![]() |
A bit of Hillary Clinton's past history
I normally avoid making political posts here but I just received this
summary of Hillary's past history and it was just too good to pass up: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- When Bill Clinton was president, he allowed Hillary to assume authority over a health care reform. Even after threats and intimidation, she couldn’t even get a vote in a democrat-controlled congress. This fiasco cost the American taxpayers about $13 million in cost for studies, promotion, and other efforts. Then President Clinton gave Hillary authority over selecting a female attorney general. Her first two selections were Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood – both were forced to withdraw their names from consideration. Next she chose Janet Reno – husband Bill described her selection as “my worst mistake.” Some may not remember that Reno made the decision to gas David Koresh and the Branch Davidian religious sect in Waco, Texas resulting in dozens of deaths of women and children. Husband Bill allowed Hillary to make recommendations for the head of the Civil Rights Commission. Lani Guanier was her selection. When a little probing led to the discovered of Ms. Guanier’s radical views, her name had to be withdrawn from consideration. Apparently a slow learner, husband Bill allowed Hillary to make some more recommendations. She chose former law partners Web Hubbel for the Justice Department, Vince Foster for the White House staff, and William Kennedy for the Treasury Department. Her selections went well: Hubbel went to prison, Foster (presumably) committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign. Many younger votes will have no knowledge of “Travelgate.” Hillary wanted to award unfettered travel contracts to Clinton friend Harry Thompson – and the White House Travel Office refused to comply. She managed to have them reported to the FBI and fired. This ruined their reputations, cost them their jobs, and caused a thirty-six month investigation. Only one employee, Billy Dale was charged with a crime, and that of the enormous crime of mixing personal and White House funds. A jury acquitted him of any crime in less than two hours. Still not convinced of her ineptness, Hillary was allowed to recommend a close Clinton friend, Craig Livingstone, for the position of Director of White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of about 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, suddenly Hillary and the president denied even knowing Livingstone and, of course, denied knowledge of drug use in the White House. Following this debacle, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office after more than thirty years of service to seven presidents. Next, when women started coming forward with allegations of sexual harassment and rape by Bill Clinton, Hillary was put in charge of the “bimbo eruption” and scandal defense. Some of her more notable decisions in the debacle we She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. After the Starr investigation they settled with Ms. Jones. She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor. After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs. Hillary’s devious game plan resulted in Bill losing his license to practice law for 'lying under oath' to a grand jury and then his subsequent impeachment by the House of Representatives. Hillary avoided indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice during the Starr investigation by repeating, “I do not recall,” “I have no recollection,” and “I don’t know” a total of 56 times while under oath. After leaving the White House, Hillary was forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork that she had stolen. What a swell party – ready for another four or eight year of this type low-life mess? Now we are exposed to the destruction of possibly incriminating emails while Hillary was Secretary of State and the “pay to play” schemes of the Clinton Foundation – we have no idea what shoe will fall next. But to her loyal fans - “what difference does it make?” ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
A bit of Hillary Clinton's past history
On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 13:58:43 -0400,
wrote: I normally avoid making political posts here but I just received this summary of Hillary's past history and it was just too good to pass up: Rana Foroohar, not exactly a right wing pundit wrote a damning article last week about Clintonomics and how that drove the nose bleed compensation packages for CEOs http://time.com/4074571/how-clintono...carly-fiorina/ |
A bit of Hillary Clinton's past history
