Hillary Busted in Yet Another Lie

[theDoctorisIn]

After her January 2009 appointment as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton proposed hiring long-time Clinton friend and confidant Sidney Blumenthal as an advisor, however, Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, blocked Blumenthal's appointment at the State Department.[74]Blumenthal was subsequently hired by the Clinton Foundation, earning a Foundation salary of about $10,000 a month, and after the 2011 uprising in Libya againstMuammar Gaddafi, Blumenthal prepared, from public and other sources, about 25 memos which he sent asemails to Clinton in 2011 and 2012 with advice regarding Libyan matters, and sometimes promoting his business associates for contract work in Libya.[75][76]

As I've said repeatedly in this thread - Ok, so what?

I've asked you to tell me in your own words why I should be scandalized by this. Can you do it?

You shouldn't be scandalized at all.

So you've just been trolling this whole time?

Not so and anyone reading this thread has a pretty good idea of who has the correct information and who doesn't want to acknowledge it.

BTW Just another note that Clinton did not disclose foreign donors to the Clinton fund as directed by Obama. Just add that to the witches brew.

Well, let's see.

You can't remember what's scandalous about the OP of this thread. You can't explain why I should care that Sidney Blumenthal was employed by the Clinton Foundation. All you've done is cut-and-paste blocks of text from wikipedia and post links to articles that you didn't even read - and yet you insist on claiming "victory", and somehow believing that mentioning random things about Hillary will bolster your argument.

As I've already said, I don't give a shit about Hillary - you and I likely have the same opinion of her. That doesn't mean I'm going to accept all the dishonest arguments and weak "scandals" that you try to throw at her.

 

[Jackson]

so what is the clinton foundation, other than a charity?

Nothing. Just a charity.

The Clinton Foundation is not a traditional "charity".

Well,lol, that I would guess is certainly true. LOL So, tell me how they operate, since you know it is not "traditional".

Clinton Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

" charity monitor, the American Institute of Philanthropy, says that 89 percent of the foundation's money goes toward its charitable mission and gave the foundation an A rating for 2013.[1]"

That must really piss of the RW hate machine...

This Clinton Foundation hype is complete crap... Most charities don't release the Donors names and are not required by law, the Clinton Foundation does...

If this is a form of bribery it is surely a bad one since 89% of all donations goes towards charitable mission.

On top of that because any foreigner can give to any Super PAC all they want what is the point... It seems the RWers like there bribery to be super secret..

That link I already exposed for all of the improprieties it had.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Nothing. Just a charity.

The Clinton Foundation is not a traditional "charity".

Well,lol, that I would guess is certainly true. LOL So, tell me how they operate, since you know it is not "traditional".

Clinton Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

" charity monitor, the American Institute of Philanthropy, says that 89 percent of the foundation's money goes toward its charitable mission and gave the foundation an A rating for 2013.[1]"

That must really piss of the RW hate machine...

This Clinton Foundation hype is complete crap... Most charities don't release the Donors names and are not required by law, the Clinton Foundation does...

If this is a form of bribery it is surely a bad one since 89% of all donations goes towards charitable mission.

On top of that because any foreigner can give to any Super PAC all they want what is the point... It seems the RWers like there bribery to be super secret..

That link I already exposed for all of the improprieties it had.

No, you cut and pasted the "Controversy" section of the wikipedia page. It's not the same thing.

 

[Jackson]

After her January 2009 appointment as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton proposed hiring long-time Clinton friend and confidant Sidney Blumenthal as an advisor, however, Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, blocked Blumenthal's appointment at the State Department.[74]Blumenthal was subsequently hired by the Clinton Foundation, earning a Foundation salary of about $10,000 a month, and after the 2011 uprising in Libya againstMuammar Gaddafi, Blumenthal prepared, from public and other sources, about 25 memos which he sent asemails to Clinton in 2011 and 2012 with advice regarding Libyan matters, and sometimes promoting his business associates for contract work in Libya.[75][76]

As I've said repeatedly in this thread - Ok, so what?

I've asked you to tell me in your own words why I should be scandalized by this. Can you do it?

