Hypocrisy

[Green Arrow]

why not? because I think all this "dissatisfaction" is just whining and very few, if any of those whiners will be willing to lay down their lives to become marginally less dissatisfied. That's why not. They are all hot air and rhetoric, but not so tough when it comes to actually slamming in a magazine, chambering a round, walking out the front door and meeting their maker. But who knows? I could be wrong. Maybe you tough guys will throw yourselves into the fray and die for the cause. I will say, I'll be mightily surprised if you do....

and, since I'm living here in Mexico in a walled compound, I really can't get too worked up about it in any case.

I don't know why you're saying "you." I have no intentions of supporting or joining a violent revolution. If a violent revolution kicks in, my wife and I will effect an early retirement to Scotland.

[domer76]

Liberals love the accomplishments of a Republican congress.

Not much to love lately, is there?

[Tahuyaman]

Like I said, partisan hacks can always find a way to justify it. I would have a bit of respect for them if they just would be honest and say party affiliation was the most important factor, but they won't. I don't know why.


because you can't read.

now you know why.

post#84.

Obviously you can't count. I made that comment before you responded with your usual dumb comment

[Tahuyaman]

I don't know why you're saying "you." I have no intentions of supporting or joining a violent revolution. If a violent revolution kicks in, my wife and I will effect an early retirement to Scotland.

Why Scotland? Why not someplace with sun and palm trees?

[maineman]

Obviously you can't count. I made that comment before you responded with your usual dumb commentit was not the first time that I had offered nearly identical sentiments and you had responded to them. I can understand if the homemade mexican rotgut has blurred your memory... But at least, as a classic underachiever, you haven't slipped all the way down to Sterno yet. Do try to keep your head above the table top.

[Green Arrow]

Why Scotland? Why not someplace with sun and palm trees?

My heritage is Scotch-Irish and I like Scotland.

[Chris]

Can you top her accomplishments? What's your excuse?

And there's the question again, what has she accomplished that removes her from the hated 1%?

[The Sage of Main Street]

Your fuhrer and his field marshals like senator Pokahontas do demonize the rich.

Injun Liz Warren
Whined to her papoose,
"If Whitebread Willard becomes their engine,
I will wind up becoming his caboose!"

[The Sage of Main Street]

this is the first honest post I think I've read from you. "An underachiever who's done fairly well, considering my lack of effort."

That could be your epitaph. I bet your folks are so proud. "Being all you can be" is all you'll ever be. A bank account. A celebrity with an empty private life. A cash cow for corporate cowboys. This regime demands that a class-climber becomes a worm studying to be a snake.

[The Sage of Main Street]

and you don't have the balls to make a stand either. How exactly would you make this stand, even if you dared to? How, practically, does one bring about the sort of revolutionary change you are alluding to short of actually starting an armed revolution - which I don't believe you have the balls to actually do. You're a sheep, too... you just bleat loudly. Their grave can be dug with little digs. Keep on attacking both wings at once, feather by feather, and the united ruling raptor won't fly anymore.

But the illogical excuses for predatory behavior that the Left/Right Axis manipulates us into, like Hillary becoming a power-hungry government lawyer rather than a money-hungry corporate lawyer, only give a lift to the two wings.

[maineman]

And there's the question again, what has she accomplished that removes her from the hated 1%?

and the question has been answered. Not all the 1% are hated. Being wealthy is not evil. Being wealthy, selfish and greedy is.

[The Sage of Main Street]

so an armed minority is prepared to forcibly wrest control of the government from the majority if they don't see things the way YOU do? Have I got that right? In the Matrix, Neo and the others didn't try to convert people stuck in it. Even in Atlas Shrugged, John Galt only told people who were ready to hear it what was going on. Both the Left and Right revolutionaries recruited only those who had become suspicious on their own and went looking for answers. Only then would they make contact and reveal that everybody else had submitted to thought control.

It will only take 1% of us to take down the 1% that, unlike your claim, dictates to the majority now. In order to have a truly independent thought, you need to understand that this concentrated power completely takes away everybody else's free will, so the pre-owned elected don't rule by the will of the people if there isn't any will there that hasn't been implanted.

[The Sage of Main Street]

No, actually, you've got it completely wrong. First, the dissatisfied have become the majority. Second, I didn't say they saw things the way I do. Third, I don't know that they're completely prepared right now, but it's obvious that things are moving in that direction. The mistake the exclusivist hereditary ruling class is making now, in their terminal phase, is that the 99%'s Millennials can't even get ahead by brownnosing bootlicking class-climbing. In previous generations, that sucker's opportunity not only seduced the potential revolutionary leaders into betraying their birth class, it also made everybody else feel guilty that they didn't brownnose.

[Chris]

I think some of Hillary's defenders need to catch up. She talks the talk of not being in the 1% but we know she is in the 0.1%. And Hillary Clinton Faces Questions of Trustworthiness in New Polls (http://time.com/3904698/hillary-clinton-2016-presidential-race-poll/): "Fewer Americans say Clinton inspires confidence, is trustworthy and honest..."

[Chris]

and the question has been answered. Not all the 1% are hated. Being wealthy is not evil. Being wealthy, selfish and greedy is.

Yes, you have said that repeatedly, that some of the 1% are oppressive and some aren't. But you have not demonstrated where Hillary lies. To do so you need to provide evidence she's not. Good luck. Of course, you can just repeat some are, some aren't.

[maineman]

Yes, you have said that repeatedly, that some of the 1% are oppressive and some aren't. But you have not demonstrated where Hillary lies. To do so you need to provide evidence she's not. Good luck. Of course, you can just repeat some are, some aren't.

I actually directly answered that question several pages back. you chose not to acknowledge it. not my problem.

[The Sage of Main Street]

I'm older than your estimate, but I'm not going to say by how much. Idealism? How am I being idealistic? The spawn of the rich, the Hillarys and the Dubyas, the Kennedys and the Kochs, do actually live in a Utopia. So if it has been achievable for them, it is achievable for those who abolish birth privileges.

[Chris]

I actually directly answered that question several pages back. you chose not to acknowledge it. not my problem.

OK, then, not searching 266 posts, drop the game and point me to it or repeat it if you actually did.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Hal... I have been paying attention to things that have been happening since before you were born, I would reckon. How much further would you have to go in your drive to awaken the people before they could rise up and, by the thousands and thousands, flood the Washington DC beltway and bring the city to a complete standstill?

I watched students and every day people against the Vietnam war do that very thing 46 years ago. Look at what they accomplished. Look at all that has changed. How many times do I have to tell the pods that they are taking the ruling class's interpretation of media spectacles? The 60s protesters were not anti-war, they were pro class war. They hated the troops fighting in Vietnam only because those patriots had been practically all born in the working class. The New Left's unspoken message was, "Our Daddies always told us that the working class is stupid, lazy, and greedy. Maybe our Daddies will finally start loving us if we add to our class superiority and shout loud that the sons of blue-collar workers are baby-killers."

We who volunteered for it were brought up on pro-war movies. So were the preppy punks. But they were disgusted by those movies, because Hollywood had glorified working-class GIs. The protests were only motivated by the snobs' desire to insult us, discredit us, and put us in our place.

Recently I read some comments from the loved ones of a Marine I knew who got killed in Vietnam. It disgusted me that they had to be apologetic and answer the "anti-war" snobs. Without the media hype, those people would not deserve comment any more than any other irrelevant wackos. Preppy progressives should be dismissed as much as the Alex Jones cult is.

[del]

OK, then, not searching 266 posts, drop the game and point me to it or repeat it if you actually did.

your laziness isn't his problem

[Chris]

your laziness isn't his problem

lol.

[Chris]

maineman, I went back several pages, in fact several several pages back, and, no, you did not answer the question how Hillary lies in the good or evil side of the top 1%. I see you focusing mainly on trying to into personal pissing contests. I see pattyhill trying to answer. I do not see you attempting to answer the question.

[del]

@maineman (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1289), I went back several pages, in fact several several pages back, and, no, you did not answer the question how Hillary lies in the good or evil side of the top 1%. I see you focusing mainly on trying to into personal pissing contests. I see pattyhill trying to answer. I do not see you attempting to answer the question.


your laziness isn't his problem

[Chris]

If she was greedy and selfish, she never would have run for Senator; she wouldn't have taken on SOS; and she wouldn't be running for President.

She and Mr. Clinton were able to get lots of money without her putting herself out there, doing what she can to secure the safety net, and taking all the crap that people like the ones on this board give her.



(A) If she was greedy and selfish, (B) she never would have run for Senator; she wouldn't have taken on SOS; and she wouldn't be running for President.

(B) is non sequitur to (A). Are you seriously trying to argue politicians are not greedy and selfish?


She and Mr. Clinton were able to get lots of money without her putting herself out there, doing what she can to secure the safety net, and taking all the crap that people like the ones on this board give her.

This begs the question what besides talking has she done to secure the safety net? Taking crap is beside the point, this is politics, not personal.

[maineman]

@maineman (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1289), I went back several pages, in fact several several pages back, and, no, you did not answer the question how Hillary lies in the good or evil side of the top 1%. I see you focusing mainly on trying to into personal pissing contests. I see pattyhill trying to answer. I do not see you attempting to answer the question.

you asked me how she had been altruistic and I answered you directly. I do not see you being able to pull your swelled head out from inside your anal cavity long enough to keep up with your own conversations.

[Chris]

you asked me how she had been altruistic and I answered you directly. I do not see you being able to pull your swelled head out from inside your anal cavity long enough to keep up with your own conversations.

No, you have not answered. You have only repeatedly said some of the 1% are bad and some are good. You have not shown where Hillary lies.

And per usual you try to turn this into a personal pissing contest to detract from your inability to defend Hillary. Sorry, not falling for such vulgar trolling.

[maineman]

No, you have not answered. You have only repeatedly said some of the 1% are bad and some are good. You have not shown where Hillary lies.

And per usual you try to turn this into a personal pissing contest to detract from your inability to defend Hillary. Sorry, not falling for such vulgar trolling.
go ahead, then, and reply to my answer.

[Chris]

go ahead, then, and reply to my answer.

That some people in the top 1% are good and some bad, but that's true of any group. Some people post good substantive opinions and some post vacuous vulgarity.

My question remains what has Hillary done to show she's a good 1%er? What has she done for the little guy. Besides talk, as Patty points out.

[MisterVeritis]

so an armed minority is prepared to forcibly wrest control of the government from the majority if they don't see things the way YOU do? Have I got that right?
Typically that is the way revolutions work. I would point you to the events from our past if I thought you would profit from the example.

[PattyHill]

(B) is non sequitur to (A). Are you seriously trying to argue politicians are not greedy and selfish?



This begs the question what besides talking has she done to secure the safety net? Taking crap is beside the point, this is politics, not personal.


Sure there are greedy and selfish politicians.

But Ms. Clinton has plenty of money and power. She doesn't need to go into politics to get those. And given how she is treated in conservative media, that she is doing it is pretty amazing.

I'm not going to bother to look for her voting record as Senator; but I am pretty sure it would show she voted for the safety net.

And she has ALWAYS supported women and their rights across the globe.

