Iranian nuke scientist that was executed was on Hillary's private email server, amazing....disappeared in saudi arabia...no one knew where he was.....I'm sure spence and wdmso would say just a coincidence.

I think this is 57 they have gotten killed?

Also, aside from the email scandal
Think it's up to 5 people now turned up dead since the dnc.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

WHAT?NO WAY!!!

A mysterious death associated with the Clintons?No way.not even remotely possible.This is no more plausible than 400mil going to Iran to release 4 hostages.

You people make me sick.When are you dopes going to learn?Its Bush's fault dammit!

The Clintons prefer to call them "collateral damage "
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hillary should be looked at as "less than honorable".
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/08/sailor-seeks-leniency-in-submarine-photos-case-by-citing-clinton-226995?ref=yfp
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hillary should be looked at as "less than honorable".
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/08/sailor-seeks-leniency-in-submarine-photos-case-by-citing-clinton-226995?ref=yfp
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think you missed this part.

Saucier's defense disputes a probation officer's conclusion that the sailor intended to share some of the photos with "foreign agencies," an allegation that prosecutors have not made publicly.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Iranian nuke scientist that was executed was on Hillary's private email server, amazing....disappeared in saudi arabia...no one knew where he was.....I'm sure spence and wdmso would say just a coincidence.


seem the only coincidence is you never met a conspiracy theory you (aka most people here) didn’t like.

Again more of the same from those who get spoon feed their information via questionable internet sources and you guy have the never to cry about the National media



Despite what you might read on Donald Trump’s twitter feed, the Iranian execution of a nuclear scientist who defected to the United States and then changed his mind was not caused by Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server. The scientist outed himselfClinton talked publicly about the case at the time. “He’s free to go. He was free to come. These decisions are his alone to make,” she said on July 13, 2010.

seem the only coincidence.



the "coincidences" involving the Clinton's are so numerous it's hard to keep track of them all over time....

seems like many coincidences of Bill getting big buck speaking fees from entities with business before Hillary Inc....but probably just all "coincidence"

the "coincidences" involving the Clinton's are so numerous it's hard to keep track of them all over time....

seems like many coincidences of Bill getting big buck speaking fees from entities with business before Hillary Inc....but probably just all "coincidence"


as is the coincidence the right can't prove a thing

But I guess speaking fee's are only acceptable for those you agree with

1. Current Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is one of the highest-paid public speakers in the world, reportedly reeling in up to $1.5 million per speech. 2. Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee, reportedly charges as much as $115,000 for engagements.

But OMG a Bill a great speaker got paid

Paid speaking is nothing more than a loophole for bribery.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But OMG a Bill a great speaker got paid

you can't see the difference?

the two that you mentioned did/do so as private citizens

the Clinton Crime Syndicate does so under the guise of public service and charity while railing against many of those that pay them lucrative fees and even for some looking for government benefits and contracts

good grief....

you can't see the difference?

the two that you mentioned did/do so as private citizens

the Clinton Crime Syndicate does so under the guise of public service and charity while railing against many of those that pay them lucrative fees and even for some looking for government benefits and contracts

good grief....


As did bill and Hillary as private citizens ... were to you get your Info?

http://fortune.com/2016/01/23/hillary-clinton-speaking-fees-goldman-sachs/

As did bill and Hillary as private citizens ... were to you get your Info?

http://fortune.com/2016/01/23/hillary-clinton-speaking-fees-goldman-sachs/

wake up dude :spin:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bill-clinton-cashed-hillary-secretary-state/story?id=30522705&singlePage=true

"After his wife became Secretary of State, former President Bill Clinton began to collect speaking fees that often doubled or tripled what he had been charging earlier in his post White House years, bringing in millions of dollars from groups that included several with interests pending before the State Department, an ABC News review of financial disclosure records shows"

The former president collected large payments from companies with global interests such Canada’s TD Bank, which had an interest in the Keystone Pipeline, a subject of intense lobbying in Washington. In just one week in March of 2011, Clinton collected $1.3 million giving speeches in Nigeria, Brazil and Grand Cayman.

One instance where the State Department did raise questions about a speech recipient came in 2012, when President Clinton requested to speak at an aviation conference sponsored in part by an organization called the Shanghai Airport Authority. The audience was billed as “6,000 business leaders, government officials, and high net worth individuals.” The State Department ethics officer, Kathryn Youel Page, flagged the request in an email back to the former president’s office indicating the sponsor had ties to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) government.(Hey LOOK - COMMUNISTS)

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/tracking-the-clinton-controversies-from-whitewater-to-benghazi/396182/

man...just think of the fees Bill will be able to collect for speaking when Shill is president and he can shake down every company and foreign interest looking for corporate welfare and government "investments"....not to mention hitting every intern in sight.....amazing


I guess they're admired in a Bonnie and Clyde sort of way.....

why do righties only hate ... The law of supply and demand in a free-market society. when it applies to the clintons oh wait yet another conspiracy theory the clintons are "

shake down every company and foreign interest looking for corporate welfare and government "investments".

why do righties only hate ... .

ugh......:sleeps:

...