You shouldn't be scandalized at all.

So you've just been trolling this whole time?

Not so and anyone reading this thread has a pretty good idea of who has the correct information and who doesn't want to acknowledge it.

BTW Just another note that Clinton did not disclose foreign donors to the Clinton fund as directed by Obama. Just add that to the witches brew.

Well, let's see.

You can't remember what's scandalous about the OP of this thread. You can't explain why I should care that Sidney Blumenthal was employed by the Clinton Foundation. All you've done is cut-and-paste blocks of text from wikipedia and post links to articles that you didn't even read - and yet you insist on claiming "victory", and somehow believing that mentioning random things about Hillary will bolster your argument.

As I've already said, I don't give a shit about Hillary - you and I likely have the same opinion of her. That doesn't mean I'm going to accept all the dishonest arguments and weak "scandals" that you try to throw at her.

After her January 2009 appointment as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton proposed hiring long-time Clinton friend and confidant Sidney Blumenthal as an advisor, however, Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, blocked Blumenthal's appointment at the State Department.[74]Blumenthal was subsequently hired by the Clinton Foundation, earning a Foundation salary of about $10,000 a month, and after the 2011 uprising in Libya againstMuammar Gaddafi, Blumenthal prepared, from public and other sources, about 25 memos which he sent asemails to Clinton in 2011 and 2012 with advice regarding Libyan matters, and sometimes promoting his business associates for contract work in Libya.[75][76]

As I've said repeatedly in this thread - Ok, so what?

I've asked you to tell me in your own words why I should be scandalized by this. Can you do it?

You shouldn't be scandalized at all.

So you've just been trolling this whole time?

Not so and anyone reading this thread has a pretty good idea of who has the correct information and who doesn't want to acknowledge it.

BTW Just another note that Clinton did not disclose foreign donors to the Clinton fund as directed by Obama. Just add that to the witches brew.

Well, let's see.

You can't remember what's scandalous about the OP of this thread. You can't explain why I should care that Sidney Blumenthal was employed by the Clinton Foundation. All you've done is cut-and-paste blocks of text from wikipedia and post links to articles that you didn't even read - and yet you insist on claiming "victory", and somehow believing that mentioning random things about Hillary will bolster your argument.

As I've already said, I don't give a shit about Hillary - you and I likely have the same opinion of her. That doesn't mean I'm going to accept all the dishonest arguments and weak "scandals" that you try to throw at her.

That OP appeared nearly 4 hours ago and anyone reading this thread would agree that so much information has been brought out, that recalling the exact details of the OP escapes me. But it was about Hillary receiving exorbitant amounts for speaking, as I noted in an earlier post. I think it was $675,000, but I really didn't care about this thread until post 393 released all of the lies that Hillary has said and the brutal questioning of her about her inconsistencies. That was indeed alarming and what the last 3 hour have been about,

If we are not careful a habitual liar could be CIC. I have shown you exactly how she operates and how disastrous that would be. I "threw" facts out there that were verified by links. That, I thought is what a debate is about. You gave little to demonstrate any attributes she might have.

Isn't interesting that some avid Democrats or Hillary supporters are not willing to see the truth, even when it falls in their lap.

 

[Jackson]

The Clinton Foundation is not a traditional "charity".

Well,lol, that I would guess is certainly true. LOL So, tell me how they operate, since you know it is not "traditional".

Clinton Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

" charity monitor, the American Institute of Philanthropy, says that 89 percent of the foundation's money goes toward its charitable mission and gave the foundation an A rating for 2013.[1]"

That must really piss of the RW hate machine...

This Clinton Foundation hype is complete crap... Most charities don't release the Donors names and are not required by law, the Clinton Foundation does...

If this is a form of bribery it is surely a bad one since 89% of all donations goes towards charitable mission.

On top of that because any foreigner can give to any Super PAC all they want what is the point... It seems the RWers like there bribery to be super secret..

That link I already exposed for all of the improprieties it had.

No, you cut and pasted the "Controversy" section of the wikipedia page. It's not the same thing.

Negative facts create a heading of CONTROVERSY. I cannot change that. Alert the authors of the links.