[MisterVeritis]

If she was greedy and selfish, she never would have run for Senator; she wouldn't have taken on SOS; and she wouldn't be running for President.

She and Mr. Clinton were able to get lots of money without her putting herself out there, doing what she can to secure the safety net, and taking all the crap that people like the ones on this board give her.
Yep. Selling influence is very hard work. That and shaking down organizations.

[PolWatch]

you asked me how she had been altruistic and I answered you directly. I do not see you being able to pull your swelled head out from inside your anal cavity long enough to keep up with your own conversations.
Please keep the discussion civil...reduce the vulgarity

[MisterVeritis]

Clinton in charge: surplus, welfare reform, country booming
These only happened as a result of a somewhat conservative Republican Congress. BJ Clinton had little to do with it.


Bush Jr in charge: two wars, massive recession, country NOT booming
When he left office we were in a position to win the Iraq war. The recession occurred in his last few months of office. And after more than six years of The Insane One the country is still not booming.


Yeah, no different... really...(eye roll)
On this we agree. Having an establishment Republican is far better than having a Marxist Islamofascist supporter in the White House.

[maineman]

That some people in the top 1% are good and some bad, but that's true of any group. Some people post good substantive opinions and some post vacuous vulgarity.

My question remains what has Hillary done to show she's a good 1%er? What has she done for the little guy. Besides talk, as Patty points out.

quote the post where I answered your question about her altruism and then respond to it. My guess is that you haven't bothered to look for it or at least have not found it and are just tap dancing instead.

[Chris]

quote the post where I answered your question about her altruism and then respond to it. My guess is that you haven't bothered to look for it or at least have not found it and are just tap dancing instead.

You said your reply was several pages back, I looked 7, 8 pages back, and found a reply by Patty addressing my question, but not you.

Hey, if you had an answer, you're repeat it well practiced now rather than play this game.

[MisterVeritis]

Sure there are greedy and selfish politicians.

But Ms. Clinton has plenty of money and power. She doesn't need to go into politics to get those.
Really? What has she done? I mean other than peddle influence and sell her office? Do you think anyone would pay the huge bribes if she was not in a position to play for pay? She needs to be investigated, charged, tried, convicted and then hanged.


And given how she is treated in conservative media, that she is doing it is pretty amazing.
Yes. Being an exceptionally corrupt politician is a resume enhancer when one is an authoritarian statist.


I'm not going to bother to look for her voting record as Senator; but I am pretty sure it would show she voted for the safety net.
She works very hard to plunder your neighbors on your behalf. I get that.


And she has ALWAYS supported women and their rights across the globe.
Sure. Bimbo eruptions notwithstanding she stands up for women everywhere. LOL. Never mind the allegations of rape, sexual assault and sexual harassment that Hillary helped BJ Clinton cover up.

[maineman]

You said your reply was several pages back, I looked 7, 8 pages back, and found a reply by Patty addressing my question, but not you.

Hey, if you had an answer, you're repeat it well practiced now rather than play this game.

when you ask me a question, and then I take the time to answer it, I expect you to read it. It's not a game... it's called common courtesy. If you don't care to exhibit it, I'll follow your lead.

[Chris]

Sure there are greedy and selfish politicians.

But Ms. Clinton has plenty of money and power. She doesn't need to go into politics to get those. And given how she is treated in conservative media, that she is doing it is pretty amazing.

I'm not going to bother to look for her voting record as Senator; but I am pretty sure it would show she voted for the safety net.

And she has ALWAYS supported women and their rights across the globe.



Surely there are good and bad politicians just as surely as there are good and bad 1%ers. But you assumed all politicians were good.

And you have not shown what Hillary has done to merit a label "good" as politician or 1%er.


But Ms. Clinton has....

Isn't the problem with 1%ers that they are wealthy and want more and that is greediness?


I'm not going to bother....

Nor am I going to do it for you. It's OK to say you don't know.


And she has ALWAYS supported women and their rights across the globe.

The question here is whether she's a good or evil 1%er to be pedestalled or demonized.

[Chris]

when you ask me a question, and then I take the time to answer it, I expect you to read it. It's not a game... it's called common courtesy. If you don't care to exhibit it, I'll follow your lead.

I would read it if I could see it. If you had posted it earlier it would be easy for you to repeat it. Instead you play games. And once again you try to turn it into a personal pssing contest. But I won't bite your troll.

[PattyHill]

Surely there are good and bad politicians just as surely as there are good and bad 1%ers. But you assumed all politicians were good.

And you have not shown what Hillary has done to merit a label "good" as politician or 1%er.



Isn't the problem with 1%ers that they are wealthy and want more and that is greediness?



Nor am I going to do it for you. It's OK to say you don't know.



The question here is whether she's a good or evil 1%er to be pedestalled or demonized.


So you refuse to consider the points I have listed in her favor. At this point, we have nothing to discuss because our viewpoints are so disparate.

I'm sure you'll say the same thing about MM's points in her favor. Or TrueBlue's listing of her accomplishments.

You are determined to see nothing good in her. So this isn't something we can rationally discuss. So I will stop discussing.

[Chris]

So you refuse to consider the points I have listed in her favor. At this point, we have nothing to discuss because our viewpoints are so disparate.

I'm sure you'll say the same thing about MM's points in her favor. Or TrueBlue's listing of her accomplishments.

You are determined to see nothing good in her. So this isn't something we can rationally discuss. So I will stop discussing.


You have not presented anything she's actually done as a 1%er to help the little man.

You have presented some arguments, and i have replied to them.

Rather it is you and a few others who are determined to see no evil in Hillary and her hypocrisy.

[Tahuyaman]

And I am sure that hanging out on the beach drinking mexican moonshine with your surfer buddies is tons of fun.

I can think of worse ways to spend a day.

[domer76]

That some people in the top 1% are good and some bad, but that's true of any group. Some people post good substantive opinions and some post vacuous vulgarity.

My question remains what has Hillary done to show she's a good 1%er? What has she done for the little guy. Besides talk, as Patty points out.

"Vacuous vulgarity"?

fuck that shit!

[maineman]

I would read it if I could see it. If you had posted it earlier it would be easy for you to repeat it. Instead you play games. And once again you try to turn it into a personal pssing contest. But I won't bite your troll.
why should I have to repeat things I say to you? You asked. I answered. You ignored the answer when I first wrote it and now you can't find it. Not my problem. If you can't carry on a conversation, it would probably be best for you not to start one. What you are doing now is rude and disrespectful.

[maineman]

I can think of worse ways to spend a day.

For an admitted underachiever, I am sure such a day would be fabulous, and one where, like the rest of your life, you wouldn't have to put much effort into it. Provecho.

[Chris]

why should I have to repeat things I say to you? You asked. I answered. You ignored the answer when I first wrote it and now you can't find it. Not my problem. If you can't carry on a conversation, it would probably be best for you not to start one. What you are doing now is rude and disrespectful.

If you answered it was your point to make not mine. Your instructions to look several pages back were false. You can't seem to find it yourself to bump or copy. You can't seem to repeat it. And yet you say it's my problem, lol.

And all that to once again try to engage in a personal pissing contest to shift the blame and cover up your failure. Pathetic. Not biting.

[Chris]

Let's go back to Patty's claim Hillary is a champion of woman's causes. Here again I find her talking the talk but not walking the walk, in short a hypocrite.

Hillary Clinton Faces Test of Record Aiding Women (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/09/us/politics/hillary-clinton-faces-test-of-record-aiding-women.html?_r=0): 'It was supposed to be a carefully planned anniversary to mark one of the most important and widely praised moments in Hillary Rodham Clinton’s political career — and to remind the country, ahead of a likely 2016 presidential campaign, about her long record as a champion for the rights of women and girls. Instead, as Mrs. Clinton commemorates her 1995 women’s rights speech in Beijing in back-to-back events in New York, she finds herself under attack for her family foundation’s acceptance of millions of dollars in donations from Middle Eastern countries known for violence against women and for denying them many basic freedoms."

More at Hillary Clinton is no feminist champion (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clinton-is-no-feminist-champion/article/2560713).

[Redrose]

Just think, The GOP can't beat a Chicago Community Organizer, and it's going to take 20 GOP Candidates to challenge a Clintion Machine. But Barock had not problem. :grin:



Barry won on his color ONLY, his hidden past, lack of experience and questionable friendships never came into play. Dumbest thing this nation ever did.

[maineman]

If you answered it was your point to make not mine. Your instructions to look several pages back were false. You can't seem to find it yourself to bump or copy. You can't seem to repeat it. And yet you say it's my problem, lol.

And all that to once again try to engage in a personal pissing contest to shift the blame and cover up your failure. Pathetic. Not biting.

I made a statement in 191. You asked me a question about that statement in 192. I answered in 193. You never responded. Your next reply to me was 201 which clearly indicates you missed 193. And you are obviously too fucking lazy to keep up with conversations or to go back and catch up when you fall asleep during them. You should apologize. I won't be this magnanimous going forward.

[Chris]

she chose a life of public service rather than that of a Wall Street lawyer.... she believes elective office is a noble calling. So do I.

I have a really smart sister... she and her husband chose a life of academia... both got PhDs... both with 30/40 years in the classroom... both published authors.... they are doing well, but not SUPER well. Their eldest son - my little nephew - is now a senior JP Morgan VP.... he's made way more money in his 40 years on this planet than they made their entire 40 year career in academia.

You don't think that the Clinton's could have found a faster track to millionaire status than the one they chose????

really???


First, thank you for finally pointing out this post you've talked about for a day.

Take out the extraneous anecdote and you're left with this:


she chose a life of public service rather than that of a Wall Street lawyer.... she believes elective office is a noble calling.

That was one of Patty's answers as well. She too assumed that choosing politician as profession implies you're a good person. But as Patty later admitted, no, it implies nothing at all, for politicians can be just as ignobly greedy as anyone.

The question wasn't what might she have done, but what has she actually done over the course of her chosen profession to help the little guy and not herself to riches?

We know she and her husband have amassed over $30 million and risen to the top 0.1% simply talking the talk. The question is when has she walked the walk. 30 pages and 300 posts no one has said anything of substance.

[Mister D]

Was it seriously suggested that our politicians are a noble breed? I think we can all agree that their first priority in a liberal democracy is getting elected. That's not exactly a circumstance likely to build character.

[Bob]

Bill chose his life of public service. I honestly believe he did it for the income. Take his term as Arkansas attorney general. One would think given he had to prosecute criminals, rape would be the last thing on his mind. But he raped. Adultery in some states is still punishable in law.

Rhode Island even has a law that demands you put in 20 years in prison if you on purpose and maliciously bite off a body part. This can sure be several parts on the human body.

But She stuck it out when charges flew he raped. I certainly doubt most who know of all the facts see Bill as much more than a rapist. They say sex criminals can't change.

I don't know her income when she worked for the Rose Law Firm in Arkansas but one can sure look up a Senators income from that job.

Even the income of Sec. of State is on the internet.

I put their known income, known debts and other data into my mortgage qualifier software. It is on this very computer in fact. They did not qualify for the home in NY. It was not a close call. Somebody simply made it happen. Talk about fraud. This should have been investated and the Dodd Frank law not enacted. Experts do not believe in Dodd Frank.

