everyone that opposed Hillary supports Sanders.
As I said before I paste facts...you don't like then added together.
You prefer to look at things in isolation, like your Bernie quote, leaving out the rest of what he said. You prefer to isolate all the shady shit the Clinton's have done with the hope that most don't have the intelligence to add up all of the evidence throughout all the years including the circumstantial evidence and conclude that Hillary is the ultimate Manchurian candidate that will say and do anything to amass power and wealth. It's great that you are all into her/them, I'm just saying once in awhile pull your head from her vagina you just might learn something.
I'm lukewarm on Hillary at best, as I stated several posts earlier. But the lack of critical analysis, the piecing together of disparate facts to draw unsupported conclusions, followed by out and out BS from opinion sites makes it impossible for me to read without commenting.
Of course the 990 doesn't list Bill and Hillary's personal attorneys and fees. But what the fuck does that have to do with anything? You think because they have a high end attorney on retainer that makes them guilty of something? Should they have Dan Fielding from Night Court on retainer instead? That's not a fucking argument and it means nothing. I have an attorney firm that I use for all my personal and professional business. Lots of people do.
So now she's the Manchurian Candidate... and which country precisely has planted her?
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.
The Clinton's have the best attorneys money can buy. I would love to see the legal costs the Clinton's and the foundation pay and have paid. I'm sure as sec of state some of those legal costs were paid by taxpayers. It's ridiculous to think that there are laws written for and about first ladys that become senators that become sec of state that become president and even more ridiculous to think that before every move was made throughout that process the Clinton attorneys weren't digging to see if the money funnels and their actions were cutting the mustard. It's obvious they were advised exactly how to legally increase there personal fortunes from the positions they held (like every other political figure) As for those dogged GOP'ers trying to take her down, they live comfortably in glass houses.
How about you go and read form 990 on the Clinton Foundation's public tax filings to see if your myriad of accusations are true. Or better yet, spend some time thinking about how Bernie can actually increase his delegate count, or appeal to moderate Democrats, Democrats over 40, African-Americans and all the other groups that he is losing in a landslide. Rather, you prefer to cut and past bullshit in your attempt to bring down HIllary rather than elevating your own candidate.
If you go look back at one of my bullshit posts you will see where the foundation admitted to omitting some important information from the tax filings, so I'm not to sure relying on them will give us an accurate portrayal. Anyway I looked and I didn't see any personal attorney fees on the 990. Again you may have isolated my words foundation from the Clintons.
"The Clinton's have the best attorneys money can buy. I would love to see the legal costs the Clinton's and the foundation pay and have paid."
Yeah? Your business never restated any returns? You never have had to redline a deposition because you misstated something? This is why there is a process for amended returns. This is why when you give depo testimony, you are given the opportunity to correct information. This is the land of laws in which we live.
You are clearly naive. As if having attorneys on retainer and paying legal fees is an admission of guilt. I hope you understand that in the civil court system, anyone can sue anybody for anything at any time. You don't need to have a rock solid case. My company pays hundreds of thousands in legal fees every year. Some of it is for tax law, some of it for licensing and contracting and yes, some is for defense (or plaintiff) work. It's a fact of life.
I'm lukewarm for MRUSSEL1 of the Isolationist Party We should create a country where everything is disconnected and unrelated, where regardless of science every action does not have an opposite and equal reaction.
Serious question: what room did you hang your Hillary fathead in?
I'm lukewarm for MRUSSEL1 of the Isolationist Party We should create a country where everything is disconnected and unrelated, where regardless of science every action does not have an opposite and equal reaction.
Serious question: what room did you hang your Hillary fathead in?
It's funny you say that. When it comes to international policy, I'm actually quite close to Isolationist. Some might call it paleo-conservatism. It's an area where I have disagreed with Hillary and Obama over the past 8 years, although I think Obama's instincts are correct, he just got mugged by realpolitik.
Regarding your 'serious question' or insult... well that's clever question which doesn't deserve an answer. I just hope you are young and still learning about the world. That would be a good excuse for some of the argument construction you have put forth.
I'm lukewarm for MRUSSEL1 of the Isolationist Party We should create a country where everything is disconnected and unrelated, where regardless of science every action does not have an opposite and equal reaction.
Serious question: what room did you hang your Hillary fathead in?
It's funny you say that. When it comes to international policy, I'm actually quite close to Isolationist. Some might call it paleo-conservatism. It's an area where I have disagreed with Hillary and Obama over the past 8 years, although I think Obama's instincts are correct, he just got mugged by realpolitik.
