There she goes! The bizarre escapades of Hillary Rodham Clinton

[Unkotare]

It's not like she profited from the situation.

Wow, did you really post that?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Neither is CGI tainted by accepting the donation.

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.

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.

Well, no. It's not asinine. It could be considered a "low blow", though.

Bain Capital also has had many contracts for "financial services" for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

The point is that business with the House of Saud is an everyday occurrence, and has never seemed to bother the right wing before CGI started accepting grants from them to fight AIDS.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It's not like she profited from the situation.

Wow, did you really post that?

I will clarify.

She did not personally or familiarly make a monetary profit from the House of Saud's donation to the CGI.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The point is that business with the House of Saud is an everyday occurrence, and has never seemed to bother the right wing before CGI started accepting grants from them to fight AIDS.

I took note of it the moment women started complaining about disparity in pay despite existing equal pay laws, abortion rights, and et cetera. All long before Hillary declared for president. Believe me, this isn't news to me.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I am still befuddled that anyone was excited over her van appearance, those reporters must have some kind of mental disorder. they would probably race to a "Dennis Roddman Dressed In Drag" appearance.

There is that humor I love so much! Come on.....tell us what your former user name was.....confirm my suspicion. Did you used to have a a three word forum name? I think you did.

 

[LoneLaugher]

She's really got you guys worried.

How many Hillary threads have you started in the last few days?

She's all you got. We get to have real debates you have to defend someone who said all her grandparents were immigrants even the ones born here.

Yes. You "get to have" debates! Real ones! Raise your hand if you will repeal Obamacare! Weeeeeeee!

 

[TemplarKormac]

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia donated the money specifically towards fighting AIDS in Africa, not "fighting for women's rights".

That's my entire point.

I think perhaps you should explain this, since as far as I'm understanding your point, this doesn't match up.

I've tried explaining it three different ways, and frankly I'm tired of repeating myself.

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?

Your Emperor Hirohito analogy is entertaining, but not even close to what I'm getting at.

Foundation X, named after Person X takes donations from Country Y for the sake of disease prevention, yet Country Y participates in numerous human rights atrocities.

Person X says she is a proponent of human rights, yet Foundation X looks past that fact to take the donations from Country Y despite the country persisting in committing human rights atrocities.

It is safe to assume that if Person X does not speak out against Foundation X for taking money from Country Y who participates in the human rights atrocities Person X opposes, Person X is a hypocrite and such silence taints her character and credibility.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I nominate Doc for a Nobel Peace Prize......or sainthood.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I will return to this thread tomorrow.

 

[candycorn]

Neither is CGI tainted by accepting the donation.

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.

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.

Well, no. It's not asinine. It could be considered a "low blow", though.

Bain Capital also has had many contracts for "financial services" for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

The point is that business with the House of Saud is an everyday occurrence, and has never seemed to bother the right wing before CGI started accepting grants from them to fight AIDS.

Hobby Lobby who apparently is all about the sanctity of the fetus buys (conservatively estimating) thousands of dollars of goods from the Republic of China which mandates abortions to enforce it's one child policy.

 

[candycorn]

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia donated the money specifically towards fighting AIDS in Africa, not "fighting for women's rights".

That's my entire point.

I think perhaps you should explain this, since as far as I'm understanding your point, this doesn't match up.

I've tried explaining it three different ways, and frankly I'm tired of repeating myself.

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?

Your Emperor Hirohito analogy is entertaining, but not even close to what I'm getting at.

Foundation X, named after Person X takes donations from Country Y for the sake of disease prevention, yet Country Y participates in numerous human rights atrocities.

Person X says she is a proponent of human rights, yet Foundation X looks past that fact to take the donations from Country Y despite the country persisting in committing human rights atrocities.

It is safe to assume that if Person X does not speak out against Foundation X for taking money from Country Y who participates in the human rights atrocities Person X opposes, Person X is a hypocrite and such silence taints her character and credibility.

Yeah, it's almost like Person T speaking about the evils of welfare for a number of years that Perston T refused to get a job to pay his own way in this world. Makes him a bit of hypocrite...does it not?

 

[Coyote]

I like her.

For what reason? What has she done to earn your admiration? I'd really like to know.

I think she is a strong woman, she's done a lot to advocate for women's issues, health and betterment around the world as well as for for child welfare with a message that has been consistent through the years.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I like her.

For what reason? What has she done to earn your admiration? I'd really like to know.