Clinton killed the Glass Steagal act. That really was correct. It was like creating a law that says you could not drive at 200 mph and all you had to do was drive at 199 mph.

She is corrupt. As is her husband.

This is not about good or bad things they did for the country. It is their fatal character flaw.

[Chris]

Was it seriously suggested that our politicians are a noble breed? I think we can all agree that their first priority in a liberal democracy is getting elected. That's not exactly a circumstance likely to build character.

Yea but Mr Smith went to Washington!

[Bob]

Let's go back to Patty's claim Hillary is a champion of woman's causes. Here again I find her talking the talk but not walking the walk, in short a hypocrite.

Hillary Clinton Faces Test of Record Aiding Women (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/09/us/politics/hillary-clinton-faces-test-of-record-aiding-women.html?_r=0): 'It was supposed to be a carefully planned anniversary to mark one of the most important and widely praised moments in Hillary Rodham Clinton’s political career — and to remind the country, ahead of a likely 2016 presidential campaign, about her long record as a champion for the rights of women and girls. Instead, as Mrs. Clinton commemorates her 1995 women’s rights speech in Beijing in back-to-back events in New York, she finds herself under attack for her family foundation’s acceptance of millions of dollars in donations from Middle Eastern countries known for violence against women and for denying them many basic freedoms."

More at Hillary Clinton is no feminist champion (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clinton-is-no-feminist-champion/article/2560713).

It is not that she is evil. Take the deaths in Libya she is so famous for. She is still in denial. None of it is her fault. She announced prior to Barack winning his election over her, could he be up for a call at 3 am in the morning. She had her chance to prove she is up and willing to help officials of this government but acted all pissed off and gave her famous "what difference does it make" talk in congress.

[Chris]

OK, Hillary is not evil. But she's not good. And she's a hypocrite.

[maineman]

First, thank you for finally pointing out this post you've talked about for a day.



the anecdote was not extraneous. Some people are motivated by making a lot of money. Others are more altruistic in their motivations. If my nephew can graduate from a state school in NY, get an MBA from a state school in NY and go on to make tens and tens of millions of dollars before he turns 40, do you honestly think that, were selfishness and greed the motivators for Hillary Clinton, she could not have found a career equally as lucrative? She didn't because altruism is her motivator. You can chose to disagree with me, but you'll be hard pressed to disprove me.

Let's just agree to disagree.

And from now on, when you ask me a question and I answer it, if you WANT to read the answer to the question, go fucking find it yourself instead of lazily demanding I go back and spoon feed you what I already fed you once before.

[maineman]

"what difference does it make"

I love it when republicans take little snippet soundbites out of context and are SO PLEASED with themselves when they can use them against democrats.

Here's a hint, though, for the general election: since you've worn the grooves out on the record of "what difference does it make" over the past two years.... the soundbite won't really play all that well come 2016. You try to take her down NOW, and fail, and all you end up doing is inoculating her against whatever smear it is that you are trying to use against her. Benghazi, emails, speaking fees, dead broke, all of it.... you run with it HARD in 2014/15 it is :yawn: old old news come the fall of 2016.

But please...feel free to test the validity of my theory by pounding on all those points now.... and often. Please.

[Mister D]

the anecdote was not extraneous. Some people are motivated by making a lot of money. Others are more altruistic in their motivations. If my nephew can graduate from a state school in NY, get an MBA from a state school in NY and go on to make tens and tens of millions of dollars before he turns 40, do you honestly think that, were selfishness and greed the motivators for Hillary Clinton, she could not have found a career equally as lucrative? She didn't because altruism is her motivator. You can chose to disagree with me, but you'll be hard pressed to disprove me.

Let's just agree to disagree.

And from now on, when you ask me a question and I answer it, if you WANT to read the answer to the question, go $#@!ing find it yourself instead of lazily demanding I go back and spoon feed you what I already fed you once before.

Political power is very attractive to some folks, maine. It's not all about money.

[Bob]

I love it when republicans take little snippet soundbites out of context and are SO PLEASED with themselves when they can use them against democrats.

Here's a hint, though, for the general election: since you've worn the grooves out on the record of "what difference does it make" over the past two years.... the soundbite won't really play all that well come 2016. You try to take her down NOW, and fail, and all you end up doing is inoculating her against whatever smear it is that you are trying to use against her. Benghazi, emails, speaking fees, dead broke, all of it.... you run with it HARD in 2014/15 it is :yawn: old old news come the fall of 2016.

But please...feel free to test the validity of my theory by pounding on all those points now.... and often. Please.

Something makes you angry as hell.

Probably the fact her poll numbers are collapsing.

[Mister D]

OK, Hillary is not evil. But she's not good. And she's a hypocrite.

In her defense, western democracies attract a certain type of personality. She's hardly alone. That said, I think I might laugh in someone's face if they told me Hillary Clinton was motivated by altruism.

[maineman]

In her defense, western democracies attract a certain type of personality. She's hardly alone. That said, I think I might laugh in someone's face if they told me Hillary Clinton was motivated by altruism.

laugh in my face and I grab your ball sack with a pair of pliers. ;)

[maineman]

Something makes you angry as hell.

Probably the fact her poll numbers are collapsing.

I am not angry at all Bobby. Go ahead.... keep the benghazi/email loop on continuous feed. America will be snoring to it by election day.

[Bob]

Political power is very attractive to some folks, maine. It's not all about money.

When I was then a director of the real estate board, along with being a director over the state real estate association, at times I would get shocked by the actions of others. I would get treated like some famous hero. I told them I simply did a job for them and was trying to make it a good job.

I raised hell at times on the board of directors. I know about 60 percent of them actually thought it brought them fame. I never looked at the job as being a bit like that.

I probably am still the only director of that board that actually took on a corrupt city council man and urged our board to not fund his campaign.

Naturally this was leaked and resulted in me being sued.

I had stood up to the CEO over the Board so was known to challenge him. Not for petty stuff, but for some serious malfeasance of his performance.

I had the full support of about 40 percent of the board of directors.

I won the suit. I got a full written apology from the CEO of the board and several years later, he scooted out of town. I enjoyed the calls from previous and following board presidents that lauded me for a valuable service to the board.

I have been in some dirty politics. It disgusts me. I figure we have perhaps 40 percent of the politicians who really do work hard for all of us. This is why I reject comments as if all are dirty SOBs. That is too radical a claim.

[magicmike]

A Rep ad but how can Dems vote for this?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOheL_ScEqE

Here's a hint. You don't have to vote for Hillary. Vote for your favorite Republitarian and waste your vote.

[PolWatch]

Looks like Paul is closing the gap...
Tuesday, June 2

Race/Topic (Click to Sort)
Poll
Results
Spread


General Election: Bush vs. Clinton (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_bush_vs_clinton-3827.html)
CNN/Opinion Research (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/06/01/2016.poll.pdf)
Clinton 51, Bush 43 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_bush_vs_clinton-3827.html)
Clinton +8


General Election: Walker vs. Clinton (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_walker_vs_clinton-5335.html)
CNN/Opinion Research (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/06/01/2016.poll.pdf)
Clinton 49, Walker 46 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_walker_vs_clinton-5335.html)
Clinton +3


General Election: Rubio vs. Clinton (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_rubio_vs_clinton-3767.html)
CNN/Opinion Research (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/06/01/2016.poll.pdf)
Clinton 49, Rubio 46 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_rubio_vs_clinton-3767.html)
Clinton +3


General Election: Paul vs. Clinton (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_paul_vs_clinton-3825.html)
CNN/Opinion Research (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/06/01/2016.poll.pdf)
Clinton 48, Paul 47 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_paul_vs_clinton-3825.html)
Clinton +1


General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_cruz_vs_clinton-4034.html)
CNN/Opinion Research (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/06/01/2016.poll.pdf)
Clinton 52, Cruz 43 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_cruz_vs_clinton-4034.html)
Clinton +9


General Election: Bush vs. Clinton (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_bush_vs_clinton-3827.html)
ABC/Wash Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2015/06/02/National-Politics/Polling/question_15691.xml?uuid=nhRhlgkVEeWVHo4VCQ1krg)
Clinton 47, Bush 44 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_bush_vs_clinton-3827.html)
Clinton +3


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/

[Hal Jordan]

the anecdote was not extraneous. Some people are motivated by making a lot of money. Others are more altruistic in their motivations. If my nephew can graduate from a state school in NY, get an MBA from a state school in NY and go on to make tens and tens of millions of dollars before he turns 40, do you honestly think that, were selfishness and greed the motivators for Hillary Clinton, she could not have found a career equally as lucrative? She didn't because altruism is her motivator. You can chose to disagree with me, but you'll be hard pressed to disprove me.

Let's just agree to disagree.

And from now on, when you ask me a question and I answer it, if you WANT to read the answer to the question, go fucking find it yourself instead of lazily demanding I go back and spoon feed you what I already fed you once before.

Altruism. Ha! She wants the power more than the money.

[Hal Jordan]

Here's a hint. You don't have to vote for Hillary. Vote for your favorite Republitarian and waste your vote.

Voting for someone I don't believe in would be truly wasting my vote.

[Bob]

I am not angry at all Bobby. Go ahead.... keep the benghazi/email loop on continuous feed. America will be snoring to it by election day.

I am highly tactical in my use of ammo.

I would urge you also do it but I really enjoy your spinning.

[maineman]

Altruism. Ha! She wants the power more than the money.
Ha! I disagree. Ha!

[Hal Jordan]

Ha! I disagree. Ha!

So you think she wants the money more than the power? I think the idea that she's where she's at because she's altruistic is just ridiculous. If you can show her actually being altruistic, I might reconsider, but I think if you could show that, you would have by now.

[maineman]

So you think she wants the money more than the power? I think the idea that she's where she's at because she's altruistic is just ridiculous. If you can show her actually being altruistic, I might reconsider, but I think if you could show that, you would have by now.

I happen to firmly believe - from extensive personal experience - that many people who go into politics do so for primarily altruistic reasons. If you disagree, why gosh.... I can't TELL y'all how much that just breaks my pea pickin' little heart.

[Bob]

Looks like Paul is closing the gap...
Tuesday, June 2

Race/Topic (Click to Sort)
Poll
Results
Spread


General Election: Bush vs. Clinton (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_bush_vs_clinton-3827.html)
CNN/Opinion Research (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/06/01/2016.poll.pdf)
Clinton 51, Bush 43 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_bush_vs_clinton-3827.html)
Clinton +8


General Election: Walker vs. Clinton (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_walker_vs_clinton-5335.html)
CNN/Opinion Research (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/06/01/2016.poll.pdf)
Clinton 49, Walker 46 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_walker_vs_clinton-5335.html)
Clinton +3


General Election: Rubio vs. Clinton (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_rubio_vs_clinton-3767.html)
CNN/Opinion Research (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/06/01/2016.poll.pdf)
Clinton 49, Rubio 46 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_rubio_vs_clinton-3767.html)
Clinton +3


General Election: Paul vs. Clinton (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_paul_vs_clinton-3825.html)
CNN/Opinion Research (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/06/01/2016.poll.pdf)
Clinton 48, Paul 47 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_paul_vs_clinton-3825.html)
Clinton +1


General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_cruz_vs_clinton-4034.html)
CNN/Opinion Research (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/06/01/2016.poll.pdf)
Clinton 52, Cruz 43 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_cruz_vs_clinton-4034.html)
Clinton +9


General Election: Bush vs. Clinton (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_bush_vs_clinton-3827.html)
ABC/Wash Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2015/06/02/National-Politics/Polling/question_15691.xml?uuid=nhRhlgkVEeWVHo4VCQ1krg)
Clinton 47, Bush 44 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_bush_vs_clinton-3827.html)
Clinton +3


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/

Walker too. And he is still not as known as is Paul. Paul can rant in the Senate and get tons of publicity.