Regarding your 'serious question' or insult... well that's clever question which doesn't deserve an answer. I just hope you are young and still learning about the world. That would be a good excuse for some of the argument construction you have put forth.
Bailouts for nothing and get out of jail free. A new report [PDF] by the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) calculates that the Wall Street bonus pool – the money given on top of an average salary of $404,000 – doubles the combined annual earnings of all full-time minimum wage workers in America.
Bailouts for nothing and get out of jail free. A new report [PDF] by the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) calculates that the Wall Street bonus pool – the money given on top of an average salary of $404,000 – doubles the combined annual earnings of all full-time minimum wage workers in America.
More random postings from you? So does this mean that we don't have enough minimum wage workers in this country? I mean if we doubled the people making minimum wage, that gap would close. Right? Is that the point of your post?
Bailouts for nothing and get out of jail free. A new report [PDF] by the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) calculates that the Wall Street bonus pool – the money given on top of an average salary of $404,000 – doubles the combined annual earnings of all full-time minimum wage workers in America.
More random postings from you? So does this mean that we don't have enough minimum wage workers in this country? I mean if we doubled the people making minimum wage, that gap would close. Right? Is that the point of your post?
Yes she a free trader nafta cafta tpp
I bet you're a huge fan of clearing the lane for the isolation play.
Bailouts for nothing and get out of jail free. A new report [PDF] by the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) calculates that the Wall Street bonus pool – the money given on top of an average salary of $404,000 – doubles the combined annual earnings of all full-time minimum wage workers in America.
More random postings from you? So does this mean that we don't have enough minimum wage workers in this country? I mean if we doubled the people making minimum wage, that gap would close. Right? Is that the point of your post?
Yes she a free trader nafta cafta tpp
I bet you're a huge fan of clearing the lane for the isolation play.
Well it depends... that only works if I've got a big man that can stretch the floor, dragging out the interior defense. If that's the case, then yeah I don't mind an iso play to the hole.
But that brings up a great point.. Last year, just 448 NBA players split $2.1 Billion in salary!! That's $5MM and change to each player. That dwarfs the outrageous money on Wall Street, per capita (which was a paltry $145K). Notably, the exponential increase in salaries happened in the 90's when new contracts were negotiated with the TV stations. Unsurprisingly this happened during the Clinton administration. Coincidence? I think not. New contracts between the NBA and TV stations go into effect next year, right during HIllary's first term. The net effect will be a staggering increase in the salary cap and max contracts. Coincidence? Fuck no. Hillary.
Bailouts for nothing and get out of jail free. A new report [PDF] by the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) calculates that the Wall Street bonus pool – the money given on top of an average salary of $404,000 – doubles the combined annual earnings of all full-time minimum wage workers in America.
More random postings from you? So does this mean that we don't have enough minimum wage workers in this country? I mean if we doubled the people making minimum wage, that gap would close. Right? Is that the point of your post?
Yes she a free trader nafta cafta tpp
I bet you're a huge fan of clearing the lane for the isolation play.
Well it depends... that only works if I've got a big man that can stretch the floor, dragging out the interior defense. If that's the case, then yeah I don't mind an iso play to the hole.
But that brings up a great point.. Last year, just 448 NBA players split $2.1 Billion in salary!! That's $5MM and change to each player. That dwarfs the outrageous money on Wall Street, per capita (which was a paltry $145K). Notably, the exponential increase in salaries happened in the 90's when new contracts were negotiated with the TV stations. Unsurprisingly this happened during the Clinton administration. Coincidence? I think not. New contracts between the NBA and TV stations go into effect next year, right during HIllary's first term. The net effect will be a staggering increase in the salary cap and max contracts. Coincidence? Fuck no. Hillary.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say? That the Clintons have something to do with the revenues sports generate?
Jill Stein wants to celebrate assange as a hero and put him to work for US govt.
A vote today for Hillary Clinton is a vote for endless, stupid war by Julian Assange Hillary didn't just vote for Iraq. She made her own Iraq. Libya is Hillary's Iraq and if she becomes president she will make more.
I have had years of experience in dealing with Hillary Clinton and have read thousands of her cables. Hillary lacks judgement and will push the United States into endless, stupid wars which spread terrorism. Her personality combined with her poor policy decisions have directly contributed to the rise of ISIS.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,336
Jill Stein wants to celebrate assange as a hero and put him to work for US govt.
A vote today for Hillary Clinton is a vote for endless, stupid war by Julian Assange Hillary didn't just vote for Iraq. She made her own Iraq. Libya is Hillary's Iraq and if she becomes president she will make more.
