This is what actual corruption looks like...

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Denny Crane said:
Even so, those who are now supporting Hiliar are showing their hypocrisy by criticizing Cheney at the time and failing to criticize Hiliar now. As well, these same hypocrites were appalled that Reagan made a paid speech as ex-president. Hypocrites, every one.
Click to expand...

Did you criticize Cheney and Reagan? If so, link? If not, doesn't that make YOU a hypocrite?

barfo
 
Han Dolo said:
She was one of the biggest proponents of the Iraq war that George W. Bush takes so much heat over.
Click to expand...

I think that's quite an exaggeration. She did vote for it, but that's different from being 'one of the biggest proponents'.

barfo
 
Denny Crane said:
The charity spent $25M on travel last year. If any of that paid for Bill and Hiliar to travel, it's money they didn't have to spend themselves. It did line their pockets if that were the only questionable activity.
Click to expand...

Not if they were traveling on Foundation business. If I travel for business and my company pays, that's not 'lining my pockets'.

The Clintons were paid enormous sums for speaking fees to those who both donated to the charity and received favorable treatment by the State Dept during Hiliar's tenure there.
Click to expand...

And also by people who didn't donate to the charity or receive favorable treatment by the state department. You seem to think speaking fees are intrinsically unethical. They aren't.

The whole thing stinks because it's rotten to the core.
Click to expand...

Yes, those damn Clintons, trying to keep people from dying from AIDS. Why can't they just put their name in big gold letters on buildings like real Americans do?

barfo
 
barfo said:
Did you criticize Cheney and Reagan? If so, link? If not, doesn't that make YOU a hypocrite?

barfo
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with the Clintons getting paid for speeches. Getting paid for speeches is a convenient way to pay for quid pro quo, and it is what happened. If Cheney kept his stock in Haliburton, you might have a point - but you don't. If Reagan's wife was going to run for president or serve as Secy of State, you might have a point - but you don't.

Those things didn't happen with Cheney and Reagan, so ... my point stands - you wouldn't know what actual corruption looks like.
 
barfo said:
Not if they were traveling on Foundation business. If I travel for business and my company pays, that's not 'lining my pockets'.
Click to expand...

Yes it is. You need a class in economics still.


And also by people who didn't donate to the charity or receive favorable treatment by the state department. You seem to think speaking fees are intrinsically unethical. They aren't.
Click to expand...
They are when they are overpaid in exchange for political favors. The favors happened.

Yes, those damn Clintons, trying to keep people from dying from AIDS. Why can't they just put their name in big gold letters on buildings like real Americans do?

barfo
Click to expand...

If they wanted to try to keep people from dying from AIDS and run a charity, so be it. but they have obvious conflicts of interest if they serve in office - which Hiliar did as Secy of State and wants to as president.
 
Denny Crane said:
I don't have a problem with the Clintons getting paid for speeches. Getting paid for speeches is a convenient way to pay for quid pro quo, and it is what happened.
Click to expand...

Your evidence is lacking.

barfo
 
barfo said:
I think that's quite an exaggeration. She did vote for it, but that's different from being 'one of the biggest proponents'.

barfo
Click to expand...

If you vote for a bad thing, how is that different than having poor judgement? If you vote for a bad thing, how is that different from being a proponent?
 
barfo said:
So you think all business travel is corruption? You are nuts.

barfo
Click to expand...

I think Hiliar can afford to pay for her own travel.

I didn't say it is corruption, I did say it lined their pockets. You know, $1 they get someone else to spend on their behalf is $1 they personally don't have to spend.
 
barfo said:
Your evidence of corruption is a public opinion poll? HAHAHAHA back atcha.

barfo
Click to expand...

No, the evidence is in front of everyone, and the polls show what the people think of the evidence.

She was ahead in March. As the evidence came forward, she dropped like a rock.

The evidence is so damning that even TRUMP is considered more honest and trustworthy.

She's earned her reputation. Sycophants aren't making a difference.
 
MarAzul said:
If you vote for a bad thing, how is that different than having poor judgement? If you vote for a bad thing, how is that different from being a proponent?
Click to expand...

First question: it isn't different. It was poor judgment to vote for the war. Both I and she agree with you on that.

Second question: Clearly voting for something is being a proponent. But you missed the qualifier, which was "one of the biggest".

barfo
 
Denny Crane said:
I think Hiliar can afford to pay for her own travel.
Click to expand...