Clinton is sinking.

[Hal Jordan]

I happen to firmly believe - from extensive personal experience - that many people who go into politics do so for primarily altruistic reasons. If you disagree, why gosh.... I can't TELL y'all how much that just breaks my pea pickin' little heart.

Well, I'd say it depends on your definition of many. Nationwide, I would agree that there are many that enter into politics for altruistic reasons, which will show through what they do while in politics. Now, many does not translate into most, though. Anyway, so instead of making an effort to convince someone that has said they are willing to be convinced otherwise, you offer mockery and no evidence. Does that sway many to your side?

[Tahuyaman]

For an admitted underachiever, I am sure such a day would be fabulous, and one where, like the rest of your life, you wouldn't have to put much effort into it. Provecho.

Is there something wrong with being an underachiever? Especially when you have achieved more than most?

I'm at a point now where I want to enjoy life as much as possible. I worked my ass off for nearly 40 years. It's time to reap the benefits.

[Bob]

I happen to firmly believe - from extensive personal experience - that many people who go into politics do so for primarily altruistic reasons. If you disagree, why gosh.... I can't TELL y'all how much that just breaks my pea pickin' little heart.

I believe the insiders want you to believe that.

I believe about 40 percent do it because they honestly believe they can help the general populace.

Based on personal surveys as a Director among my fellow Directors at the time.

We did manage to shake up the board and I believe today it is vastly improved.

I tested this thesis on a then Democrat state politician and though she was a Democrat, I truly feel she was one of the honest Democrats. Delaine agreed.

You can check her out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delaine_Eastin


Delaine Eastin (born August 20, 1947) is an American (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) politician and the former 25th California State Superintendent of Public Instruction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Department_of_Education). She was the first woman to be elected State Superintendent.
Eastin represented parts of Alameda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alameda_County,_California) and Santa Clara (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County,_California) counties in the California State Assembly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Assembly) between 1986 and 1994. She is a member of the Democratic Party.


I can honestly state I enjoyed talking to this woman a few times ... her and me alone, and laud her civic service. I would like to think she did not simply talk to me since I was a director, but that she would have talked to any of us.

[maineman]

Is there something wrong with being an underachiever? Especially when you have achieved more than most?

I'm at a point now where I want to enjoy life as much as possible. I worked my ass off for nearly 40 years. It's time to reap the benefits.

more than most what? beach bums?

you like to think you're all that and a bag of chips.... I am not convinced.

[PattyHill]

Well, I'd say it depends on your definition of many. Nationwide, I would agree that there are many that enter into politics for altruistic reasons, which will show through what they do while in politics. Now, many does not translate into most, though. Anyway, so instead of making an effort to convince someone that has said they are willing to be convinced otherwise, you offer mockery and no evidence. Does that sway many to your side?


Well, we gave examples and that didn't work. Guess insults are all that are left.

Do you honestly think that there is anything we could say that would get Chris to believe that Ms. Clinton does care for more than than 1%? there is nothing that will get him to "our side".

[Chris]

the anecdote was not extraneous. Some people are motivated by making a lot of money. Others are more altruistic in their motivations. If my nephew can graduate from a state school in NY, get an MBA from a state school in NY and go on to make tens and tens of millions of dollars before he turns 40, do you honestly think that, were selfishness and greed the motivators for Hillary Clinton, she could not have found a career equally as lucrative? She didn't because altruism is her motivator. You can chose to disagree with me, but you'll be hard pressed to disprove me.

Let's just agree to disagree.

And from now on, when you ask me a question and I answer it, if you WANT to read the answer to the question, go fucking find it yourself instead of lazily demanding I go back and spoon feed you what I already fed you once before.



I fully understand some are motivated by good and some by greed. But establishing those categories does not put Hillary in the good. It does not answer the question.

[Chris]

In her defense, western democracies attract a certain type of personality. She's hardly alone. That said, I think I might laugh in someone's face if they told me Hillary Clinton was motivated by altruism.

I start from the assumption politicians are in it either for the wealth or the power or both...any politician, Hillary is not special.

[Chris]

Well, we gave examples and that didn't work. Guess insults are all that are left.

Do you honestly think that there is anything we could say that would get Chris to believe that Ms. Clinton does care for more than than 1%? there is nothing that will get him to "our side".

Patty, quit pretending you or maine gave any examples of Hillary doing anything for the little guy, you have not. Don't push your failure onto me.

[Hal Jordan]

Well, we gave examples and that didn't work. Guess insults are all that are left.

Do you honestly think that there is anything we could say that would get Chris to believe that Ms. Clinton does care for more than than 1%? there is nothing that will get him to "our side".

If insults are all that is left, then you've lost.

I've read through every post in this thread, and there are no examples of altruism on her part. There are comments that she is altruistic, but it hasn't been shown here in the slightest. Sure, I think there are things you could say that could convince Chris, but we're not talking about Chris here. We're talking about me. So, do you have actual evidence that she's altruistic?

[Chris]

Insults are white flags.

[PolWatch]

What examples of any politician operating from an altruistic motive can anyone offer? Seeking high political office requires a person with a larger than normal ego and extreme ambition. Look at what they all are subjected to.....I think they all must be sociopaths to seek political office.

Do I believe Hillary is seeking the nomination from an overwhelming desire to do good for her fellow humans? No. But I also don't think that description applies of any of the possible candidates.

[Chris]

What examples of any politician operating from an altruistic motive can anyone offer? Seeking high political office requires a person with a larger than normal ego and extreme ambition. Look at what they all are subjected to.....I think they all must be sociopaths to seek political office.

Do I believe Hillary is seeking the nomination from an overwhelming desire to do good for her fellow humans? No. But I also don't think that description applies of any of the possible candidates.


What's come out of the argument here are two fundamental premises:


I happen to firmly believe - from extensive personal experience - that many people who go into politics do so for primarily altruistic reasons....


I start from the assumption politicians are in it either for the wealth or the power or both...any politician, Hillary is not special.



Maine, and others, based on his premise, and examples of that premise, assume it sufficient to show Hillary good and not greedy.

Like you, polwatch, I start with the opposite premise. But assume nothing. I listened to the video in which Hillary speaks of helping the little guy and from such talk has amassed with Bill $30 million and risen to the top 0.1%, and see evidence of hypocrisy there.

[PattyHill]

If insults are all that is left, then you've lost.

I've read through every post in this thread, and there are no examples of altruism on her part. There are comments that she is altruistic, but it hasn't been shown here in the slightest. Sure, I think there are things you could say that could convince Chris, but we're not talking about Chris here. We're talking about me. So, do you have actual evidence that she's altruistic?


It's not really about altruism (although the thread has morphed there)

It's - does she support just the 1% or does she also do things for those of us who aren't in the 1%?

Here's her voting record while in the Senate.
http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/55463/hillary-clinton#.VW47-tJViko

She was co-sponsor of the Lily Ledbetter act (not a 1% priority)
She voted for low-income home energy assistance funding
She voted for HR 5501 - Funding to Combat AIDS, Malaria, and Tuberculosis

So yes, she does vote for things that support the non-1%

I told Chris I didn't want to bother going thru her voting record; but ok, there you have it. There is a lot more, but you can look at it yourself.

Is she rich? yes. Does that blind her to the rest of us? no.

[PattyHill]

If insults are all that is left, then you've lost.




Are you kidding? I've lost nothing. Certainly I haven't lost Chris' vote for Ms. Clinton because he would never have voted for her.

I've lost nothing on a forum where everyone's minds are already made up about her, especially those opposed to her.

And there is no win/lose on a forum like this. Anyone who thinks they can "win" on here is delusional.

[PolWatch]

What's come out of the argument here are two fundamental premises:

Maine, and others, based on his premise, and examples of that premise, assume it sufficient to show Hillary good and not greedy.

Like you, polwatch, I start with the opposite premise. But assume nothing. I listened to the video in which Hillary speaks of helping the little guy and from such talk has amassed with Bill $30 million and risen to the top 0.1%, and see evidence of hypocrisy there.

The problem is most people don't want to admit the truth of politics. Can you imagine the screams and failure of any politician who actually told the truth in a campaign speech? I can hear them now:


'I promise to do everything I can to enrich my own wallet & enact any legislation necessary to keep my old donors & acquire new donors so I can stay in office forever. If John Q. Citizen realizes any benefit from my election....it will be by error."

Yeap....I can see people rushing to vote for the honest politician.

[Chris]

It's not really about altruism (although the thread has morphed there)

It's - does she support just the 1% or does she also do things for those of us who aren't in the 1%?

Here's her voting record while in the Senate.
http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/55463/hillary-clinton#.VW47-tJViko

She was co-sponsor of the Lily Ledbetter act (not a 1% priority)
She voted for low-income home energy assistance funding
She voted for HR 5501 - Funding to Combat AIDS, Malaria, and Tuberculosis

So yes, she does vote for things that support the non-1%

I told Chris I didn't want to bother going thru her voting record; but ok, there you have it. There is a lot more, but you can look at it yourself.

Is she rich? yes. Does that blind her to the rest of us? no.



And yet whether those bills are actually altruistic, support the non-1%, or not is debatable. The Lily Ledbetter Act is neither a 1% priority nor a non-1% priority, it's about discrimination. While some poor might benefit from "low-income home energy assistance funding" just where exactly do those funds end up but in the hands of rich manufacturers? Nor is HR 5501 to do with 1% v non1%.



Is she rich? yes. Does that blind her to the rest of us? no.

Because you begin with the premise it does not. So you don't question.

[Chris]

The problem is most people don't want to admit the truth of politics. Can you imagine the screams and failure of any politician who actually told the truth in a campaign speech? I can hear them now:


'I promise to do everything I can to enrich my own wallet & enact any legislation necessary to keep my old donors & acquire new donors so I can stay in office forever. If John Q. Citizen realizes any benefit from my election....it will be by error."

Yeap....I can see people rushing to vote for the honest politician.


An honest politician is unelectable.

What have we created?

[PattyHill]

And yet whether those bills are actually altruistic, support the non-1%, or not is debatable. The Lily Ledbetter Act is neither a 1% priority nor a non-1% priority, it's about discrimination. While some poor might benefit from "low-income home energy assistance funding" just where exactly do those funds end up but in the hands of rich manufacturers? Nor is HR 5501 to do with 1% v non1%.




Because you begin with the premise it does not. So you don't question.


Like I said, Chris, I'm done discussing this with you.

I responded to Hal.