I have had years of experience in dealing with Hillary Clinton and have read thousands of her cables. Hillary lacks judgement and will push the United States into endless, stupid wars which spread terrorism. Her personality combined with her poor policy decisions have directly contributed to the rise of ISIS.
Jill Stein, first US female president. How cool would that be!!
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Jill Stein wants to celebrate assange as a hero and put him to work for US govt.
A vote today for Hillary Clinton is a vote for endless, stupid war by Julian Assange Hillary didn't just vote for Iraq. She made her own Iraq. Libya is Hillary's Iraq and if she becomes president she will make more.
I have had years of experience in dealing with Hillary Clinton and have read thousands of her cables. Hillary lacks judgement and will push the United States into endless, stupid wars which spread terrorism. Her personality combined with her poor policy decisions have directly contributed to the rise of ISIS.
I like how the buck stops with the Secretary of State in your world. Not the President or the DOD.
Jill Stein wants to celebrate assange as a hero and put him to work for US govt.
A vote today for Hillary Clinton is a vote for endless, stupid war by Julian Assange Hillary didn't just vote for Iraq. She made her own Iraq. Libya is Hillary's Iraq and if she becomes president she will make more.
I have had years of experience in dealing with Hillary Clinton and have read thousands of her cables. Hillary lacks judgement and will push the United States into endless, stupid wars which spread terrorism. Her personality combined with her poor policy decisions have directly contributed to the rise of ISIS.
I like how the buck stops with the Secretary of State in your world. Not the President or the DOD.
I am not Julian Assange posing as jc#. Just wanted to set the record straight (althou since I have small hands I wish I were him)
Jill Stein wants to celebrate assange as a hero and put him to work for US govt.
A vote today for Hillary Clinton is a vote for endless, stupid war by Julian Assange Hillary didn't just vote for Iraq. She made her own Iraq. Libya is Hillary's Iraq and if she becomes president she will make more.
I have had years of experience in dealing with Hillary Clinton and have read thousands of her cables. Hillary lacks judgement and will push the United States into endless, stupid wars which spread terrorism. Her personality combined with her poor policy decisions have directly contributed to the rise of ISIS.
Jill Stein, first US female president. How cool would that be!!
The US can't handle her, the northeast can barely stomach Warren. Imagine Stein!
Jill Stein wants to celebrate assange as a hero and put him to work for US govt.
A vote today for Hillary Clinton is a vote for endless, stupid war by Julian Assange Hillary didn't just vote for Iraq. She made her own Iraq. Libya is Hillary's Iraq and if she becomes president she will make more.
I have had years of experience in dealing with Hillary Clinton and have read thousands of her cables. Hillary lacks judgement and will push the United States into endless, stupid wars which spread terrorism. Her personality combined with her poor policy decisions have directly contributed to the rise of ISIS.
I like how the buck stops with the Secretary of State in your world. Not the President or the DOD.
My world: as I sip this fucking lousy double nickel aged rye I can only think of mrussels partner. It's from pennsauken, nj.
Bailouts for nothing and get out of jail free. A new report [PDF] by the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) calculates that the Wall Street bonus pool – the money given on top of an average salary of $404,000 – doubles the combined annual earnings of all full-time minimum wage workers in America.
More random postings from you? So does this mean that we don't have enough minimum wage workers in this country? I mean if we doubled the people making minimum wage, that gap would close. Right? Is that the point of your post?
Yes she a free trader nafta cafta tpp
I bet you're a huge fan of clearing the lane for the isolation play.
Well it depends... that only works if I've got a big man that can stretch the floor, dragging out the interior defense. If that's the case, then yeah I don't mind an iso play to the hole.
But that brings up a great point.. Last year, just 448 NBA players split $2.1 Billion in salary!! That's $5MM and change to each player. That dwarfs the outrageous money on Wall Street, per capita (which was a paltry $145K). Notably, the exponential increase in salaries happened in the 90's when new contracts were negotiated with the TV stations. Unsurprisingly this happened during the Clinton administration. Coincidence? I think not. New contracts between the NBA and TV stations go into effect next year, right during HIllary's first term. The net effect will be a staggering increase in the salary cap and max contracts. Coincidence? Fuck no. Hillary.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say? That the Clintons have something to do with the revenues sports generate?
There are several tongue in cheek points in this post, some directed at you, some at the author of that silly article:
1. Regarding my NBA point... I took a bunch of facts and connected them together to draw a conclusion. It was a silly conclusion of course, but they were all facts. It's an egregious example of some of the conclusions that have been drawn by the opinion writers you linked to. I will say it a million times... Correlation does not equal causation. And btw why didn't the author pick professional sports to rail against? They are more absurdly compensated than Wall Street traders.