So? I can afford to pay for my own travel, but if my employer wants me to fly to East Bumfuck, I'm going to let them pay.

That's not enriching myself or lining my pockets.

barfo
 
barfo said:
First question: it isn't different. It was poor judgment to vote for the war. Both I and she agree with you on that.

Second question: Clearly voting for something is being a proponent. But you missed the qualifier, which was "one of the biggest".

barfo
Click to expand...

It's hard to take you seriously when there's video of her being one of the biggest proponents of the war.

She had recently been 1st lady, and I assume her faithful husband told her all about Saddam and WMDs.

 
barfo said:
So? I can afford to pay for my own travel, but if my employer wants me to fly to East Bumfuck, I'm going to let them pay.

That's not enriching myself or lining my pockets.

barfo
Click to expand...

You aren't your employer. If you were running a company and having the company pay your expenses, then yes, you are lining your pockets/enriching yourself. You are, even if your employer is giving you a company car, for example.
 
Denny Crane said:
No, the evidence is in front of everyone, and the polls show what the people think of the evidence.
Click to expand...

70% of republicans think Obama was not born in the US. Doesn't mean it's true. Just means republicans are stupid.

Citing a poll as evidence of corruption is pretty lame, argument-wise.

barfo
 
riverman said:
I think Trump is the worst possible candidate in a long history of bad candidates
Click to expand...

Ha! If you were out meeting the folks I meet daily, your opinion on this matter would draw smiles, silence, and charity.
I guess S2 is your domain, err the Willamette Valley members of course.
 
Denny Crane said:
You aren't your employer. If you were running a company and having the company pay your expenses, then yes, you are lining your pockets/enriching yourself. You are, even if your employer is giving you a company car, for example.
Click to expand...

Obviously you've never run a business, Denny.

barfo
 
Denny Crane said:
You aren't your employer. If you were running a company and having the company pay your expenses, then yes, you are lining your pockets/enriching yourself. You are, even if your employer is giving you a company car, for example.
Click to expand...

Does this mean I'm not getting an S2 company car?
 
barfo said:
70% of republicans think Obama was not born in the US. Doesn't mean it's true. Just means republicans are stupid.

Citing a poll as evidence of corruption is pretty lame, argument-wise.

barfo
Click to expand...

At 35%, it isn't just republicans who think she's corrupt, untrustworthy, and crooked.

At 56%, it isn't just republicans who think she should have been indicted. That's damned good evidence the people think she's crooked.
 
Denny Crane said:
At 35%, it isn't just republicans who think she's corrupt, untrustworthy, and crooked.

At 56%, it isn't just republicans who think she should have been indicted. That's damned good evidence the people think she's crooked.
Click to expand...

Yes, if your claim is that people think she's crooked, then the poll is excellent evidence. It does not, however, prove that she is crooked.

barfo
 
barfo said:
Yes, if your claim is that people think she's crooked, then the poll is excellent evidence. It does not, however, prove that she is crooked.

barfo
Click to expand...

The people saw the evidence. Plenty of evidence.

They saw her lie. They saw the truth come out and that she lied. They saw her lie again. And again. And again.

They saw the emails. They saw how she obstructed justice by having them destroyed, even though they were of interest to ongoing investigations.

They see that it's sources like WikiLeaks where the truth is to be found, not what the partisan sycophants in democratic party government tell us.

The people saw the evidence. They don't find her trustworthy or honest and the do find that she is a crook. Especially after the FBI refused to recommend charges.
 
barfo said:
It does not, however, prove that she is crooked
Click to expand...

Yes yes, in the technical sense. But only fools vote for someone whom most think is a crook, a liar, and incompetent.
 
MarAzul said:
There are no qualifiers to Yeah or Nay.
Click to expand...

So everyone who was for the war is 'one of the greatest proponents'? Then I'd agree, with that definition, that she was one. As was Trump, for that matter.

I guess if you listen to Trump long enough, you think that everything is "the greatest"?

barfo
 
MarAzul said:
Yes yes, in the technical sense. But only fools vote for someone whom most think is a crook, a liar, and incompetent.
Click to expand...

Hate to break this to you buddy, but most people think Trump is a crook, a liar, and incompetent.

barfo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top