HRC's Endorsement of Hillary Clinton Was Disingenuous and Unnecessary

Boxes&Books

Sanders has a 100% rating by HRC. Clinton has an 89% rating by HRC. Interesting how the candidate with the lower rating gets the endorsement. Sanders has never voted against the LGBT community and has been fighting the good fight since his days in college, never flip flopping on his core values. Clinton opposed gay marriage until 2013(when it became cool to support it), She supported DOMA and Don't ask don't tell. As a senator she was flat out against gay marriage. She has flip flopped more than Mitt R. on so many issues. If you're voting for someone on the Left please make sure you do your homework before casting your vote.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ken-schneck-phd/hrcs-endorsement-of-hilla_b_9020898.html

brianlux

Thanks for posting this, tonifig.

I understand an organization wanting to receive support but when doing so under false pretenses, they actually sacrifice some of the public's support when this kind of thing gets noticed.

Bad move on the part of Human Rights Campaign.

EdsonNascimento

I find it hilarious that anyone thinks any of these organizations are any less whores than big business just bc they believe in their cause.

Liberal denial that money makes the world go round. We have morals and righteousness.....until it doesn't serve our purposes. No different. Where's Al Gore and his carbon buy off when you need him?

I think it's silly Hilary's even a consideration. More of the same. Isn't that what everyone's been saying? Oh wait. Now I'm confused.

brianlux

EdsonNascimento said:

I find it hilarious that anyone thinks any of these organizations are any less whores than big business just bc they believe in their cause.

Liberal denial that money makes the world go round. We have morals and righteousness.....until it doesn't serve our purposes. No different. Where's Al Gore and his carbon buy off when you need him?

I think it's silly Hilary's even a consideration. More of the same. Isn't that what everyone's been saying? Oh wait. Now I'm confused.

If by "making the world go round" you mean that which makes our lives possible, fruitful and healthy, I deny that money makes the world go round, Edson, not as a liberal, but as a conservative. Under that definition of making the world go round I would attribute the three laws of ecology which state that the strength of ecosystems rely on biodiversity, species interdependence and the law of finite resources.

EdsonNascimento

brianlux said:

EdsonNascimento said:

I find it hilarious that anyone thinks any of these organizations are any less whores than big business just bc they believe in their cause.

Liberal denial that money makes the world go round. We have morals and righteousness.....until it doesn't serve our purposes. No different. Where's Al Gore and his carbon buy off when you need him?

I think it's silly Hilary's even a consideration. More of the same. Isn't that what everyone's been saying? Oh wait. Now I'm confused.

If by "making the world go round" you mean that which makes our lives possible, fruitful and healthy, I deny that money makes the world go round, Edson, not as a liberal, but as a conservative. Under that definition of making the world go round I would attribute the three laws of ecology which state that the strength of ecosystems rely on biodiversity, species interdependence and the law of finite resources.

Yes, Brian. Understood and agree on the technicality. But, let's be honest, these types of organizations die if they don't have money. As much as they'd like us to think, they get paid, too and need money to do what they WANT to do (whether we agree on right/wrong/indifferent). Thus, why they are protecting their pocketbook by following the money rather than what their own theoretically objective score card would tell them (or just staying the f out of it).

Oh, and it's fully reflective of who they endorse. Opportunists sleeping together.

brianlux

EdsonNascimento said:

brianlux said:

EdsonNascimento said:

I find it hilarious that anyone thinks any of these organizations are any less whores than big business just bc they believe in their cause.

Liberal denial that money makes the world go round. We have morals and righteousness.....until it doesn't serve our purposes. No different. Where's Al Gore and his carbon buy off when you need him?

I think it's silly Hilary's even a consideration. More of the same. Isn't that what everyone's been saying? Oh wait. Now I'm confused.

If by "making the world go round" you mean that which makes our lives possible, fruitful and healthy, I deny that money makes the world go round, Edson, not as a liberal, but as a conservative. Under that definition of making the world go round I would attribute the three laws of ecology which state that the strength of ecosystems rely on biodiversity, species interdependence and the law of finite resources.

Yes, Brian. Understood and agree on the technicality. But, let's be honest, these types of organizations die if they don't have money. As much as they'd like us to think, they get paid, too and need money to do what they WANT to do (whether we agree on right/wrong/indifferent). Thus, why they are protecting their pocketbook by following the money rather than what their own theoretically objective score card would tell them (or just staying the f out of it).

Oh, and it's fully reflective of who they endorse. Opportunists sleeping together.

I don't mind that organizations want to make money- like you say, they have to to stay afloat- but what is really often difficult to do is know how well organizations spend that money and sometimes when you find out, you may be surprised and disappointed. For example, I learned quite awhile back that some environmental organizations are basically just money making machines under the guise of wanting to preserve the environment. I've stopped supporting a number of them for that reason. The same things is true of many social issue organizations. It really takes some time and effort to check them out and make sure you're not just throwing your money at a money making machine.

EdsonNascimento

brianlux said:

EdsonNascimento said:

brianlux said:

EdsonNascimento said:

I find it hilarious that anyone thinks any of these organizations are any less whores than big business just bc they believe in their cause.

Liberal denial that money makes the world go round. We have morals and righteousness.....until it doesn't serve our purposes. No different. Where's Al Gore and his carbon buy off when you need him?

I think it's silly Hilary's even a consideration. More of the same. Isn't that what everyone's been saying? Oh wait. Now I'm confused.