 

[SmokeALib]

So, in essence, large universities pay huge speaking fees to to like-minded (leftist) "persuaders". Now, these universities receive much of their funding from government-backed student loans. So, in essence, taxpayers are shoveling tax dollars into Hillarys campaign accounts - for doing absolutely nothing but injecting leftist idealism into our children's young minds. And we wonder how our country continues its slide into a cesspool of third world sewage...

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Well,lol, that I would guess is certainly true. LOL So, tell me how they operate, since you know it is not "traditional".

Clinton Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

" charity monitor, the American Institute of Philanthropy, says that 89 percent of the foundation's money goes toward its charitable mission and gave the foundation an A rating for 2013.[1]"

That must really piss of the RW hate machine...

This Clinton Foundation hype is complete crap... Most charities don't release the Donors names and are not required by law, the Clinton Foundation does...

If this is a form of bribery it is surely a bad one since 89% of all donations goes towards charitable mission.

On top of that because any foreigner can give to any Super PAC all they want what is the point... It seems the RWers like there bribery to be super secret..

That link I already exposed for all of the improprieties it had.

No, you cut and pasted the "Controversy" section of the wikipedia page. It's not the same thing.

Negative facts create a heading of CONTROVERSY. I cannot change that. Alert the authors of the links.

The problem is that you also cannot explain why any of us should care. If you're just trying to throw shit at the wall to see what sticks, then by all means knock yourself out.

But if you're actually trying to have a discussion on these issues, you'll have to do better than just cut and paste.

 

[Jackson]

Doc, at times we became intense in our discussion. I thought of something I wrote hours ago in the Pets forum "Cute Animal Friends." I want to leave you with that thought I had when looking at those adorable animals,

"You look at these animals and how the different species show love and compassion. Makes me think how really shallow we are when we relate to on another in insulting ways on the board. Think I should visit this site from time to time, and perhaps, learn from the animals."

Just wanted to share that thought, and if I appeared, "shallow" I apologize...If you have time. check those animals out..It warms a heart

 

[francoHFW]

How could anyone possibly vote for such vermin?

Hillary Rodham Clinton on CNN Wednesday brushed aside the $675,000 Goldman Sachs provided for speech appearances simply as "what they offered me," but the flip answer ignored that speech fees are negotiated by agents.

During the period of the Goldman Sach and many other top dollar speeches, she was represented by the Harry Walker Agency, which calls itself "the world's leading speaker's bureau."

When groups pick from their list of speakers, which also include Bill Clinton, the price is discreetly provided. For Hillary Clinton, the price appeared to regularly be shy of $300,000 each. For example, she received $275,000 for speaking to the University of Buffalo in 2013.

According to Bloomberg, "Her contract with the University of Buffalo for an Oct. 23 speech stipulated that her $275,000 fee be paid to her speaking agency, Harry Walker Agency Inc., and then remitted to the foundation."

Read it all

Hillary's Goldman Sachs speech fee set by her agent, not 'what they offered'

DUH. Another lie that isn't a lie at all. Having an agent makes corruption less plausible. Blah blah blah- OF COURSE. Idiot.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

As I've said repeatedly in this thread - Ok, so what?

I've asked you to tell me in your own words why I should be scandalized by this. Can you do it?

You shouldn't be scandalized at all.

So you've just been trolling this whole time?

Not so and anyone reading this thread has a pretty good idea of who has the correct information and who doesn't want to acknowledge it.

BTW Just another note that Clinton did not disclose foreign donors to the Clinton fund as directed by Obama. Just add that to the witches brew.

Well, let's see.

You can't remember what's scandalous about the OP of this thread. You can't explain why I should care that Sidney Blumenthal was employed by the Clinton Foundation. All you've done is cut-and-paste blocks of text from wikipedia and post links to articles that you didn't even read - and yet you insist on claiming "victory", and somehow believing that mentioning random things about Hillary will bolster your argument.

As I've already said, I don't give a shit about Hillary - you and I likely have the same opinion of her. That doesn't mean I'm going to accept all the dishonest arguments and weak "scandals" that you try to throw at her.