[Chris]

Are you kidding? I've lost nothing. Certainly I haven't lost Chris' vote for Ms. Clinton because he would never have voted for her.

I've lost nothing on a forum where everyone's minds are already made up about her, especially those opposed to her.

And there is no win/lose on a forum like this. Anyone who thinks they can "win" on here is delusional.



I agree on all those, you nor I nor no one has lost anything. It's been an exchange of opinions in which everyone gains.

However, once you do resort to insults and vulgarity and etc, you do lose. In showing such disrespect you lose respect.



Oh, and I don't vote.

[Chris]

Like I said, Chris, I'm done discussing this with you.

I responded to Hal.



And you just responded to me again with a self-annihilating post.

http://i.snag.gy/Km8qp.jpg

[Tahuyaman]

I think people run for office with the best intentions. Once they get there, they basically become intoxicated with the power they now have.

[PattyHill]

And you just responded to me again with a self-annihilating post.

http://i.snag.gy/Km8qp.jpg


I said I wasn't discussing Ms. Clinton with you. My post re-iterated that. I didn't say I would never respond to anything you said.

But go ahead and continue misinterpreting things.

Hope you don't do that when you moderate posts.

[PolWatch]

I think people run for office with the best intentions. Once they get there, they basically become intoxicated with the power they now have.

They may start with a desire to change things for the better....I would like to think some of them do. However, by the time they swim through the sewer of politics...'specially on the national level, they are all so crusty it's impossible for me to tell them apart.

[Chris]

I think people run for office with the best intentions. Once they get there, they basically become intoxicated with the power they now have.

Some likely do but the system is too corrupt. It's the nature of democracy, I think, politicians are like stockholders in a megacorporation, they have no stake in the game.

[TrueBlue]

If insults are all that is left, then you've lost.

I've read through every post in this thread, and there are no examples of altruism on her part. There are comments that she is altruistic, but it hasn't been shown here in the slightest. Sure, I think there are things you could say that could convince Chris, but we're not talking about Chris here. We're talking about me. So, do you have actual evidence that she's altruistic?
There certainly are Great Examples of altruism on the part of Hillary, her husband Bill, and her daughter Chelsea. The reason there may not be specific mention of her altruism here may well be because people don't know about their foundation and the work they do to help others. Folks here need to get with it and be informed that it has been doing great work not only for the people of this country but for people around the world!

Here you go, Hal. Perhaps you would like to contribute some to their foundation that helps so many others? There's a place on their website for that.

Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/clinton-presidential-center/about/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation

"The Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation works to improve global health, strengthen economies, promote health and wellness, and protect the environment by fostering partnerships among governments, businesses, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and private citizens to turn good intentions into measurable results."

[Ransom]

I agree on all those, you nor I nor no one has lost anything. It's been an exchange of opinions in which everyone gains.

However, once you do resort to insults and vulgarity and etc, you do lose. In showing such disrespect you lose respect.



Oh, and I don't vote.

Very few fence sitters do.

[Tahuyaman]

laugh in my face and I grab your ball sack with a pair of pliers. ;)

why is this guy so fixated on male genitalia?

[Tahuyaman]

Patty, quit pretending you or maine gave any examples of Hillary doing anything for the little guy, you have not. Don't push your failure onto me.

They haven't given any examples, because there are no examples. Everything she has done is intended to benefit her and no one else.

[Chris]

Very few fence sitters do.

Not voting is taking a stance. Voting, like you do, for the Republican establish status quo is sitting on a fence. Thanks for your non-contribution.

[Peter1469]

Here is another great example.

Bill Clinton’s foundation cashed in as Sweden lobbied Hillary on sanctions (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/2/clinton-foundations-sweden-fundraising-arm-cashed-/)

Bill Clinton (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/bill-clinton/)’s foundation set up a fundraising arm in Sweden (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/sweden/) that collected $26 million in donations at the same time that country was lobbying Hillary Rodham Clinton’s State Department (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/department-of-state/) to forgo sanctions that threatened its thriving business with Iran (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/iran/), according to interviews and documents obtained by The Washington Times.


The Swedish entity, called the William J. Clinton Foundation (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/clinton-foundation/) Insamlingsstiftelse, was never disclosed to or cleared by State Department (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/department-of-state/) ethics officials, even though one of its largest sources of donations was a Swedish government (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/government-of-sweden/)-sanctioned lottery.


As the money flowed to the foundation from Sweden (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/sweden/), Mrs. Clinton (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/bill-clinton/)’s team in Washington (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/washington/) declined to blacklist any Swedish firms despite warnings from career officials at the U.S. Embassy in Stockholm that Sweden (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/sweden/) was growing its economic ties with Iran (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/iran/) and potentially undercutting Western efforts to end Tehran (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/tehran/)’s rogue nuclear program, diplomatic cables show.


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/2/clinton-foundations-sweden-fundraising-arm-cashed-/#ixzz3bxGR9Xyn
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=ctd-fI3Dar4z1uacwqm_6r&u=washtimes)





There certainly are Great Examples of altruism on the part of Hillary, her husband Bill, and her daughter Chelsea. The reason there may not be specific mention of her altruism here may well be because people don't know about their foundation and the work they do to help others. Folks here need to get with it and be informed that it has been doing great work not only for the people of this country but for people around the world!

Here you go, Hal. Perhaps you would like to contribute some to their foundation that helps so many others? There's a place on their website for that.

Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/clinton-presidential-center/about/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation

[Chris]

There certainly are Great Examples of altruism on the part of Hillary, her husband Bill, and her daughter Chelsea. The reason there may not be specific mention of her altruism here may well be because people don't know about their foundation and the work they do to help others. Folks here need to get with it and be informed that it has been doing great work not only for the people of this country but for people around the world!

Here you go, Hal. Perhaps you would like to contribute some to their foundation that helps so many others? There's a place on their website for that.

Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/clinton-presidential-center/about/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation



Actually there's been quite a bit about fraud related to their foundation.

[Ransom]

Not voting is taking a stance.

:biglaugh:


Voting, like you do, for the Republican establish status quo is sitting on a fence.

:biglaugh:


Thanks for your non-contribution.

Oh no Chris.... thank you for not voting. I've had some exchanges with you, it is I who will continue to thank you as you continue not to contribute and sit home on election day.

[Tahuyaman]

Here is another great example.

Bill Clinton’s foundation cashed in as Sweden lobbied Hillary on sanctions (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/2/clinton-foundations-sweden-fundraising-arm-cashed-/)



The Clinonistas will find a way to defend this.

[Chris]

:biglaugh:



:biglaugh:



Oh no Chris.... thank you for not voting. I've had some exchanges with you, it is I who will continue to thank you as you continue not to contribute and sit home on election day.



I meant your non-contribution to this thread and the forum. You're so high up their on your fence you missed that. Stop embarrassing yourself.

[TrueBlue]

Here is another great example.

Bill Clinton’s foundation cashed in as Sweden lobbied Hillary on sanctions (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/2/clinton-foundations-sweden-fundraising-arm-cashed-/)


Did that ever rise to the level of a serious impropriety to greatly affect Hillary? No. It didn't, therefore that was much ado about nothing.

[TrueBlue]

The Clinonistas will find a way to defend this.
No need to defend something that was not classified as a serious crime.

[Chris]

Did that ever rise to the level of a serious impropriety to greatly affect Hillary? No. It didn't, therefore that was much ado about nothing.

But it accounts for the loss of trust Americans have for Hillary: Poll: New speed bumps for Clinton (http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/02/politics/hillary-clinton-2016-poll-gop-field-close/index.html)


More people have an unfavorable view of Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton now than at any time since 2001, according to a new CNN/ORC poll on the 2016 race.

While Clinton remains strikingly dominant in the Democratic field, the poll shows that her numbers have dropped significantly across several key indicators since she launched her campaign in April.

A growing number of people say she is not honest and trustworthy (57%, up from 49% in March), less than half feel she cares about people like them (47%, down from 53% last July) and more now feel she does not inspire confidence (50%, up from 42% last March)....

And her lead over Reps is flagging.

[TrueBlue]

But it accounts for the loss of trust Americans have for Hillary: Poll: New speed bumps for Clinton (http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/02/politics/hillary-clinton-2016-poll-gop-field-close/index.html)



And her lead over Reps is flagging.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, what loss of trust? Yet here is a very recent poll I can truly believe in. Thanks to Public Policy Polling.

Hillary Clinton
May 28, 2015

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/hillary-clinton/

"On the Democratic side Hillary Clinton continues to be dominant at 63% to 14% for Bernie Sanders, 6% for Martin O'Malley, and 3% each for Lincoln Chafee and Jim Webb. Clinton's actually polling even higher than in January when we found her at 58%, although Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren were being included in the candidate mix at that time. Clinton is polling over 60% with liberals, moderates, women, African Americans, and young voters and over 50% with men, whites, and seniors. There continue to be no real weaknesses in her standing with Democratic voters."


What part of "There continue to be no real weaknesses in her standing with Democratic voters." do you not understand?

[Hal Jordan]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, what loss of trust? Yet here is a very recent poll I can truly believe in. Thanks to Public Policy Polling.

Hillary Clinton
May 28, 2015

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/hillary-clinton/


What part of "There continue to be no real weaknesses in her standing with Democratic voters." do you not understand?

The thing is, your poll only talks about the view among Democrats. That means as little as standings among Republicans. It's the people that don't stand with one party or another that will swing elections.

[maineman]

I think people run for office with the best intentions. Once they get there, they basically become intoxicated with the power they now have.

I have personally worked for - at the state level - many politicians who maintain their good intentions and do their jobs in ways that try to advance them.

[donttread]

I have personally worked for - at the state level - many politicians who maintain their good intentions and do their jobs in ways that try to advance them.

I think most federal politicians have a power addiction and like any addict they will lie, cheat, steal, sometimes even kill for their fix

[Ransom]

I think most federal politicians have a power addiction and like any addict they will lie, cheat, steal, sometimes even kill for their fix

And who are you voting for in 2016 for President, donttread?

Oops.

[maineman]

And who are you voting for in 2016 for President, donttread?

Oops.

I will vote for the candidate that stands on the platform that most mirrors my own beliefs.

[PattyHill]

I think most federal politicians have a power addiction and like any addict they will lie, cheat, steal, sometimes even kill for their fix


I have personally worked for - at the state level - many politicians who maintain their good intentions and do their jobs in ways that try to advance them.


I agree, Maineman. There are many politicians at federal, state and local levels who are hard working and aren't corrupt.

Senators - Lisa Murkowski, Bernie Sanders, Jim Webb, George Miller, Miller's replacement DeSaulnier, Olympia Snowe, Joe Biden when he was a Senator, etc. No whiff of corruption.

State level - Susana Martinez from New Mexico seems dedicated and hard working. Here in California, Jerry Brown, Tom Torlakson, Gavin Newsome - you may not like their politics, but no one says they steal, cheat, or kill people.

Donttread - in this case, attitudes like yours just turn people off of the political system. It isn't true, it's cynical, and it's not what we need. We need more people getting involved, not fewer.

[Ransom]

I will vote for the candidate that stands on the platform that most mirrors my own beliefs.