On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 11:11:54 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 10/31/15 9:15 PM, wrote: So you will **** can your most basic beliefs and pull the rooster. My basic beliefs? Mrs. Clinton and I are aligned fairly well on most issues. I don't expect agreement on everything with any candidate. I like Bernie Sanders, too, but I don't think Americans are ready to elect a self-described socialist as POTUS, even though what he describes and stands for is pretty much mainstream. When I was growing up in New Haven, nearby Bridgeport had Jasper McLevy, a socialist, as its long-time mayor. I have no concerns about Mrs. Clinton's ability to lead this nation and help most of its people progress. There are no Republicans about whom I feel that way. My guess is that you will sit out the 2016 POTUS election. I don't sit out elections for national political office. OK but don't come crying to us when we are in Syria in force (along with other middle east wars) and when the banksters are still screwing you. If the democrats get their wish and the minimum wage goes up to $15, expect a huge spike in unemployment. That will certainly do nothing to reduce income inequality. |
A bit of Hillary Clinton's past history
In article cohc3bhl1gn0pag6ocgj0bvk3ppd115d00@
4ax.com, says... On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 11:11:54 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 10/31/15 9:15 PM, wrote: So you will **** can your most basic beliefs and pull the rooster. My basic beliefs? Mrs. Clinton and I are aligned fairly well on most issues. I don't expect agreement on everything with any candidate. I like Bernie Sanders, too, but I don't think Americans are ready to elect a self-described socialist as POTUS, even though what he describes and stands for is pretty much mainstream. When I was growing up in New Haven, nearby Bridgeport had Jasper McLevy, a socialist, as its long-time mayor. I have no concerns about Mrs. Clinton's ability to lead this nation and help most of its people progress. There are no Republicans about whom I feel that way. My guess is that you will sit out the 2016 POTUS election. I don't sit out elections for national political office. OK but don't come crying to us when we are in Syria in force (along with other middle east wars) and when the banksters are still screwing you. If the democrats get their wish and the minimum wage goes up to $15, expect a huge spike in unemployment. That will certainly do nothing to reduce income inequality. LOL |
A bit of Hillary Clinton's past history
On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 12:14:14 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: Hypothetically, let's assume that something comes along that causes Hillary to withdraw from the nomination process. Could be health or scandal ... who knows? To whom would you then shift your support and ultimate vote for? Webb? O'Malley? Bernie? Trump, he has a better chance than any of those. |
A bit of Hillary Clinton's past history
|
A bit of Hillary Clinton's past history
|
A bit of Hillary Clinton's past history
On 11/1/2015 12:13 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 11:11:54 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 10/31/15 9:15 PM, wrote: So you will **** can your most basic beliefs and pull the rooster. My basic beliefs? Mrs. Clinton and I are aligned fairly well on most issues. I don't expect agreement on everything with any candidate. I like Bernie Sanders, too, but I don't think Americans are ready to elect a self-described socialist as POTUS, even though what he describes and stands for is pretty much mainstream. When I was growing up in New Haven, nearby Bridgeport had Jasper McLevy, a socialist, as its long-time mayor. I have no concerns about Mrs. Clinton's ability to lead this nation and help most of its people progress. There are no Republicans about whom I feel that way. My guess is that you will sit out the 2016 POTUS election. I don't sit out elections for national political office. OK but don't come crying to us when we are in Syria in force (along with other middle east wars) and when the banksters are still screwing you. If the democrats get their wish and the minimum wage goes up to $15, expect a huge spike in unemployment. That will certainly do nothing to reduce income inequality. How do you figure that banksters can screw Harry? |
A bit of Hillary Clinton's past history
On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 13:05:03 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 11/1/2015 12:55 PM, wrote: On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 12:14:14 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Hypothetically, let's assume that something comes along that causes Hillary to withdraw from the nomination process. Could be health or scandal ... who knows? To whom would you then shift your support and ultimate vote for? Webb? O'Malley? Bernie? Trump, he has a better chance than any of those. Scary, huh? :-) Exactly why I am disgusted with the whole process. BTW anyone who really thinks their one vote actually counts should have a hard time criticizing someone else's "invisible friend". Between the corruption of the system by big money and the electoral college system to begin with, elections are far from being decided by a few motivated voters. It is clearly irrational faith in something you can't show scientific evidence to demonstrate. |
A bit of Hillary Clinton's past history
On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 13:44:20 -0500, Justan Olphart