As I've said repeatedly in this thread - Ok, so what?

I've asked you to tell me in your own words why I should be scandalized by this. Can you do it?

You shouldn't be scandalized at all.

So you've just been trolling this whole time?

Not so and anyone reading this thread has a pretty good idea of who has the correct information and who doesn't want to acknowledge it.

BTW Just another note that Clinton did not disclose foreign donors to the Clinton fund as directed by Obama. Just add that to the witches brew.

Well, let's see.

You can't remember what's scandalous about the OP of this thread. You can't explain why I should care that Sidney Blumenthal was employed by the Clinton Foundation. All you've done is cut-and-paste blocks of text from wikipedia and post links to articles that you didn't even read - and yet you insist on claiming "victory", and somehow believing that mentioning random things about Hillary will bolster your argument.

As I've already said, I don't give a shit about Hillary - you and I likely have the same opinion of her. That doesn't mean I'm going to accept all the dishonest arguments and weak "scandals" that you try to throw at her.

That OP appeared nearly 4 hours ago and anyone reading this thread would agree that so much information has been brought out, that recalling the exact details of the OP escapes me. But it was about Hillary receiving exorbitant amounts for speaking, as I noted in an earlier post. I think it was $675,000, but I really didn't care about this thread until post 393 released all of the lies that Hillary has said and the brutal questioning of her about her inconsistencies. That was indeed alarming and what the last 3 hour have been about,

If we are not careful a habitual liar could be CIC. I have shown you exactly how she operates and how disastrous that would be. I "threw" facts out there that were verified by links. That, I thought is what a debate is about. You gave little to demonstrate any attributes she might have.

Isn't interesting that some avid Democrats or Hillary supporters are not willing to see the truth, even when it falls in their lap.

This is where the issue is. Each of us has a different view on what the purpose of our posts in this thread are.

Your purpose in this thread is to attack Hillary with whatever you can, whether or not it's actually true - as you said, "controversy" is all that you care about - and while I don't like Hillary, I don't like dishonesty and fake scandals, either.

My purpose in this thread has been to correct your misconceptions about the Clinton Foundation, Hillary's speaking fees, and Sidney Blumenthal's employment.

I've now said this three or four times, but you've conveniently ignored it each time - I do not care about Hillary Clinton - I don't like her, I won't vote for her. I am not in this thread to "demonstrate any attributes she may have", I am just here to correct your misconceptions.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Doc, at times we became intense in our discussion. I thought of something I wrote hours ago in the Pets forum "Cute Animal Friends." I want to leave you with that thought I had when looking at those adorable animals,

"You look at these animals and how the different species show love and compassion. Makes me think how really shallow we are when we relate to on another in insulting ways on the board. Think I should visit this site from time to time, and perhaps, learn from the animals."

Just wanted to share that thought, and if I appeared, "shallow" I apologize...If you have time. check those animals out..It warms a heart

You have nothing to apologize for. Things get heated sometimes, it happens. No harm, no foul.

I apologize if I came on too strong at points as well.

 

[francoHFW]

You shouldn't be scandalized at all.

So you've just been trolling this whole time?

Not so and anyone reading this thread has a pretty good idea of who has the correct information and who doesn't want to acknowledge it.

BTW Just another note that Clinton did not disclose foreign donors to the Clinton fund as directed by Obama. Just add that to the witches brew.

Well, let's see.

You can't remember what's scandalous about the OP of this thread. You can't explain why I should care that Sidney Blumenthal was employed by the Clinton Foundation. All you've done is cut-and-paste blocks of text from wikipedia and post links to articles that you didn't even read - and yet you insist on claiming "victory", and somehow believing that mentioning random things about Hillary will bolster your argument.

As I've already said, I don't give a shit about Hillary - you and I likely have the same opinion of her. That doesn't mean I'm going to accept all the dishonest arguments and weak "scandals" that you try to throw at her.

You shouldn't be scandalized at all.

So you've just been trolling this whole time?

Not so and anyone reading this thread has a pretty good idea of who has the correct information and who doesn't want to acknowledge it.