2. Who is "Wall Street" in this situation? I looked everywhere and I couldn't find any company named Wall Street that received a bailout and paid 25 billion in bonuses. It would be nice if he defined the denominator. Presumably he means the traders that work in Manhattan. But so what? Does this author think that the skill set of a Wall Street trader is the same as the skill set of a Sandwich Artist at Subway? Does he think that the shareholders of the trading companies wouldn't substitute those people out for low paying works in one second if it increased shareholder value and they could produce the same? The whole post acts as if there are no such thing as market economics and that the market doesn't act rationally over time. T
3. So why choose Wall Street? Why not choose GM and show how much the workers who were bailed out there made? How about all the supply chain companies that supported GM? They were all bailed out too. Where is the chart showing their total income vs. minimum wage workers?
4. For you... what does Wall Street have to do with free trade? I think you are conflating two distinctly different markets that are only tangentially connected. Is Apple part of Wall Street? Is GM? Samsung? How about the maker of the phone and laptop you are using to argue this? Traders benefited from free trade for the same reason you have. First, you get $400 60" TV's.. and second, your 401(k) increased 11% year over year due to lower expenses by some of the companies that you invested in through whatever "Trader" manages your retirement account. You are putting two boogeymen together as one.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,336
Jill Stein wants to celebrate assange as a hero and put him to work for US govt.
A vote today for Hillary Clinton is a vote for endless, stupid war by Julian Assange Hillary didn't just vote for Iraq. She made her own Iraq. Libya is Hillary's Iraq and if she becomes president she will make more.
I have had years of experience in dealing with Hillary Clinton and have read thousands of her cables. Hillary lacks judgement and will push the United States into endless, stupid wars which spread terrorism. Her personality combined with her poor policy decisions have directly contributed to the rise of ISIS.
Jill Stein, first US female president. How cool would that be!!
The US can't handle her, the northeast can barely stomach Warren. Imagine Stein!
I know.,, I'm a dreamer
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Russel I welcome a back and forth on athletes vs wall street...I'll allow you to pick any job remotely related to wall st right down to the copy guy. My only restriction is they have to be employed by wall st, not a vendor like a cleaner copy guy or techie.
Comments
The words were said. She retracted them. Any damage done by them is damage done. She can't undo it. It was a mistake. A big mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. If you were a Hillary backer before this, despite all of her warts as a candidate, you are probably going to be inclined to forgive her for this.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Bernie's problem with African Americans is much deeper and perpetual than Hillary's one off statement about Nancy Reagan. You should be more focused on how Bernie can cut into her 50+ point lead on that front, rather than Hillary's 8 point lead in the gay community.
Further, Politifact did some research on the Foundation after Carly accused it of only spending 6% of its donations on charitable work. Its work with outside experts concluded, and I quote "Daniel Borochoff, president and founder of CharityWatch, told us by phone that its analysis of the finances of the Clinton Foundation and its affiliates found that about 89 percent of the foundation budget is spent on programming (or “charity”), higher than the 75 percent considered the industry standard. Here's the link: http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/
Now regarding your comment about her role with the foundation, I think she meets the bar that you are advocating. Hillary (nor Bill for that matter) does not take a salary from the Foundation. Hillary served on the BOD after her time as Sec'y, but no longer serves on the board. She has no legal, advisory or financial connection. Not that I think you are saying this, but to expect the Foundation to shut down since she is running for POTUS would be a bridge too far.
It's ridiculous to think that there are laws written for and about first ladys that become senators that become sec of state that become president and even more ridiculous to think that before every move was made throughout that process the Clinton attorneys weren't digging to see if the money funnels and their actions were cutting the mustard. It's obvious they were advised exactly how to legally increase there personal fortunes from the positions they held (like every other political figure)
As for those dogged GOP'ers trying to take her down, they live comfortably in glass houses.
If you quote Bernie in it's entirety like I did Hillary I would be glad to offer my opinion.
Your head is stuffed so far up Hillary ass you think everyone that opposed Hillary supports Sanders.
As I said before I paste facts...you don't like then added together.
You prefer to look at things in isolation, like your Bernie quote, leaving out the rest of what he said. You prefer to isolate all the shady shit the Clinton's have done with the hope that most don't have the intelligence to add up all of the evidence throughout all the years including the circumstantial evidence and conclude that Hillary is the ultimate Manchurian candidate that will say and do anything to amass power and wealth. It's great that you are all into her/them, I'm just saying once in awhile pull your head from her vagina you just might learn something.