Even if she's a complete joke, corrupt, stacked with corporate cash, or was responsible for killing 4 of her State Department employees, yeah we know.

A primary reason for no one taking you seriously, hypocrisy will wear on your integrity, Maine. I've explained that to you.

[maineman]

Even if she's a complete joke, corrupt, stacked with corporate cash, or was responsible for killing 4 of her State Department employees, yeah we know.

A primary reason for no one taking you seriously, hypocrisy will wear on your integrity, Maine. I've explained that to you.

It is anything BUT hypocritical to believe in a party platform and to vote for candidates that have chosen to run on it. I've explained that to you.

[Ransom]

It is anything BUT hypocritical to believe in a party platform and to vote for candidates that have chosen to run on it. I've explained that to you.

In the absence of Webb, you'll vote Hillary. All we needed to know, hypocritical to say the least.....and says so much about you. Telling indeed.

Remember what I said about hypocrisy, those like you who drip with it lose integrity. I've explained that to you.

[Common]

In the absence of Webb, you'll vote Hillary. All we needed to know, hypocritical to say the least.....and says so much about you. Telling indeed.

Remember what I said about hypocrisy, those like you who drip with it lose integrity. I've explained that to you.


Who are you voting for ransom

[Chris]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, what loss of trust? Yet here is a very recent poll I can truly believe in. Thanks to Public Policy Polling.

Hillary Clinton
May 28, 2015

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/hillary-clinton/


What part of "There continue to be no real weaknesses in her standing with Democratic voters." do you not understand?


You mean a poll that confirms your bias? Thing is, your poll says nothing about trust, but only Clinton's standing among Democratic contenders.


The part I don't understand is this loss of trust:

Poll: New speed bumps for Clinton (http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/02/politics/hillary-clinton-2016-poll-gop-field-close/index.html)


More people have an unfavorable view of Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton now than at any time since 2001, according to a new CNN/ORC poll on the 2016 race.

While Clinton remains strikingly dominant in the Democratic field, the poll shows that her numbers have dropped significantly across several key indicators since she launched her campaign in April.

A growing number of people say she is not honest and trustworthy (57%, up from 49% in March), less than half feel she cares about people like them (47%, down from 53% last July) and more now feel she does not inspire confidence (50%, up from 42% last March)....

[Chris]

I have personally worked for - at the state level - many politicians who maintain their good intentions and do their jobs in ways that try to advance them.

That's great. Now what about Hillary again? Nothing, nada, zip.

[Chris]

I agree, Maineman. There are many politicians at federal, state and local levels who are hard working and aren't corrupt.

Senators - Lisa Murkowski, Bernie Sanders, Jim Webb, George Miller, Miller's replacement DeSaulnier, Olympia Snowe, Joe Biden when he was a Senator, etc. No whiff of corruption.

State level - Susana Martinez from New Mexico seems dedicated and hard working. Here in California, Jerry Brown, Tom Torlakson, Gavin Newsome - you may not like their politics, but no one says they steal, cheat, or kill people.

Donttread - in this case, attitudes like yours just turn people off of the political system. It isn't true, it's cynical, and it's not what we need. We need more people getting involved, not fewer.



Still nothing about Hillary, my my.

[midcan5]

A Rep ad but how can Dems vote for [Hillary]?

That's easy: Of course if choirs that sing the same nonsense tune appeal to you, go for it.

http://radixnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/GOP-20162.jpg
If anyone is sane in this list, eliminate them now. And where is Sarah?

[Chris]

^^Another deflection from the simple OP question.

[maineman]

In the absence of Webb, you'll vote Hillary. All we needed to know, hypocritical to say the least.....and says so much about you. Telling indeed.

Remember what I said about hypocrisy, those like you who drip with it lose integrity. I've explained that to you.

It is anything BUT hypocritical to believe in a party platform and to vote for candidates that have chosen to run on it. I've explained that to you.

[maineman]

Still nothing about Hillary, my my.
asked and answered. lazy fool.

[Chris]

asked and answered. lazy fool.

It has been amply demonstrated that you have no answer, maine. Asked about Hillary, you answer with your belief some politicians have good intentions. While that may well be true, it does not answer the question about Hillary and her hypocrisy. I suggest you stop embarrassing yourself.

[Captain Obvious]

It has been amply demonstrated that you have no answer, maine. Asked about Hillary, you answer with your belief some politicians have good intentions. While that may well be true, it does not answer the question about Hillary and her hypocrisy. I suggest you stop embarrassing yourself.

Good luck with that.

[maineman]

It has been amply demonstrated that you have no answer, maine. Asked about Hillary, you answer with your belief some politicians have good intentions. While that may well be true, it does not answer the question about Hillary and her hypocrisy. I suggest you stop embarrassing yourself.

and all you can point to to suggest that Hillary is not altruistic in her political career is the fact that, outside of her political career, she has been financially successful. When you can get off your lazy ass and carry on a conversation without having to be spoon fed, maybe you can earn the right to suggest that others might be embarrassing themselves.

[Chris]

and all you can point to to suggest that Hillary is not altruistic in her political career is the fact that, outside of her political career, she has been financially successful. When you can get off your lazy ass and carry on a conversation without having to be spoon fed, maybe you can earn the right to suggest that others might be embarrassing themselves.

You seem angry, poor thing. Too bad all your anger counts for nothing.

I have her record of saying one thing and doing another in the video. Miss that?

[maineman]

You seem angry, poor thing. Too bad all your anger counts for nothing.

I have her record of saying one thing and doing another in the video. Miss that?

oh wow. a politician who said one thing and then did another! Why, you could push me over with a feather about now. God! I din't think that has EVER happened before.

Abe Lincoln did that. should we blast his face off Mount Rushmore?

and trust me... I am not the LEAST bit "angry" at you. I find you a source of great humor.

[Chris]

oh wow. a politician who said one thing and then did another! Why, you could push me over with a feather about now. God! I din't think that has EVER happened before.

Abe Lincoln did that. should we blast his face off Mount Rushmore?

and trust me... I am not the LEAST bit "angry" at you. I find you a source of great humor.




oh wow. a politician who said one thing and then did another!

BINGO!

Thank you for finally admitting it. Hillary is a typical hypocritical politician.

Why was that so hard?



Then laugh instead of shouting. :D

[maineman]

From the Washington Post a few days ago:

"If I understand the history correctly, in the late 1990s, the President was impeached (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton) for lying about a sexual affair by a House of Representatives led by a man who was also then hiding a sexual affair (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2937633), who was supposed to be replaced by another Congressman who stepped down (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/livingston122098.htm) when forced to reveal that he too was having a sexual affair, which led to the election of a new Speaker of the House who now has been indicted (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/05/28/former-house-speaker-dennis-hastert-indicted/) for lying about payments covering up his sexual contact with a boy (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-hastert-misconduct-20150529-story.html)." Orin Kerr

and people here are discussing hypocrisy. How droll.

[maineman]

BINGO!

Thank you for finally admitting it. Hillary is a typical hypocritical politician.

Why was that so hard?



Then laugh instead of shouting. :D

I don't find shifting positions to be inherently hypocritical, nor indicative of a lack of altruism.

And how does your hear me on your computer? Not only am I not shouting, my lips aren't even moving as I type.... very calmly, I might add... only stopping to grin when I think of you.

[Chris]

I don't find shifting positions to be inherently hypocritical, nor indicative of a lack of altruism.

And how does your hear me on your computer? Not only am I not shouting, my lips aren't even moving as I type.... very calmly, I might add... only stopping to grin when I think of you.



So now you're back to denial. Nothing has ever been demonstrated in this thread that Hillary has shifted positions, that she has even been altruistic. She has always talked the talk but never walked the walk.


The shouting is in the words you use to express your anger at me. Keep in mind, it really counts for nothing.

[Chris]

From the Washington Post a few days ago:

"If I understand the history correctly, in the late 1990s, the President was impeached (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton) for lying about a sexual affair by a House of Representatives led by a man who was also then hiding a sexual affair (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2937633), who was supposed to be replaced by another Congressman who stepped down (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/livingston122098.htm) when forced to reveal that he too was having a sexual affair, which led to the election of a new Speaker of the House who now has been indicted (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/05/28/former-house-speaker-dennis-hastert-indicted/) for lying about payments covering up his sexual contact with a boy (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-hastert-misconduct-20150529-story.html)." Orin Kerr

and people here are discussing hypocrisy. How droll.



Droll is 384 posts before you admit Hillary is a typical hypocritical politician.

[Tahuyaman]

Originally Posted by Peter1469

Here is another great example.
Bill Clinton’s foundation cashed in as Sweden lobbied Hillary on sanctions (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/2/clinton-foundations-sweden-fundraising-arm-cashed-/)



Did that ever rise to the level of a serious impropriety to greatly affect Hillary? No. It didn't, therefore that was much ado about nothing.


No need to defend something that was not classified as a serious crime.

What did I tell you? Corruption is a virtue to the left.

[TrueBlue]

The thing is, your poll only talks about the view among Democrats. That means as little as standings among Republicans. It's the people that don't stand with one party or another that will swing elections.
Did you honestly expect for Republicans to run head over heels to endorse Hillary? I've got news for you. It doesn't work that way although many Republicans indeed do cross over to the Democratic Party each election and in part help to secure a Democratic victory.

What is so special this time around, unlike with Republicans, is the tremendous energy being exhibited by the Democrats for Hillary. Already, in a recent Forbes article, they want to nominate her to be president! That speaks volumes for her great following which is sure to also include Republicans, Independents, and many other groups.

[Chris]

The thing is, your poll only talks about the view among Democrats. That means as little as standings among Republicans. It's the people that don't stand with one party or another that will swing elections.


Did you honestly expect for Republicans to run head over heels to endorse Hillary? I've got news for you. It doesn't work that way although many Republicans indeed do cross over to the Democratic Party each election and in part help to secure a Democratic victory.

What is so special this time around, unlike with Republicans, is the tremendous energy being exhibited by the Democrats for Hillary. Already, in a recent Forbes article, they want to nominate her to be president! That speaks volumes for her great following which is sure to also include Republicans, Independents, and many other groups.



This is a good example of a partisan so deep in partisanship that when Hal posts about "the people that don't stand with one party or another that will swing elections" TB rants about Republicans.

Hal's point is right on target, too, because the polls coming out showing Hillary losing trust etc are not based on steadfast partisan Reps or Dems but independents, swing voters.

[TrueBlue]

[COLOR=#333333]





What did I tell you? Corruption is a virtue to the left.
Corruption? What I am saying is that there has been no arrest or even talk of it, obviously, as it concerns Hillary Clinton because there's nothing to warrant it otherwise, it would have already happened. Therefore, indeed one need not try to defend something that the law does not consider to be criminal, which in Hillary's case isn't. Period. You can't draw blood from a turnip. End of story.

[Chris]

Repeat it enough, you'll believe it.

[TrueBlue]

Repeat it enough, you'll believe it.
Like with some lying about Hillary.

[TrueBlue]

BINGO!

Thank you for finally admitting it. Hillary is a typical hypocritical politician.

Why was that so hard?



Then laugh instead of shouting. :D
He was talking about many politicians, in general, to include Conservatives, fyi.