BTW Just another note that Clinton did not disclose foreign donors to the Clinton fund as directed by Obama. Just add that to the witches brew.

Well, let's see.

You can't remember what's scandalous about the OP of this thread. You can't explain why I should care that Sidney Blumenthal was employed by the Clinton Foundation. All you've done is cut-and-paste blocks of text from wikipedia and post links to articles that you didn't even read - and yet you insist on claiming "victory", and somehow believing that mentioning random things about Hillary will bolster your argument.

As I've already said, I don't give a shit about Hillary - you and I likely have the same opinion of her. That doesn't mean I'm going to accept all the dishonest arguments and weak "scandals" that you try to throw at her.

That OP appeared nearly 4 hours ago and anyone reading this thread would agree that so much information has been brought out, that recalling the exact details of the OP escapes me. But it was about Hillary receiving exorbitant amounts for speaking, as I noted in an earlier post. I think it was $675,000, but I really didn't care about this thread until post 393 released all of the lies that Hillary has said and the brutal questioning of her about her inconsistencies. That was indeed alarming and what the last 3 hour have been about,

If we are not careful a habitual liar could be CIC. I have shown you exactly how she operates and how disastrous that would be. I "threw" facts out there that were verified by links. That, I thought is what a debate is about. You gave little to demonstrate any attributes she might have.

Isn't interesting that some avid Democrats or Hillary supporters are not willing to see the truth, even when it falls in their lap.

This is where the issue is. Each of us has a different view on what the purpose of our posts in this thread are.

Your purpose in this thread is to attack Hillary with whatever you can, whether or not it's actually true - as you said, "controversy" is all that you care about - and while I don't like Hillary, I don't like dishonesty and fake scandals, either.

My purpose in this thread has been to correct your misconceptions about the Clinton Foundation, Hillary's speaking fees, and Sidney Blumenthal's employment.

I've now said this three or four times, but you've conveniently ignored it each time - I do not care about Hillary Clinton - I don't like her, I won't vote for her. I am not in this thread to "demonstrate any attributes she may have", I am just here to correct your misconceptions.

You should vote for her if nominated if you're in a swing state or I WILL find you lol...The dupes don't care about the truth and have no memory.

 

[Jackson]

You shouldn't be scandalized at all.

So you've just been trolling this whole time?

Not so and anyone reading this thread has a pretty good idea of who has the correct information and who doesn't want to acknowledge it.

BTW Just another note that Clinton did not disclose foreign donors to the Clinton fund as directed by Obama. Just add that to the witches brew.

Well, let's see.

You can't remember what's scandalous about the OP of this thread. You can't explain why I should care that Sidney Blumenthal was employed by the Clinton Foundation. All you've done is cut-and-paste blocks of text from wikipedia and post links to articles that you didn't even read - and yet you insist on claiming "victory", and somehow believing that mentioning random things about Hillary will bolster your argument.

As I've already said, I don't give a shit about Hillary - you and I likely have the same opinion of her. That doesn't mean I'm going to accept all the dishonest arguments and weak "scandals" that you try to throw at her.

You shouldn't be scandalized at all.

So you've just been trolling this whole time?

Not so and anyone reading this thread has a pretty good idea of who has the correct information and who doesn't want to acknowledge it.

BTW Just another note that Clinton did not disclose foreign donors to the Clinton fund as directed by Obama. Just add that to the witches brew.

Well, let's see.

You can't remember what's scandalous about the OP of this thread. You can't explain why I should care that Sidney Blumenthal was employed by the Clinton Foundation. All you've done is cut-and-paste blocks of text from wikipedia and post links to articles that you didn't even read - and yet you insist on claiming "victory", and somehow believing that mentioning random things about Hillary will bolster your argument.

As I've already said, I don't give a shit about Hillary - you and I likely have the same opinion of her. That doesn't mean I'm going to accept all the dishonest arguments and weak "scandals" that you try to throw at her.