Anyway I looked and I didn't see any personal attorney fees on the 990. Again you may have isolated my words foundation from the Clintons.
"The Clinton's have the best attorneys money can buy. I would love to see the legal costs the Clinton's and the foundation pay and have paid."
Of course the 990 doesn't list Bill and Hillary's personal attorneys and fees. But what the fuck does that have to do with anything? You think because they have a high end attorney on retainer that makes them guilty of something? Should they have Dan Fielding from Night Court on retainer instead? That's not a fucking argument and it means nothing. I have an attorney firm that I use for all my personal and professional business. Lots of people do.
So now she's the Manchurian Candidate... and which country precisely has planted her?
You are clearly naive. As if having attorneys on retainer and paying legal fees is an admission of guilt. I hope you understand that in the civil court system, anyone can sue anybody for anything at any time. You don't need to have a rock solid case. My company pays hundreds of thousands in legal fees every year. Some of it is for tax law, some of it for licensing and contracting and yes, some is for defense (or plaintiff) work. It's a fact of life.
We should create a country where everything is disconnected and unrelated, where regardless of science every action does not have an opposite and equal reaction.
Serious question: what room did you hang your Hillary fathead in?
Regarding your 'serious question' or insult... well that's clever question which doesn't deserve an answer. I just hope you are young and still learning about the world. That would be a good excuse for some of the argument construction you have put forth.
Bailouts for nothing and get out of jail free. A new report [PDF] by the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) calculates that the Wall Street bonus pool – the money given on top of an average salary of $404,000 – doubles the combined annual earnings of all full-time minimum wage workers in America.
I bet you're a huge fan of clearing the lane for the isolation play.
But that brings up a great point.. Last year, just 448 NBA players split $2.1 Billion in salary!! That's $5MM and change to each player. That dwarfs the outrageous money on Wall Street, per capita (which was a paltry $145K). Notably, the exponential increase in salaries happened in the 90's when new contracts were negotiated with the TV stations. Unsurprisingly this happened during the Clinton administration. Coincidence? I think not. New contracts between the NBA and TV stations go into effect next year, right during HIllary's first term. The net effect will be a staggering increase in the salary cap and max contracts. Coincidence? Fuck no. Hillary.
Jill Stein wants to celebrate assange as a hero and put him to work for US govt.
A vote today for Hillary Clinton is a vote for endless, stupid war
by Julian Assange
Hillary didn't just vote for Iraq. She made her own Iraq. Libya is Hillary's Iraq and if she becomes president she will make more.
I have had years of experience in dealing with Hillary Clinton and have read thousands of her cables. Hillary lacks judgement and will push the United States into endless, stupid wars which spread terrorism. Her personality combined with her poor policy decisions have directly contributed to the rise of ISIS.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Just wanted to set the record straight (althou since I have small hands I wish I were him)
1. Regarding my NBA point... I took a bunch of facts and connected them together to draw a conclusion. It was a silly conclusion of course, but they were all facts. It's an egregious example of some of the conclusions that have been drawn by the opinion writers you linked to. I will say it a million times... Correlation does not equal causation. And btw why didn't the author pick professional sports to rail against? They are more absurdly compensated than Wall Street traders.
2. Who is "Wall Street" in this situation? I looked everywhere and I couldn't find any company named Wall Street that received a bailout and paid 25 billion in bonuses. It would be nice if he defined the denominator. Presumably he means the traders that work in Manhattan. But so what? Does this author think that the skill set of a Wall Street trader is the same as the skill set of a Sandwich Artist at Subway? Does he think that the shareholders of the trading companies wouldn't substitute those people out for low paying works in one second if it increased shareholder value and they could produce the same? The whole post acts as if there are no such thing as market economics and that the market doesn't act rationally over time. T
3. So why choose Wall Street? Why not choose GM and show how much the workers who were bailed out there made? How about all the supply chain companies that supported GM? They were all bailed out too. Where is the chart showing their total income vs. minimum wage workers?
4. For you... what does Wall Street have to do with free trade? I think you are conflating two distinctly different markets that are only tangentially connected. Is Apple part of Wall Street? Is GM? Samsung? How about the maker of the phone and laptop you are using to argue this? Traders benefited from free trade for the same reason you have. First, you get $400 60" TV's.. and second, your 401(k) increased 11% year over year due to lower expenses by some of the companies that you invested in through whatever "Trader" manages your retirement account. You are putting two boogeymen together as one.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"