[TrueBlue]

This is a good example of a partisan so deep in partisanship that when Hal posts about "the people that don't stand with one party or another that will swing elections" TB rants about Republicans.

Hal's point is right on target, too, because the polls coming out showing Hillary losing trust etc are not based on steadfast partisan Reps or Dems but independents, swing voters.
Believe what you will, Crissy. 2016 will prove you wrong.

[Chris]

He was talking about many politicians, in general, to include Conservatives, fyi.

I would assume conservatives to be just as hypocritical, TB. Tell me something I don't know.


This is another example of extreme partisanship. A liberal Democrat sees criticism of one of theirs so the critic must be a conservative Republic so tit-for-tat strikes back (and vice versa). But here misses the mark.

[Chris]

Like with some lying about Hillary.

Where's the lie, TB, the video in the OP records facts about how what she says doesn't align with what she does. Do you deny this?

[Chris]

Believe what you will, Crissy. 2016 will prove you wrong.

You seem angry now too, TB. But can you tell me where you purchased your crystal ball?

[TrueBlue]

You seem angry now too, TB. But can you tell me where you purchased your crystal ball?
Good ol' common sense, Chris, just good ol' common sense.

[Chris]

Good ol' common sense, Chris, just good ol' common sense.

Sorry if I don't believe your particular "common" sense.

[maineman]

So now you're back to denial. Nothing has ever been demonstrated in this thread that Hillary has shifted positions, that she has even been altruistic. She has always talked the talk but never walked the walk.


The shouting is in the words you use to express your anger at me. Keep in mind, it really counts for nothing.

keep in mind that, one needs to actually be angry in order to express anger. I am not angry with you in the least.

And, unlike, say auto mechanics who do what they do with their hands, what politicians actually DO, they do by talking. Like opera singers do what they do by singing, and not by fixing cars.

[maineman]

Sorry if I don't believe your particular "common" sense.

and, for some reason, you seem to feel that your not "believing" what we believe should be something that concerns us. Trust me... it doesn't.

You're gonna believe what you believe and, I assume, vote in accordance with those beliefs. We'll do likewise. See ya at the polls.

[TrueBlue]

That's great. Now what about Hillary again? Nothing, nada, zip.
There's plenty, fyi, Chris. And from the most unlikely sources: Republicans and other groups who greatly praise Hillary Clinton on her INTEGRITY! How about that!

Great thanks to Correct The Record for this fine report! That's all very telling and speaks volumes on how others across the aisle view her and her integrity.

Praise for Hillary Clinton
http://correctrecord.org/praise-for-hillary-clinton/

"Rice, Condoleezza (Secretary of State under Pres. Bush, earlier National Security Advisor for Pres. Bush)

“No, look, it’s a unique situation. I think we all see that it’s unique. But my successor, Hillary Clinton, is an extremely talented woman. She is a woman of integrity. She believes in this country deeply. We’ve already had a couple of conversations. I know her from the time she brought her freshman daughter to Stanford for the first time when I was Provost. And she’s going to do this very well.” [Meet the Press, 12/21/08]"


"Frankel, Lois

"Frankel, on Sec. Clinton: “I think she brings all that to the table, and I’d love to see the first woman president.” According to The Florida Sun Sentinel, “U.S. Rep. Lois Frankel, who also represents Broward and Palm Beach counties, was mayor of West Palm Beach when Clinton ran the last time. Frankel was with her then and is again. ‘I endorsed her he last time too. I feel even stronger about it now,’ Frankel said in an interview. ‘It’s about her experience and about her integrity and her own personal ability. I think she brings all that to the table, and I’d love to see the first woman president,’ Frankel said. She said Clinton would have ‘huge support’ in South Florida if she runs. She said there would be a surprising amount of support for Clinton from Republican women.” [The Florida Sun Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale), 2/7/14]"


"DeMint, Jim (South Carolina Senator, later head of the Heritage Foundation)

“I am optimistic and hopeful about your role as secretary of State. And despite the news accounts that say that I’m the one that’s going to ask you the hard questions about potential conflicts of interest, I have no questions about your integrity.” [Demint remarks, Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, 1/13/09]"

[Chris]

and, for some reason, you seem to feel that your not "believing" what we believe should be something that concerns us. Trust me... it doesn't.

You're gonna believe what you believe and, I assume, vote in accordance with those beliefs. We'll do likewise. See ya at the polls.



If it didn't concern you you wouldn't be commenting on it. You sort of give yourself away.

My point however wasn't so personal but based on the growing distrust of Hillary among Americans. It's not common sense if it's not common.

[Chris]

There's plenty, fyi, Chris. And from the most unlikely sources: Republicans and other groups who greatly praise Hillary Clinton on her INTEGRITY! How about that!

Great thanks to Correct The Record for this fine report! That's all very telling and speaks volumes on how others across the aisle view her and her integrity.

Praise for Hillary Clinton
http://correctrecord.org/praise-for-hillary-clinton/



None of that has anything to do with the question raised in this thread about her hypocrisy.

Try again, TB.

[Chris]

keep in mind that, one needs to actually be angry in order to express anger. I am not angry with you in the least.

And, unlike, say auto mechanics who do what they do with their hands, what politicians actually DO, they do by talking. Like opera singers do what they do by singing, and not by fixing cars.


I'm so glad your anger has subsided.


So then what's Hillary as a 0.1%er done for the little guy?

[MisterVeritis]

From the Washington Post a few days ago:

"If I understand the history correctly, in the late 1990s, the President was impeached (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton) for lying about a sexual affair by a House of Representatives led by a man who was also then hiding a sexual affair (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2937633), who was supposed to be replaced by another Congressman who stepped down (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/livingston122098.htm) when forced to reveal that he too was having a sexual affair, which led to the election of a new Speaker of the House who now has been indicted (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/05/28/former-house-speaker-dennis-hastert-indicted/) for lying about payments covering up his sexual contact with a boy (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-hastert-misconduct-20150529-story.html)." Orin Kerr

and people here are discussing hypocrisy. How droll.
Why was Clinton impeached? He lied to a grand jury.

Upon the passage of H. Res. 611 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.RES.611:), Clinton was impeached (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment) on December 19, 1998, by the House of Representatives on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_jury) (by a 228–206 vote)[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton#cite_note-ai-17) and obstruction of justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice) (by a 221–212 vote).

In the Senate the disgusting Democrats and a few status quo Republican Liberals (SQRLs) stood with their party or their ruling philosophy, instead of with the people:


The perjury charge failed with 45 senators (all Republican) voting "guilty" and 55 senators (45 Democrats and 10 Republicans) voting "not guilty". The obstruction of justice charge failed with 50 senators (all Republican) voting "guilty" and 50 senators (45 Democrats and 5 Republicans) voting "not guilty". In both cases, a two-thirds majority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajority) of 67 senators would have been required for conviction.

[maineman]

I'm so glad your anger has subsided.


So then what's Hillary as a 0.1%er done for the little guy?

again... there was never any anger to begin with.... just laughter and pity.

and the question has been asked and answered. I understand you don't LIKE the answer, but, that really doesn't concern me.

[Chris]

again... there was never any anger to begin with.... just laughter and pity.

and the question has been asked and answered. I understand you don't LIKE the answer, but, that really doesn't concern me.


You seem to be hung up on the personal. The anger. The like vs dislike. We're talking not the personal here but the political.

You also keep contradicting yourself each time you post it doesn't concern you. If it doesn't, don't.


It has been demonstrated that you nor Patty nor TB answered the question. You assume that politicians have good intentions and that therefore Hillary does, but that's not an answer.

[TrueBlue]

None of that has anything to do with the question raised in this thread about her hypocrisy.

Try again, TB.
It has everything to do with INTEGRITY that far surpasses hypocrisy in criticism that you have been harping away that Hillary lacks and that now you have been proven wrong. Ironically, by members of the opposite party! And let's face it, when all of these Big Names come out so strongly in favor of Hillary and speak to her integrity, she must be doing a lot of things quite right! :)

[Chris]

you asked me how she had been altruistic and I answered you directly. I do not see you being able to pull your swelled head out from inside your anal cavity long enough to keep up with your own conversations.



These words, maineman, were words of anger. They're also rather vulgar.

[maineman]

These words, maineman, were words of anger. They're also rather vulgar.

I have no ability to change the inference you drew from those words. But, as the writer of them, I can unequivocally say that they were not words of anger. One has to be angry to write angry words and I have certainly never been angry at you in the least. As I said... I pity you somewhat, and you amuse me somewhat. That's the extent of the emotions I have towards you.

Regarding the supposed vulgarity of those words, if they offend your tender little ears, please feel free to put me on ignore so you won't be exposed to such vulgarity any more.

[Chris]

I have no ability to change the inference you drew from those words. But, as the writer of them, I can unequivocally say that they were not words of anger. One has to be angry to write angry words and I have certainly never been angry at you in the least. As I said... I pity you somewhat, and you amuse me somewhat. That's the extent of the emotions I have towards you.

Regarding the supposed vulgarity of those words, if they offend your tender little ears, please feel free to put me on ignore so you won't be exposed to such vulgarity any more.


OK, so let's just say you have a foul mouth...that gives the impression of uncontrolled anger.


For the rest, you again try to make things personal on a political forum. I see that a lot. People think somehow a forum is a personal one-on-one exchange. It's not, it's many-to-many. And your personal opinions of other members are not worth the time it took you to type them.

[maineman]

OK, so let's just say you have a foul mouth...that gives the impression of uncontrolled anger.


For the rest, you again try to make things personal on a political forum. I see that a lot. People think somehow a forum is a personal one-on-one exchange. It's not, it's many-to-many. And your personal opinions of other members are not worth the time it took you to type them.

but yet you feel compelled to share your inaccurate inferences as to my emotional state. Why IS that, I wonder?

[Chris]

It has everything to do with INTEGRITY that far surpasses hypocrisy in criticism that you have been harping away that Hillary lacks and that now you have been proven wrong. Ironically, by members of the opposite party! And let's face it, when all of these Big Names come out so strongly in favor of Hillary and speak to her integrity, she must be doing a lot of things quite right! :)

Polls still show she's losing ground in that department.

This threads department has to do with he talking as if she's for the little guy but walking the walk of a fat cat.

[Chris]

but yet you feel compelled to share your inaccurate inferences as to my emotional state. Why IS that, I wonder?

And you keep telling everyone you don't care.

[Ransom]

Who are you voting for ransom

I started a thread about it earlier, Common.

No one has yet earned my vote, there are 4 front runners and I'll list them in order of who is currently earning my vote.

Rubio Walker Carson Graham

Carson the most upward mobile candidate, every time I hear him speak, he's making sense.

Rubio has been strong and I drink water too so we both have that in common

Walker a liberal slayer and firmly conservative

Graham is my establishment candidate, I've met him, a superb individual.

Any of these 4 could earn my vote, Rubio in the lead, Graham the caboose. for now.

[Chris]

I started a thread about it earlier, Common.

No one has yet earned my vote, there are 4 front runners and I'll list them in order of who is currently earning my vote.

Rubio Walker Carson Graham

Carson the most upward mobile candidate, every time I hear him speak, he's making sense.