That OP appeared nearly 4 hours ago and anyone reading this thread would agree that so much information has been brought out, that recalling the exact details of the OP escapes me. But it was about Hillary receiving exorbitant amounts for speaking, as I noted in an earlier post. I think it was $675,000, but I really didn't care about this thread until post 393 released all of the lies that Hillary has said and the brutal questioning of her about her inconsistencies. That was indeed alarming and what the last 3 hour have been about,

If we are not careful a habitual liar could be CIC. I have shown you exactly how she operates and how disastrous that would be. I "threw" facts out there that were verified by links. That, I thought is what a debate is about. You gave little to demonstrate any attributes she might have.

Isn't interesting that some avid Democrats or Hillary supporters are not willing to see the truth, even when it falls in their lap.

This is where the issue is. Each of us has a different view on what the purpose of our posts in this thread are.

Your purpose in this thread is to attack Hillary with whatever you can, whether or not it's actually true - as you said, "controversy" is all that you care about - and while I don't like Hillary, I don't like dishonesty and fake scandals, either.

My purpose in this thread has been to correct your misconceptions about the Clinton Foundation, Hillary's speaking fees, and Sidney Blumenthal's employment.

I've now said this three or four times, but you've conveniently ignored it each time - I do not care about Hillary Clinton - I don't like her, I won't vote for her. I am not in this thread to "demonstrate any attributes she may have", I am just here to correct your misconceptions.

I didn't ignore you because it wasn't important, just that was not what all of this was about.

We'll just agree to disagree. You have a restful night, now, Thank you for an interesting debate!

 

[Papageorgio]

and the lie?

Here are a bunch if you're actually willing to click the play button.

I'm not. I'm asking about the supposed lie in the op

How can anyone look at this film and come out with a conclusion that Hillary would be honest and up front in her dealings with the American public?

 

[ogibillm]

and the lie?

Here are a bunch if you're actually willing to click the play button.

I'm not. I'm asking about the supposed lie in the op

How can anyone look at this film and come out with a conclusion that Hillary would be honest and up front in her dealings with the American public?

this should be a really easy question to answer: what is the "lie" the op "busted" clinton on?

why are people deflecting to some unrelated youtube video?

 

[Confounding]

How can anyone look at this film and come out with a conclusion that Hillary would be honest and up front in her dealings with the American public?

How many Hillary supporters do you think actually hit the play button and watched the entire video? Very few if I had to guess.

 

[Jackson]

and the lie?

Here are a bunch if you're actually willing to click the play button.

I'm not. I'm asking about the supposed lie in the op

How can anyone look at this film and come out with a conclusion that Hillary would be honest and up front in her dealings with the American public?

this should be a really easy question to answer: what is the "lie" the op "busted" clinton on?

why are people deflecting to some unrelated youtube video?

Because it exposes the truth. But don't watch it. It doesn't matter, right? Unrelated video...lol How do you know if you don't watch it. No matter. Lies are good.

 

[Jackson]

How can anyone look at this film and come out with a conclusion that Hillary would be honest and up front in her dealings with the American public?

How many Hillary supporters do you think actually hit the play button and watched the entire video? Very few if I had to guess.

It is so much easier to .

 

[ogibillm]

and the lie?

Here are a bunch if you're actually willing to click the play button.

I'm not. I'm asking about the supposed lie in the op

How can anyone look at this film and come out with a conclusion that Hillary would be honest and up front in her dealings with the American public?

this should be a really easy question to answer: what is the "lie" the op "busted" clinton on?

why are people deflecting to some unrelated youtube video?

Because it exposes the truth. But don't watch it. It doesn't matter, right? Unrelated video...lol How do you know if you don't watch it. No matter. Lies are good.

does it address the supposed "lie" from the op?

 

[eddiew]

How can anybody vote for a gangster like Hillary Clinton is beyond me.

But some do. There you go....that answer right there tells you all you have to know about a sector of American society.

YES much better to vote for a moronic murderer who starts wars based on lies and gets so many killed over his bs

A word of warning for everyone about Ed. No matter the topic or what millennium it occurred in, he will blame Bush.

the cancer bush left this country with is not easily cured Too bad republicans refused to help They shat in a hat and want Dems to wear it