On Thursday, December 28, 2017 at 11:53:19 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:
Good example of why you're a partisn hack. You only speak out about
things members of the other party does that are bad. When it comes to
your own party, it's see no evil, speak no evil.
That is such baloney. I'm not obliged to speak up on every topic and I
find "me too" posts annoying.
The problem is, as stated, that you NEVER find anything to complain about
that a DEMOCRAT does. In fact, Hillary takes $135 mil, then OKs the
sale of 20% of US uranium to Russia, and you DEFEND it as perfectly OK!
In addition, it's all off-topic here
anyhow, so I only say something when someone says something really
stupid, and while the liberals are wrong sometimes, it's only the
conservatives who say really stupid things.
Once again showing how incredibly biased you are.
And in this case, it's not just baloney, it's nonsense, because bringing
up politics when Bob was talking about *corporate morality*, not
politics, If you think Republican corportate executives are any more
moral you're a fool.
Of course it's still relevant. You libs like to rant about business,
how bad they are, how they need to be controlled.
When have I done that? In the case we were talking about Comcast was
signing people up for things they didn't ask for and in some cases said
they didn't want. That's already illegal. Do you think Comcast should
not be stopped from doing that.
Well, if it's OK for Bill Clinton to take $500K from the Russians who
are buying that uranium business, if it's OK for the "charity" to take
$135 mil in donations from the people selling it, while Hillary has to
vote on it as Sec of State, then I guess Comcast should be able to do
whatever the hell they want too. See how that works? I don't see you
saying the Clintons shouldn't be doing what they did, that at the very
least, it's the worst case of pay to play politics in American history.
So, why do you give a damn about what Comcast does? To me, what Hillary
did is 10000 times worse than anything Comcast could do, because she
abused one of the highest offices in America for profit.
How would you like it if I said "you conservatives like to pretend all
liberals act the same.
You just said above that only conservatives here say stupid things.
So when one of you
brings up an example and it turns out that a lib actually runs it,
that's special.
Again, he doesn't run it. He's one of several VP's. Why don't you
who finds fault with
all Republicans,
More defamatory nonsense. The one who gets 98% of my criticism, Stumpie
Rumpkin, isn't even a Republican. Name any actual Republicans I've
found fault with. If you can think of three or even two I'd be
surprised.
You can't name one Democrat you've ever criticized.
Non sequitur. You said "He's like you, a total partisan, who finds
fault with all Republicans" but you can't name one, let alone all.
You just said only Republicans here say stupid things.
Nuff said about your being a totally biased, partisan hack.
It is a charity.
Allegedly it is. When you have one that you load up with political hacks,
Liar.
hire your own daughter,
YOu don't think she's competent? And someone he can trust.
You asked why I don;'t consider it a legitimate charity. When you hire
your own family and stock the place up with Democrat operatives, hand
out business to Democrat connected outfits, shake down foreign govts
and individuals both foreign and domestic who are pressured to make
a donation because you're sec of stata, I say it doesn't pass
the smell test. The FBI is all over Trump, they should get into that
charity with the same vigor. Were all those Democrat hacks in real jobs
where they showed up and worked? The money that was handed out, where
did it all really go? did they really pay for part of Chelsea's wedding?
hand out business only to those politically
connected to you,
Liar.
https://nypost.com/2016/11/06/chelse...edding-emails/
https://www.investors.com/politics/e...ation-a-fraud/
Blackburn cites the for-profit education business Laureate Education, which paid Bill Clinton some $16.5 million to serve part-time as "honorary chancellor" starting in 2010, a year after Hillary became secretary of state. Laureate, for its part, gave the Clinton Foundation some $1 million to $5 million. Nothing illegal about that, per se.
However, the Daily Tennesseean reports that Blackburn's letter also details how "the International Youth Fund, whose board members include Laureate's founder, Douglas Baker, received more than $55 million in grants from the U..S. Agency for International Development while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state." AID is a part of the State Department.
https://nypost.com/2016/05/13/clinto...-bills-friend/
Bill Clintons foundation arranged a $2 million pledge to a power company partly owned by a wealthy blond divorcĂ©e €” who some say is the frequent visitor to his home nicknamed €śEnergizer.€ť
The €ścommitment€ť to Julie Tauber McMahons firm from the Clinton Global Initiative was placed on its 2010 conference agenda at Clintons urging, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday.
Clinton even went to bat for the company when it came to lobbying for federal funds. He helped steer an $812,000 federal grant to it by endorsing the funds via then-Energy Secretary Steven Chu, the Journal said.
McMahon owns 29 percent of Energy Pioneer Solutions, which was given the money to make peoples homes more energy-efficient.
McMahon, 54, is rumored to be the woman dubbed €śEnergizer€ť by the Secret Service at the Clinton home because of her frequent visits, according to RadarOnline.
There is plenty more. But heh, when taking $135 mil from those who have
business before you while you're in office is OK by you, anything goes,
so all is OK.
then I'm not so sure. Has anyone even figured out if
all those political hacks employed there even show up for work or how
much actual "work" they do?
You call this logic. Logic would be to see what sort of work the
foundation does, how it spends its money, but instead you spew out your
form of "identity kind of :"
I saw the $135 mil uranium deal. That in and of itself is enough. If you
see a murder, do you have to see more of it to know it's bad, wrong, evil?
You make me sick. I used to respect you, but when you get into
poliltics, you're almost as stupid as T, or maybe more so because you
seem to read more and still you're stupid.
That's OK, I never respected you because it's always been obvious you're
a partisan hack and not very smart.
And nothing annoys me more
than stupidity. It's the reason I don't watch Sunday morning news shows
anymore
Yes staying ignorant and sticking to the Democrat talking points is so
much easier and simpler.
and there's no reason I should let myself be annoyed by anymore
of your crap.. I posted in reply to gfretwell and you replied with your
lies, defamation, and stupidity. I've read enough, I'm sure the rest
of your post is just as stupid and probably contains as many lies.
You can reply if you want, but I won't be reading it, and probably not
any of your political nonsense.
I feel good knowing that I'm in the company of the Sunday morning news
programs too. The truth hurts, eh Micky? You're exactly like those
Trumpets. Trump said that he could shoot someone on Fifth Ave and they
would still love him. You're exactly the same, with the Clintons.
All hail Trump! All hail Hillary!