wrote: On 11/1/2015 12:13 PM, wrote: On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 11:11:54 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 10/31/15 9:15 PM, wrote: So you will **** can your most basic beliefs and pull the rooster. My basic beliefs? Mrs. Clinton and I are aligned fairly well on most issues. I don't expect agreement on everything with any candidate. I like Bernie Sanders, too, but I don't think Americans are ready to elect a self-described socialist as POTUS, even though what he describes and stands for is pretty much mainstream. When I was growing up in New Haven, nearby Bridgeport had Jasper McLevy, a socialist, as its long-time mayor. I have no concerns about Mrs. Clinton's ability to lead this nation and help most of its people progress. There are no Republicans about whom I feel that way. My guess is that you will sit out the 2016 POTUS election. I don't sit out elections for national political office. OK but don't come crying to us when we are in Syria in force (along with other middle east wars) and when the banksters are still screwing you. If the democrats get their wish and the minimum wage goes up to $15, expect a huge spike in unemployment. That will certainly do nothing to reduce income inequality. How do you figure that banksters can screw Harry? I am sure some might post an ad hominem attack here but the truth is they can screw us all by degrading the values of our investments (like your pension plan) |
A bit of Hillary Clinton's past history
On 11/1/15 1:51 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 13:05:03 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/1/2015 12:55 PM, wrote: On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 12:14:14 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Hypothetically, let's assume that something comes along that causes Hillary to withdraw from the nomination process. Could be health or scandal ... who knows? To whom would you then shift your support and ultimate vote for? Webb? O'Malley? Bernie? Trump, he has a better chance than any of those. Scary, huh? :-) Exactly why I am disgusted with the whole process. BTW anyone who really thinks their one vote actually counts should have a hard time criticizing someone else's "invisible friend". Between the corruption of the system by big money and the electoral college system to begin with, elections are far from being decided by a few motivated voters. It is clearly irrational faith in something you can't show scientific evidence to demonstrate. Is this the libertarian premise for 2016? As in, "we'll never be able to field a winning POTUS candidate, so let's do whatever we can to hold down the vote and help the Repugnicans." Because, in the end, libertarians are Republicans just as Tea Baggers are Republicans. |
A bit of Hillary Clinton's past history
On 11/1/2015 1:55 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 13:44:20 -0500, Justan Olphart wrote: On 11/1/2015 12:13 PM, wrote: On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 11:11:54 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 10/31/15 9:15 PM, wrote: So you will **** can your most basic beliefs and pull the rooster. My basic beliefs? Mrs. Clinton and I are aligned fairly well on most issues. I don't expect agreement on everything with any candidate. I like Bernie Sanders, too, but I don't think Americans are ready to elect a self-described socialist as POTUS, even though what he describes and stands for is pretty much mainstream. When I was growing up in New Haven, nearby Bridgeport had Jasper McLevy, a socialist, as its long-time mayor. I have no concerns about Mrs. Clinton's ability to lead this nation and help most of its people progress. There are no Republicans about whom I feel that way. My guess is that you will sit out the 2016 POTUS election. I don't sit out elections for national political office. OK but don't come crying to us when we are in Syria in force (along with other middle east wars) and when the banksters are still screwing you. If the democrats get their wish and the minimum wage goes up to $15, expect a huge spike in unemployment. That will certainly do nothing to reduce income inequality. How do you figure that banksters can screw Harry? I am sure some might post an ad hominem attack here but the truth is they can screw us all by degrading the values of our investments (like your pension plan) By keeping the presses rolling printing money? It's not the banksta gangstas doing that. |
A bit of Hillary Clinton's past history
|
A bit of Hillary Clinton's past history
On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 14:09:03 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:
Because, in the end, libertarians are Republicans just as Tea Baggers are Republicans. "Republican" seems to be anyone who disagrees with you. The fact remains almost half of all voting aged people are so disgusted with the process that they stay home. Are they all Republicans too? Maybe you are right. Is that why Nixon called them the silent majority. |
A bit of Hillary Clinton's past history
|
A bit of Hillary Clinton's past history
