Here you go: Senator Hillary Clinton D-New York - Staff salaries 10 01 2008 - 03 31 2009
Took me about 20 seconds of Googling.
There she goes! The bizarre escapades of Hillary Rodham Clinton
- Thread starter TemplarKormac
- Start date
Here you go: Senator Hillary Clinton D-New York - Staff salaries 10 01 2008 - 03 31 2009
Took me about 20 seconds of Googling.
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #122
Hillary Clinton portrays herself as a champion of women in the workforce, but women working for her in the U.S. Senate were paid 72 cents for each dollar paid to men, according to a Washington Free Beacon analysis of her Senate years’ salary data.
During those years, the median annual salary for a woman working in Clinton’s office was $15,708.38 less than the median salary for a man, according to the analysis of data compiled from official Senate expenditure reports.
The analysis compiled the annual salaries paid to staffers for an entire fiscal year of work from the years 2002 to 2008. Salaries of employees who were not part of Clinton’s office for a full fiscal year were not included. Because the Senate fiscal year extends from Oct. 1 to Sept. 30, Clinton’s first year in the Senate, which began on Jan. 3, 2001, was also not included in the analysis.
The salaries speak for themselves. The data shows that women in her office were paid 72 cents for every dollar paid to men.
Hillary Clinton s War on Women Washington Free Beacon
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #123
I already checked that site. It limits you to a certain number of page views. I used mine up. Not helpful.
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #124
A dedication to stop murder, while taking money from murderers. How can you not see this?
If a murderer wants to donate money to help stop murders, I don't see the problem.
Where is the conflicting interest?
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #126
If he was still committing murders, then what? Does his apparent act of generosity somehow cover for the fact he is killing people?
That in no way computes.
BluesLegend
Diamond Member
You like a fake fabricated fictional character.
His act of generosity does not "cover" anything, the two acts are irrelevant to each other.
candycorn
Diamond Member
Agreed.
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #130
No they aren't. How can you want to stop murder while still committing murder? How can you take money for stopping murder from people who commit murder?
Likewise, how can you fight for women's rights while in turn taking donations from countries who abuse them and mistreat them under the law?
"His generosity does not 'cover' anything."
Exactly. The donations Saudi Arabia makes to Clinton's campaign/foundation doesn't cover for the fact they still mistreat women and would directly contradict Hillary's pro-women's rights stances.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia donated the money specifically towards fighting AIDS in Africa, not "fighting for women's rights".
Who said it did?
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #132
That's my entire point.
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #133
From what I can tell, you.
No, I certainly did not.
The House of Saud's donations to CGI don't absolve them of anything.
But neither is CGI tainted by accepting those donations.
I think perhaps you should explain this, since as far as I'm understanding your point, this doesn't match up.
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #136
Yes it is. If one of the people it is named after says women should be treated equally, yet sits and watches the a board of directors take money from a country who commits atrocities against women, I say that pretty much taints the integrity of the person the foundation is named for.
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #137
I've tried explaining it three different ways, and frankly I'm tired of repeating myself.
Perhaps you'd say that, but I don't know if that many people will agree with you.
It's not like she profited from the situation.
Unlike some other political families in this country.
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #139
Perhaps you'd say that, but I don't know if that many people will agree with you.
It's not like she profited from the situation.
Unlike some other political families in this country.
Eh, that is a low blow and a deflection. Have you run out of points to make?
"Oh but Bush did it, too!" Forgive me, but that is pretty asinine, Doc.
Perhaps we're just talking past each other.
I can make my point fairly simply.
Bad deeds on the part of an entity are not cancelled out by good deeds - but nor are the good deeds cancelled out by the bad. They are unrelated to each other - they have no effect on each other.
Emperor Hirohito, leader of Japan during World War Two, was a leader who oversaw and ordered deaths and atrocities on a level matched only by the worst of the worst.
He was also a dedicated scientist who identified and classified many previously undiscovered species of plankton.
Should we destroy his scientific discoveries because he was a bad man? Is the scientist referencing his work today somehow tainted by association?
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
ACLU Commercial…”Born In The U.S.A.”…..pulls at the heart strings. Are they being honest and genuine?- Started by BrokeLoser
- Replies: 1
-
In Austria Religion and culture is more important then race in the USA race is more important- Started by Mortimer
- Replies: 1
-
-
🚨BREAKING: Net migration is plummeting in major US cities.- Started by excalibur
- Replies: 10