The law of supply and demand in a free-market society. when it applies to the clintons

.

what exactly is "free market" about this?...

"After his wife became Secretary of State, former President Bill Clinton began to collect speaking fees that often doubled or tripled what he had been charging earlier in his post White House years, bringing in millions of dollars from groups that included several with interests pending before the State Department, an ABC News review of financial disclosure records shows"

what exactly is "free market" about this?...

"After his wife became Secretary of State, former President Bill Clinton began to collect speaking fees that often doubled or tripled what he had been charging earlier in his post White House years, bringing in millions of dollars from groups that included several with interests pending before the State Department, an ABC News review of financial disclosure records shows"


All out in the open who paid him and how much .. So unless you can show and prove quid pro quo if you do can please do.. if not its just another conspiracy

All out in the open



is it?

It's all out in the open because it's a loophole. This is bribery, plain and simple.

"Wait... You can bribe us, but let's make it so you can get a tax deduction on the bribe". It's so simple no one notices
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's all out in the open because it's a loophole. This is bribery, plain and simple.

"Wait... You can bribe us, but let's make it so you can get a tax deduction on the bribe". It's so simple no one notices
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it's exactly what complains about in every speech....special interests, rich and powerful using their influence to enrich themselves and their cronies as she decries income inequality wearing a $12,000 Armani jacket....just precious...

and since when do Progressive Democrats cite "free market" as something they favor? The idea that peddling influence through government connections(particularly those of your wife) to amass huge amounts of wealth packed away in a phony "charitable organization" which does little more than create high paying jobs for clingers on as your wife runs for president railing against all of this...tells you we are in a very sorry state...not very "Presidential"...but exactly what you'd expect from Bonnie and Clyde

hey Eben, did you get an invite to Bernie's new luxury vacation home yet?

Bernies home that was paid for with proceeds from the sale of their Maine vacation house that Jane inherited ?



No.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's amaszing that the people do not include the clintons in the 1%...then again if it were not for the rich(1%) we would not B working....take Mark zuckerberg, he is in the 1% employs over12,600 people....I'm sure some have bought new cars, a house...it's not all bad being in the 1%, take spence for instance, he would not B able to buy them armanian suits if not for the 1%......lol.....:)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-asks-doj-file-perjury-140731895.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's amaszing that the people do not include the clintons in the 1%...then again if it were not for the rich(1%) we would not B working....take Mark zuckerberg, he is in the 1% employs over12,600 people....I'm sure some have bought new cars, a house...it's not all bad being in the 1%, take spence for instance, he would not B able to buy them armanian suits if not for the 1%......lol.....:)



if it were not for the rich(1%) we would not B working.


you really dont get it do you....

look what a worker got paid and what a company made .. in the 50 60s early 70s it started to shift in the 80s it was symbiotic relationship between the 2

not now that model has left the building.. the ratio to wages and profit are out of balance... you cant see that is the real issue today for todays workers

https://www.yahoo.com/news/grassley-fbi-improperly-restricting-access-clinton-docs-073625746--election.html

https://www.yahoo.com/news/chaffetz-talks-heavily-redacted-clinton-014137939.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

take spence for instance, he would not B able to buy them armanian suits if not for the 1%......lol.....:)
Haven't owned anything Armani in years, hate the shoulder and the lack of structure.

if it were not for the rich(1%) we would not B working.


you really dont get it do you....

look what a worker got paid and what a company made .. in the 50 60s early 70s it started to shift in the 80s it was symbiotic relationship between the 2

not now that model has left the building.. the ratio to wages and profit are out of balance... you cant see that is the real issue today for todays workers

So the 80's were the symbiotic "balance"? So Reaganomics was the proper "model"? Tell that to Hillary and the Democrats. Imagine that, it was a small sliver in time that we had "balance."

And now we are out of balance. The apocalypse!

Maybe different folks have different "interpretations" of balance. But, no worry, Hillary and the Progressives will give us the real and true symbiotic balance. They will determine wages and profits. And pretty much everything else. We will be, finally, in total balance. Including that unimportant non-issue that fanatic, conspiracy driven right wingers keep pestering the rest of us with--the proper balance in the relationship of citizen to government. But let us not get into a discussion of that apocalypse infested topic. The Progressives will relegate it to the non-issue that it truly is.