I think she is a strong woman, she's done a lot to advocate for women's issues, health and betterment around the world as well as for for child welfare with a message that has been consistent through the years.

Now answer me this, what would be one major accomplishment of hers? What has she done to better America?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Holy shit......can nutters filibuster with previously answered questions or what? How many dozens of times have Sec. Clinton's accomplishments been posted on these forums.

This thing that nutters do........this asking the same question over and over and pretending that it never gets answered is bullshit.

I'm not finding the words for it.....but it's some form of passive aggressive act. When normal, bored to tears people refuse to respond to this petulant demand....these losers claim victory.

 

[HenryBHough]

You'll notice she didn't even try to chew gum while totin' that empty suitcase.....

So maybe the brain damage wasn't as severe as it first might have seemed.

 

[Coyote]

I like her.

For what reason? What has she done to earn your admiration? I'd really like to know.

I think she is a strong woman, she's done a lot to advocate for women's issues, health and betterment around the world as well as for for child welfare with a message that has been consistent through the years.

Now answer me this, what would be one major accomplishment of hers? What has she done to better America?

She was instrumental in developing the State Children’s Health Insurance Program and in creating the Adoption and Safe Families Act and the Foster Care Independence Act, both of which I consider good for America. She also created an office of Violence Against Women under the Justice Department. She pushed to have the illness' of returning Gulf War veterans investigated, and also the health consequences of first responders, including drafting the first bill to finally compensate and offer the health services they deserve. Even though her attempt at Health Care reform ultimately failed - it did set the stage for health care reform today, something I largely support and I suspect she would continue to support if elected.

While not strictly done to "better America" - she has done a lot to improve the lives of children and women around the world through the Clinton Foundation.

 

[TemplarKormac]

While not strictly done to "better America" - she has done a lot to improve the lives of children and women around the world through the Clinton Foundation.

While I appreciate what she's done for the world, I asked what she's done to better America. Just one thing.

 

[Coyote]

While not strictly done to "better America" - she has done a lot to improve the lives of children and women around the world through the Clinton Foundation.

While I appreciate what she's done for the world, I asked what she's done to better America. Just one thing.

Did you somehow MISS the bulk of my post and just focus on the last sentence????

 

[TemplarKormac]

While not strictly done to "better America" - she has done a lot to improve the lives of children and women around the world through the Clinton Foundation.

While I appreciate what she's done for the world, I asked what she's done to better America. Just one thing.

Did you somehow MISS the bulk of my post and just focus on the last sentence????

No. I read the bulk of your post. But when I reached that specific portion of your post, I knew you didn't answer the question directly. Instead you offered in summation "While not strictly done to "better America" - she has done a lot to improve the lives of children and women around the world through the Clinton Foundation." You essentially told me she didn't do anything to better America.

All the research I did on the Adoption and Safe Families Act shows she did a lot of lobbying, and an op ed in 1995. She then helped break a stalemate to help get the bill passed. She also did the same thing with the Adoption and Safe Families Act and the Foster Care Independence Act. While these helped the children of America, I am more specifically interested in what she has done to help all of America, not one particular segment of the population.

1) She also created an office of Violence Against Women under the Justice Department. 2) She pushed to have the illness' of returning Gulf War veterans investigated, 3) and also the health consequences of first responders, 4) including drafting the first bill to finally compensate and offer the health services they deserve.

1) Of course, but the violence continues. A singular office isn't going to stop the violence.

2) And the recent atrocities committed by the VA indicate this effort was an utter failure.

3) If you are referring to the 9/11 first responders, then you should know about the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, through which Democratic malfeasance and "sequestration" caused the program to go defunct in 2012. As of last year it hasn't been reinstated, leaving all of those families and volunteers out in the cold. I haven't heard one peep from Hillary Clinton on the matter.

4) That bill you are referring to, The Homeland Security Block Grant bill (S.2038) did not pass committee. She introduced it to the Senate in 2002. It included direct funding, overtime, a 10 percent match, and coverage of retroactive expenses post September 11, 2001. The bill was read twice but was referred elsewhere to an obscure part of the Senate apparatus, where it died. While a valiant effort, it is not a notable accomplishment, nor did it help better America.

Even though her attempt at Health Care reform ultimately failed - it did set the stage for health care reform today, something I largely support and I suspect she would continue to support if elected.

Her failure in healthcare reform is the reason we have Obamacare. If anything, it did more to harm America than help it. It has done more to divide Americans. All of this over healthcare insurance.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Yep, the HRC launch is an epic fail.