Rubio has been strong and I drink water too so we both have that in common

Walker a liberal slayer and firmly conservative

Graham is my establishment candidate, I've met him, a superb individual.

Any of these 4 could earn my vote, Rubio in the lead, Graham the caboose. for now.


Sitting on a fence.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Altruism. Ha! She wants the power more than the money. She was born with money. She's always been a bored rich snob looking for a thrill. Her Daddy was obsessed with money; that turned her off on that addiction. Her crooked financial dealings help fund her drive for political power.

[The Sage of Main Street]

A lot of pixels have been mercilessly slaughtered here because of an intentional misinterpretation of Ms Rodham's mantra. She doesn't preach that she's not in the 1% or that she gets no thrill at all out of making money. But all her life she's despised those in her class who have limited visions and only care about making, flaunting, and spending more money and would get no warm feeling in thinking they also have a social conscience. In fact she thinks the other plutocrats actually get a sadistic high out of letting everybody else suffer, which disgusts her.

Hillary desperately needs a warm emotion without close involvement. Deep down inside, she is a frigid and isolated little girl desperately needing to hear a distant but warming applause

[Chris]

A lot of pixels have been mercilessly slaughtered here because of an intentional misinterpretation of Ms Rodham's mantra. She doesn't preach that she's not in the 1% or that she gets no thrill at all out of making money. But all her life she's despised those in her class who have limited visions and only care about making, flaunting, and spending more money and would get no warm feeling in thinking they also have a social conscience. In fact she thinks the other plutocrats actually get a sadistic high out of letting everybody else suffer, which disgusts her.

Hillary desperately needs a warm emotion without close involvement. Deep down inside, she is a frigid and isolated little girl desperately needing to hear a distant but warming applause


Yea but Hillary cares. Remember HillaryCare? It takes a village.

[maineman]

And you keep telling everyone you don't care.

I DON'T care.... I just think it's a tad hypocritical of YOU when you earlier said:


And your personal opinions of other members are not worth the time it took you to type them.

[Chris]

I DON'T care.... I just think it's a tad hypocritical of YOU when you earlier said:

See, now you're raising your voice.

Why's that hypocritical? What I'm saying is in a rational discussion attacking the messenger is pointless not to mention shallow and something irritating political gadflies engage in.

[maineman]

See, now you're raising your voice.

Why's that hypocritical? What I'm saying is in a rational discussion attacking the messenger is pointless not to mention shallow and something irritating political gadflies engage in.
but somehow YOUR personal opinion of me and YOUR personal opinion of my emotional state ARE worth the time for everyone to enjoy, I take it?

wow.

[maineman]

See, now you're raising your voice.


and actually, when you underline it and make it red, that might seem to be synonymous with raising my voice, but, in my ear, merely capitalizing it is a ever so slight lowering of pitch and a slowing and stressing of the word. Not anger.... merely emphasis. See?

[Chris]

but somehow YOUR personal opinion of me and YOUR personal opinion of my emotional state ARE worth the time for everyone to enjoy, I take it?

wow.


I'm not commenting on you personally. I don't know you personally. All I have are words in a post. And I comment on those. Your words are angry. That's what I read. You--your posts--try to make things personal. That's what I read. My comment on that is it's pointless. I'm not going to react otherwise.

I suggest you just let the thread die. Sage always comes in last to raise threads from the dead, but he's done. It begins to bore me.

[maineman]

as I can recall, this thing started when YOU asked ME a question.... I answered that question. You ignored that answer, and then, repeatedly stated that I had not answered the question and, then, that you couldn't FIND any answer from me and expected ME to go back and find it for you.

From the git go, this thread has been about YOUR opinion of Hillary as being hypocritical because she criticizes wealthy people for not caring about the lives of folks less fortunate. And your "proof" that that is hypocritical is that she herself is wealthy. You have not proven that she does not care about the lives of people less fortunate.

YOU should definitely let this thread die. The world would be a marginally better place today if you had never started it in the first place.

[Chris]

as I can recall, this thing started when YOU asked ME a question.... I answered that question. You ignored that answer, and then, repeatedly stated that I had not answered the question and, then, that you couldn't FIND any answer from me and expected ME to go back and find it for you.

From the git go, this thread has been about YOUR opinion of Hillary as being hypocritical because she criticizes wealthy people for not caring about the lives of folks less fortunate. And your "proof" that that is hypocritical is that she herself is wealthy. You have not proven that she does not care about the lives of people less fortunate.

YOU should definitely let this thread die. The world would be a marginally better place today if you had never started it in the first place.


You did not answer the question. You tried to, but failed. Period. I I I I YOU YOU YOU: Boring. Boorish.

[Cigar]

Solidly Republican Town Enrolls More People in Obamacare Than Anywhere in the Country

http://i0.wp.com/www.politicususa.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Screen-Shot-2014-04-01-at-3.49.49-PM-1.jpg?resize=485%2C324

As Republicans work to kill Obamacare by killing the tax subsidies for people in states — almost all Republican-led or were at the time — that didn’t set up their own ACA exchanges, data shows that the town that signed up the most people for Obamacare is a “solidly Republican working-class town” in Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio’s “stomping grounds”.

The tax subsidies issue is before the Supreme Court in King V. Burwell (http://obamacarefacts.com/2015/03/04/oral-argument-for-king-v-burwell/), and a decision is expected this month. The challenge to Obamacare is being sponsored by The Competitive Enterprise Institute. They are a Libertarians who are huge climate change skeptics — in fact, the group’s Senior Fellow once penned a letter (https://cei.org/news-releases/leader-anglican-church-should-consider-effects-his-comments-worlds-poor) to the Archbishop of Canterbury after he said Christians had a duty to reduce greenhouse gasses, warning that reducing emissions even a tiny bit could kill lots of people.


The city of Hialeah voted for Mitt Romney in 2012 and Marco Rubio in 2010, Haberkorn points out, further writing, “It’s a Republican stronghold in the more Democratic Miami-Dade County.”


And it’s not just this little town.


Only 13 states have their own exchanges. If the remaining states lose their subsidies, Republicans will be on the hook for taking insurance away from some 6.5 million people — ironically many of them Republicans.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/06/03/solidly-republican-working-class-town-enrolls-people-obamacare-country.html

http://thespeechatimeforchoosing.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/obama-smiling.jpg

[Chris]

Cigar, does Hillary live in Hialeah?

[maineman]

You did not answer the question. You tried to, but failed. Period. I I I I YOU YOU YOU: Boring. Boorish.

just because you don't like the answer, does not mean that the question was not answered. And YOU were the petulant little boy who persisted in telling me that I had never answered it, and if I HAD answered it that I needed to go back and find it for you because you were too much of a nancy boy to get off your ass and go look for it. prima donna. Again, Chrissy.... if you don't like reading what I write, DON'T FUCKING READ IT! When you ask me a question, and I answer it, have the common courtesy to at least acknowledge the effort, rather than spending four pages insisting that the answer did not exist.

[Cigar]

Yea but Hillary cares. Remember HillaryCare? It takes a village.

Actually it took Obama beating The GOP Twice, Back-2-Black :grin:

Guess what's still Law?

[Chris]

just because you don't like the answer, does not mean that the question was not answered. And YOU were the petulant little boy who persisted in telling me that I had never answered it, and if I HAD answered it that I needed to go back and find it for you because you were too much of a nancy boy to get off your ass and go look for it. prima donna. Again, Chrissy.... if you don't like reading what I write, DON'T FUCKING READ IT! When you ask me a question, and I answer it, have the common courtesy to at least acknowledge the effort, rather than spending four pages insisting that the answer did not exist.


Aw, cry me a river, maine. Grow up.

No, you failed to answer it.

[Chris]

Actually it took Obama beating The GOP Twice, Back-2-Black :grin:

Guess what's still Law?

What, HillaryCare? No, it failed.

[maineman]

Aw, cry me a river, maine. Grow up.

No, you failed to answer it.

that, Chrissy, is your lazy ass opinion. One that I don't share.

Hey... if you want to be discourteous and disrespectful and lazy, that certainly is your right, as it is my right to laugh at you because of it.

[PattyHill]

again... there was never any anger to begin with.... just laughter and pity.

and the question has been asked and answered. I understand you don't LIKE the answer, but, that really doesn't concern me.


It's useless talking to Chris on this. he didn't like the answer so he pretends it hasn't been answered.

What's the point of poking him with a sharp stick anymore?

[Chris]

It's useless talking to Chris on this. he didn't like the answer so he pretends it hasn't been answered.

What's the point of poking him with a sharp stick anymore?


You did not give an answer, patty. You did the same thing maine did, you expressed your belief some politicians become so for altruistic reasons. That does not say anything about Hillary. And you gave another answer like trueblue did about Hillary's record related to other issues. You failed to demonstrate any altruism on Hillary's part.

We can keep this up long as you like. All it does is keep raising hillary's hypocrisy to the top of the heap. Thank you.

[Chris]

that, Chrissy, is your lazy ass opinion. One that I don't share.

Hey... if you want to be discourteous and disrespectful and lazy, that certainly is your right, as it is my right to laugh at you because of it.


Like I said, cry me a river while you call me names as if this were a kindergarten playground. I reflects on your reputation not mine.

[maineman]

Like I said, cry me a river while you call me names as if this were a kindergarten playground. I reflects on your reputation not mine.

Gosh... I can't begin to tell you how much your opinion of me will weigh on my spirit this evening.

My "reputation" was made on the high seas, and in the pulpit and I certainly don't need it buffed up on an internet website from lazy boys like you.

[Green Arrow]

What's this thread about again?

[Chris]

Gosh... I can't begin to tell you how much your opinion of me will weigh on my spirit this evening.

My "reputation" was made on the high seas, and in the pulpit and I certainly don't need it buffed up on an internet website from lazy boys like you.


I didn't express an opinion about you, maine, I specifically pointed to your post and called it kindergartenish, as is this your current post.

[Chris]

What's this thread about again?

Hitler.

[magicmike]

It's useless talking to Chris on this. he didn't like the answer so he pretends it hasn't been answered.

What's the point of poking him with a sharp stick anymore?

While I agree with both of you, can I recommend you lay off he insults and name calling?

I'd like to use the report function for some frequent insulting and name calling posts in reply to you but won't.

[Chris]

While I agree with both of you, can I recommend you lay off he insults and name calling?

I'd like to use the report function for some frequent insulting and name calling posts in reply to you but won't.



Then report maine for his vulgarity and name calling.

[Green Arrow]

Then report maine for his vulgarity and name calling.

Are you bored? Why you askin' for more work? :tongue:

[magicmike]

You did not answer the question. You tried to, but failed. Period. I I I I YOU YOU YOU: Boring. Boorish.


Are you bored? Why you askin' for more work? :tongue:

I didn't know you were a mod here.

[Chris]

Are you bored? Why you askin' for more work? :tongue:

Bored by boorishness of some posts. I mean, I can understand that despite Hillary's hypocrisy some of these partisans like and will vote for her anyhow just as others will overlook similar in Republicans. But I don't get why it gets personal.

[Chris]

I didn't know you were a mod here.

He used to be.

[Chris]

Closing as it's become pointless.