[QUOTE=wdmso;1106596]if it were not for the rich(1%) we would not B working.


you really dont get it do you....

look what a worker got paid and what a company made .. in the 50 60s early 70s it started to shift in the 80s it was symbiotic relationship between the 2

I do get it, UUUUUUU may not.
Apparently UUUUUU do not own a business, I was in business for 40 years kept 10-12 men working. So U R saying I should not have made a profit and try to B a millionaire by retirement. U say maybe I should have split profits with the help, U must believe in equality, if U do please send me half your paycheck I'm on social now, a biscuit ticket. And by the way my first hourly pay in 1969 was $1.10. If the average person today is living from paycheck to paycheck will most likely not make.....:)

.. you cant see that is the real issue today for todays workers



I guess today's workers should learn a lesson in free market capitalism and supply and demand from the Clintons :rotflmao:

[QUOTE=wdmso;1106596]if it were not for the rich(1%) we would not B working.


you really dont get it do you....

look what a worker got paid and what a company made .. in the 50 60s early 70s it started to shift in the 80s it was symbiotic relationship between the 2

I do get it, UUUUUUU may not.
Apparently UUUUUU do not own a business, I was in business for 40 years kept 10-12 men working. So U R saying I should not have made a profit and try to B a millionaire by retirement. U say maybe I should have split profits with the help, U must believe in equality, if U do please send me half your paycheck I'm on social now, a biscuit ticket. And by the way my first hourly pay in 1969 was $1.10. If the average person today is living from paycheck to paycheck will most likely not make.....:)


So U R saying I should not have made a profit and try to B a millionaire by retirement.

no you said that I never said that that I said symbiotic relationship

you work hard for me and make me money I will in return pay you a good wage ... not sure if you were that kind of boss or not

I'm on social now AHH!!! that explains alot the I seem you guys see
equality as 50\50 spilt again no one has ever suggest that but please keep trying to suggest a worker should not share in a company's success .. but their retirements suffer at their failures

maybe this will explain please notice what is does not say

income inequality refers to the extent to which income is distributed in an uneven manner among a population. In the United States, income inequality, or the gap between the rich and everyone else, has been growing markedly, by every major statistical measure, for some 30 years.

I guess its like climate change it really isn't a Hoax

maybe this will explain please notice what is does not say

income inequality refers to the extent to which income is distributed in an uneven manner among a population. In the United States, income inequality, or the gap between the rich and everyone else, has been growing markedly, by every major statistical measure, for some 30 years.

Since income inequality has always existed, and since there is no actual magic distribution number--maybe it's higher, maybe its lower, but maybe this following quote by you will explain the importance of the present income inequality:

"not my quote but sum's it up nicely
I l[i]ve in the real world ...and things are great...economy moving forward, gas is 1.99 where i live, lost a lot of money in the stock market and value of my house...they both bounced back now.."

And the rest of that quote by you ended with this line which applies to this post by you regarding income inequality:

"just another thread [post] that fails to see the Big picture".

[QUOTE=Fly Rod;1106607]

income inequality refers to the extent to which income is distributed in an uneven manner among a population. In the United States, income inequality, or the gap between the rich and everyone else, has been growing markedly, by every major statistical measure, for some 30 years.



I'll concede that the gap has grown markedly between the Clintons and Americans who actually work for a living....but I'm sure Hillary will fix all of that by more evenly distributing her and hubby's wealth.....

[QUOTE=wdmso;1106614]

I'll concede that the gap has grown markedly between the Clintons and Americans who actually work for a living....but I'm sure Hillary will fix all of that by more evenly distributing her and hubby's wealth.....

Scott be careful you know what happens to people that go against her.."coincidences"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Since income inequality has always existed, and since there is no actual magic distribution number--maybe it's higher, maybe its lower, but maybe this following quote by you will explain the importance of the present income inequality:

"not my quote but sum's it up nicely
I l[i]ve in the real world ...and things are great...economy moving forward, gas is 1.99 where i live, lost a lot of money in the stock market and value of my house...they both bounced back now.."

And the rest of that quote by you ended with this line which applies to this post by you regarding income inequality:

"just another thread [post] that fails to see the Big picture".


Nice that you took what i said about those who said the Economy sucks
and applied it to income inequality and finished it with a climate denial mantra income inequality has always existed yet some how I am missing the big picture Classic

[QUOTE=wdmso;1106614]

I'll concede that the gap has grown markedly between the Clintons and Americans who actually work for a living....but I'm sure Hillary will fix all of that by more evenly distributing her and hubby's wealth.....


let me know when their income is generated by a work force that they pay poorly and provided no benefits :kewl:

Nice that you took what i said about those who said the Economy sucks
and applied it to income inequality and finished it with a climate denial mantra income inequality has always existed yet some how I am missing the big picture Classic

Since your quote that I quoted was indeed a response to those who said the economy sucks, and did not support the notion that the economy sucks, but, rather that things are actually great, how does that not have a bearing on the "big picture" regarding the "problem" of income inequality?

