• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The New York Times takes down the Clinton Foundation. This could be devastating for B

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
24,380
Reaction score
7,805
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
The New York Times takes down the Clinton Foundation. This could be devastating for Bill and Hillary (Zimmer Note... Let's hope)


Is the New York Times being guest edited by Rush Limbaugh? Today it runs with a fascinating takedown of the Clinton Foundation – that vast vanity project that conservatives are wary of criticising for being seen to attack a body that tries to do good. But the liberal NYT has no such scruples. The killer quote is this:

For all of its successes, the Clinton Foundation had become a sprawling concern, supervised by a rotating board of old Clinton hands, vulnerable to distraction and threatened by conflicts of interest. It ran multimillion-dollar deficits for several years, despite vast amounts of money flowing in.

The New York Times takes down the Clinton Foundation. This could be devastating for Bill and Hillary – Telegraph Blogs



[h=2]On Wednesday, the New York Times ran a blistering investigative report revealing the Clinton Foundation as a nonprofit rife with crony capitalist conflicts of interest and multi-million dollar deficits despite raking in at least $492 million from 1997 to 2007.[/h]
In 2007 and 2008, the Clinton Foundation, which is soon to be renamed the “Bill, Hillary, & Chelsea Clinton Foundation,” ran a $40 million deficit. Last year, it ran a deficit of over $8 million despite the Foundation and two subsidiaries generating $214 million in revenues.



Hillary Clinton plans to relocate her offices to the Foundation’s Manhattan headquarters in the weeks to come. Former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Clinton planned to use the Foundation as a “launching pad into 2016,” a reference to her potential presidential run.



The nexus between Clinton Foundation donors, foreign governments, and corporate interests has long been a concern to government watchdog groups. As of 2008, the Clinton Foundation raised at least $46 million from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Brunei, Oman, and other foreign governments—the very governments Secretary of State Hillary Clinton eventually negotiated with. Wealthy foreign investors, like Saudi businessman Nasser Al-Rashid and Indian politician Amar Singh gave at least $1 million each.

NY Times: Clinton Foundation Rife With Cronyism

And these are The Brilliant Ones and types like them who just can't seem to believe we cannot live without their managing our lives through their It Takes a Village Idiot Nanny State.

The Clinton Crime Family. Their motto... We Take Our Fair Share.
 
Last edited:
Re: The New York Times takes down the Clinton Foundation. This could be devastating f

There's actually a word for people who get rich by making lofty promises and squandering other people's money... I believe they're called "Democrats"
 
Re: The New York Times takes down the Clinton Foundation. This could be devastating f

Yeah that they refused to release the Foundation's high-dollar donor list when Hillary was running for President should have been a clue that they were hiding something.
 
Re: The New York Times takes down the Clinton Foundation. This could be devastating f

There's actually a word for people who get rich by making lofty promises and squandering other people's money... I believe they're called "Democrats"

Considering they just released a list of the top money in congress and reps were not only first and second by a good margin, but also edged oput the dems 29 to 21 I would say you are ignorant of where the actual money is.

Issa tops The Hill's 50 Wealthiest - The Hill - covering Congress, Politics, Political Campaigns and Capitol Hill | TheHill.com

It seems make believe scandals are a great money maker according to Issa's wallet.
 
Re: The New York Times takes down the Clinton Foundation. This could be devastating f

Considering they just released a list of the top money in congress and reps were not only first and second by a good margin, but also edged oput the dems 29 to 21 I would say you are ignorant of where the actual money is.

Issa tops The Hill's 50 Wealthiest - The Hill - covering Congress, Politics, Political Campaigns and Capitol Hill | TheHill.com

It seems make believe scandals are a great money maker according to Issa's wallet.
Did you read the article you linked? From the article: "Issa, who made his riches with the Viper car security system..." Maybe you just talked to Issa's wallet, as you mentioned.
 
Re: The New York Times takes down the Clinton Foundation. This could be devastating f

Did you read the article you linked? From the article: "Issa, who made his riches with the Viper car security system..." Maybe you just talked to Issa's wallet, as you mentioned.
According liberals, money is bad if you earn it in a productive enterprise = in order to be 'good money' you have to inherit it (Kennedy's), marry it (Pelosi, Kerry) or misuse government programs (most every DEM official)

Those who actually EARN their money are nothing but targets for DEM policies. DEMs are good at giving away other peoples' money so they can feel good about themselves.

And have you noticed? - Liberals seldom identify their political leanings - they call themselves "other" or "undisclosed" or "private" -
whereas almost all conservatives identify themselves as such. = some may go with "independent" or "libertarian" but I rarely see a conservative comment from someone who wants to hide their obvious leanings as the Liberals do.

Conservatives are proud of their political beliefs. Liberals seem to be self-loathing of the labels that apply to them.
 
Re: The New York Times takes down the Clinton Foundation. This could be devastating f

And these are The Brilliant Ones and types like them who just can't seem to believe we cannot live without their managing our lives through their It Takes a Village Idiot Nanny State.

The Clinton Crime Family. Their motto... We Take Our Fair Share.

Beware of the political set up. Conservatives need to quietly look into this, until and unless hard evidence of criminality is proven. The white water investigation ultimately didn't hurt Bill, but it made republicans look like they were on a witch hunt... How much more so with Hillary?
 
Re: The New York Times takes down the Clinton Foundation. This could be devastating f

According liberals, money is bad if you earn it in a productive enterprise

I stopped reading there because this, like all the other strawman caricatures you guys attempt to paint of "liberals," is wrong.
 
Re: The New York Times takes down the Clinton Foundation. This could be devastating f

It would appear is a grand example of the future hildabeast regime. Full of scandal with no one caring as long as they get their grubbynutt hand outs.
 
Back
Top Bottom