If by "making the world go round" you mean that which makes our lives possible, fruitful and healthy, I deny that money makes the world go round, Edson, not as a liberal, but as a conservative. Under that definition of making the world go round I would attribute the three laws of ecology which state that the strength of ecosystems rely on biodiversity, species interdependence and the law of finite resources.

Yes, Brian. Understood and agree on the technicality. But, let's be honest, these types of organizations die if they don't have money. As much as they'd like us to think, they get paid, too and need money to do what they WANT to do (whether we agree on right/wrong/indifferent). Thus, why they are protecting their pocketbook by following the money rather than what their own theoretically objective score card would tell them (or just staying the f out of it).

Oh, and it's fully reflective of who they endorse. Opportunists sleeping together.

I don't mind that organizations want to make money- like you say, they have to to stay afloat- but what is really often difficult to do is know how well organizations spend that money and sometimes when you find out, you may be surprised and disappointed. For example, I learned quite awhile back that some environmental organizations are basically just money making machines under the guise of wanting to preserve the environment. I've stopped supporting a number of them for that reason. The same things is true of many social issue organizations. It really takes some time and effort to check them out and make sure you're not just throwing your money at a money making machine.

Wait. So we had a civil discourse and came to understand each other? We must be in the wrong forum....

brianlux

EdsonNascimento said:

brianlux said:

EdsonNascimento said:

brianlux said:

EdsonNascimento said:

I find it hilarious that anyone thinks any of these organizations are any less whores than big business just bc they believe in their cause.

Liberal denial that money makes the world go round. We have morals and righteousness.....until it doesn't serve our purposes. No different. Where's Al Gore and his carbon buy off when you need him?

I think it's silly Hilary's even a consideration. More of the same. Isn't that what everyone's been saying? Oh wait. Now I'm confused.

If by "making the world go round" you mean that which makes our lives possible, fruitful and healthy, I deny that money makes the world go round, Edson, not as a liberal, but as a conservative. Under that definition of making the world go round I would attribute the three laws of ecology which state that the strength of ecosystems rely on biodiversity, species interdependence and the law of finite resources.

Yes, Brian. Understood and agree on the technicality. But, let's be honest, these types of organizations die if they don't have money. As much as they'd like us to think, they get paid, too and need money to do what they WANT to do (whether we agree on right/wrong/indifferent). Thus, why they are protecting their pocketbook by following the money rather than what their own theoretically objective score card would tell them (or just staying the f out of it).

Oh, and it's fully reflective of who they endorse. Opportunists sleeping together.

I don't mind that organizations want to make money- like you say, they have to to stay afloat- but what is really often difficult to do is know how well organizations spend that money and sometimes when you find out, you may be surprised and disappointed. For example, I learned quite awhile back that some environmental organizations are basically just money making machines under the guise of wanting to preserve the environment. I've stopped supporting a number of them for that reason. The same things is true of many social issue organizations. It really takes some time and effort to check them out and make sure you're not just throwing your money at a money making machine.

Wait. So we had a civil discourse and came to understand each other? We must be in the wrong forum....

Or one of is is hallucinating.

No matter what they say, Edson, you're alright!

EdsonNascimento

brianlux said:

EdsonNascimento said:

brianlux said:

EdsonNascimento said:

brianlux said:

EdsonNascimento said:

I find it hilarious that anyone thinks any of these organizations are any less whores than big business just bc they believe in their cause.

Liberal denial that money makes the world go round. We have morals and righteousness.....until it doesn't serve our purposes. No different. Where's Al Gore and his carbon buy off when you need him?

I think it's silly Hilary's even a consideration. More of the same. Isn't that what everyone's been saying? Oh wait. Now I'm confused.

If by "making the world go round" you mean that which makes our lives possible, fruitful and healthy, I deny that money makes the world go round, Edson, not as a liberal, but as a conservative. Under that definition of making the world go round I would attribute the three laws of ecology which state that the strength of ecosystems rely on biodiversity, species interdependence and the law of finite resources.

Yes, Brian. Understood and agree on the technicality. But, let's be honest, these types of organizations die if they don't have money. As much as they'd like us to think, they get paid, too and need money to do what they WANT to do (whether we agree on right/wrong/indifferent). Thus, why they are protecting their pocketbook by following the money rather than what their own theoretically objective score card would tell them (or just staying the f out of it).

Oh, and it's fully reflective of who they endorse. Opportunists sleeping together.

I don't mind that organizations want to make money- like you say, they have to to stay afloat- but what is really often difficult to do is know how well organizations spend that money and sometimes when you find out, you may be surprised and disappointed. For example, I learned quite awhile back that some environmental organizations are basically just money making machines under the guise of wanting to preserve the environment. I've stopped supporting a number of them for that reason. The same things is true of many social issue organizations. It really takes some time and effort to check them out and make sure you're not just throwing your money at a money making machine.

Wait. So we had a civil discourse and came to understand each other? We must be in the wrong forum....

Or one of is is hallucinating.

No matter what they say, Edson, you're alright!

Nah. It's the 2 feet of snow I'm now under....

HughFreakingDillon

I read on facebook today (trending sidebar thingy) that a former congressman claims that the FBI is preparing to indict Hillary???

Smellyman

Hillary Rodham Clinton's endorsement of Hillary Rodham Clinton does seem unnecassary.

brianlux

Smellyman said:

Hillary Rodham Clinton's endorsement of Hillary Rodham Clinton does seem unnecassary.

haha! That's what I thought when I first read the thread title as well. I thought... wtf??