On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 07:54:30 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/1/15 10:30 PM, wrote: On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 14:09:03 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: Because, in the end, libertarians are Republicans just as Tea Baggers are Republicans. "Republican" seems to be anyone who disagrees with you. The fact remains almost half of all voting aged people are so disgusted with the process that they stay home. Are they all Republicans too? Maybe you are right. Is that why Nixon called them the silent majority. All the self-described "libertarians" I've heard of who *hold* elected federal office ran as and run as Republicans, and the self-described Tea Baggers do the same. Now, there are some self-described libertarians who eschew the Republican moniker and run as libertarians for federal office, but...they don't seem to get elected. It sounds like they have fallen prey to the same pragmatism that you posses. You have to go along to get along. I think that is mostly the stacked deck we have dealt to 3d parties. You need to pick a major party to even get a seat at the table. Yeah right "free elections". Years ago, I described libertarians as Republicans with even less of a sense of civic responsibility. I've not read anything that would make me change my mind. I understand self-described libertarians don't like foreign military adventures and are in favor of legalizing pot, and want to do away with all manner of regulations so the "free market" will prevail. Well, I've always thought libertarianism was way over the line on simplemindedness. I'm not a big fan of foreign military adventures, either, and I see advantages to decriminalizing pot, but I don't favor going back to the "wild, wild west" domestically. You ignored a number of issues that align closer to Bernie than Hillary or any of the republicans but I am not surprised. Even if we had a significant Libertarian membership in congress and holding the white house, I doubt they could make a serious dent in the 4th branch of government, US Civil Service. That is a reality that confronted Carter and Reagan significantly and all presidents to some extent. I remember Carter coming to town and how that reality bitch slapped him in the face. He had the goal of "streamlining government" and he created a few stream lined agencies but what he didn't understand was that it was "additive", hiring more people but the existing agencies were still there. They were not leaving. They just changed all of the signs. |
A bit of Hillary Clinton's past history
On 11/2/15 11:02 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 07:54:30 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 11/1/15 10:30 PM, wrote: On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 14:09:03 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: Because, in the end, libertarians are Republicans just as Tea Baggers are Republicans. "Republican" seems to be anyone who disagrees with you. The fact remains almost half of all voting aged people are so disgusted with the process that they stay home. Are they all Republicans too? Maybe you are right. Is that why Nixon called them the silent majority. All the self-described "libertarians" I've heard of who *hold* elected federal office ran as and run as Republicans, and the self-described Tea Baggers do the same. Now, there are some self-described libertarians who eschew the Republican moniker and run as libertarians for federal office, but...they don't seem to get elected. It sounds like they have fallen prey to the same pragmatism that you posses. You have to go along to get along. I think that is mostly the stacked deck we have dealt to 3d parties. You need to pick a major party to even get a seat at the table. Yeah right "free elections". Indeed, I am politically pragmatic. I've stated many times I like Sanders and admire him, but I don't think he can win the presidency. I also like Mrs. Clinton and admire her. I rarely agree with more than 75% of any politician's positions, proposals, et cetera. I'll be happy if Mrs. Clinton wins the election. I'd be happy if Sanders won it. But I don't believe that possible. There are no Republicans among the current choices with a chance to win the nomination who I could vote for. |
A bit of Hillary Clinton's past history
On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 09:39:10 -0800, Califbill billnews wrote:
wrote: Hard core survivalists want the metal, not the paper. I am not quite there. Will gold be the standard? Or cell phone minutes? Or canned goods? Food, ammo and access to clean water will be the important things. Everything else is a luxury. A well rounded skill set will be king. The economy may depend more on barter than money. People who have skills will never starve. Neighborhood watch will take on a whole new significance. People will be making friends with their neighbors. We get a little glimpse into that after a hurricane. You certainly find out how good your neighborhood is. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:33 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com