Income inequality, if a problem, would have a direct effect on the economy. If the economy does not suck, and per your quote things are just fine or even, per your quote, things are "great," what is the problem with income inequality?

Did you read Thomas Piketty's book Capital in the Twenty-First Century? It was supposed to be the ultimate testament against growing income inequality. For me it focused on the need to make wealth more equal rather than on if there is a problem with our quality of life. And his answer is a global tax. Which is the same answer to "climate change" as proposed in the U.N. Copenhagen Accords. Did you read the outline of the Copenhagen Accords?

In each case, Copenhagen and Piketty, the ultimate goal, whether expressed or not, is a World Order in which a central bureau supersedes all the separate national powers and dictates to them how wealth must be distributed among nations so that there is a worldwide equality which, for Piketty redistributes wealth, and for Copenhagen redistributes wealth and its sources (even patents would be abrogated and poor countries would be allowed to use patented inventions without paying for the use) in order to give the said poor countries not only the advantage of expanding (for a while) their polluting ways (as a sort of catch-up to the advanced countries who will have to decrease their already less polluting ways) but of being given the means to do so and to improve at the expense of everyone else.

The control of the world's wealth distribution and its sources is the de facto control of the world. This is the ultimate Progressive goal. You may consider that an apocalyptic view. Progressives view it as the necessary model in order to advance the utopian notion of total human equality.

Here is a conundrum re "income inequality." Even as Piketty notes, various thinkers on record have fretted over a century on growing income inequality. Yet over that time the quality of life for more people has improved. Could it be that the more equally income is distributed, the less there is a variation in all things, including quality of life? Could it be that income inequality actually makes possible those variations which bring us improvement? Could it be that forced equality by a central power restricts variations and therefor stagnates the ability to improve?

Could it be that income distribution which is "organic," which is a natural process occurring in a free market, is actually the most efficient way, in the long run, of distributing quality of life for more people? And that forced equality, of income distribution or anything else, makes progress more sluggish, if at all?

Here is something else to consider in terms of what is wealth? In a classic sense, wealth is ownership of actual things. Money, in a classic sense, is a medium of exchange. Its value is making the exchanging of stuff more efficient. It is an abstraction, a token representing, for example, your labor. And that value is actuated when you use that abstract token to buy stuff which you deem equal to your input of labor. But in a current sense, money has evolved from being an abstract of your labor used to exchange for some commodity into a commodity itself. And this commodification of money is, even according to Piketty (although he doesn't actually specify the notion of money as commodity), is the major reason for what he considers a dangerous rise in income inequality. In short, money buys money (investment which is translated into money). And as more money is bought, "wealth" in its current definition is expanded. And so it can be said that the 1% owns one third of our country's wealth.

But does that mean that the 1% owns one third of our country's actual stuff? No, they own a lot but nowhere near one third. What really sets them apart is their ownership of a lot more money. And that money is used to get more money. In essence, they have more money than they can exchange for stuff. If they were to buy all the stuff the economy would be destroyed. The economy is driven by exchange. And exchange would disappear if the 1% owned everything (with the exception that the 1% could exchange between themselves which would be a pretty meager marketplace).

So, how can it be that the 1% can own so much excess money? Well, if the money is not organically generated, that is, if it is not a function of commodity exchange and not printed to suit the needs of the market, but it is artificially printed in excess (as in the multiple quantitative easings) in order to artificially stimulate markets that don't exist, then there is excess money to buy and stuff into the 1%'s wealth basket. Money becomes a commodity.

Now if the market were truly free, the excess money could translate into new ventures which could expand the ability to exchange things that didn't exist before. But if the market is regulated to the point that it is more profitable for investors to stash the money and buy more money rather than gambling on new and uncertain ventures which overregulation makes more difficult, then money becomes the commodity to invest in.

In short, there is this "big picture" to which you like to refer. If, indeed, quality of life is, as your quote seems to say, "great", what is the problem of income inequality? And is income inequality really the culprit? Or is centralized control of the market by regulation and its desire to artificially stimulate market growth by printing more money than its regulated market can absorb the culprit?

The "big picture" is much larger than just railing against income inequality. We can miss the "big picture" if we don't understand that. And if we truly delve into that picture, we may find factors of a far more fundamental nature (even apocalyptic) than a mere talking point.