| |
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
| |
| Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi: |
08-24-2016, 07:40 PM
|
#1
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,429
|
Spence, there's a question I have asked twice, I don't see that you attempted to answer. So here it is for a third time.
The Clintons have said that if he wins the election, the foundation will stop accepting foreign donations.
Here is my question...are you ready? By what possible logic is it unethical for a POTUS to accept foreign donations, but acceptable for a SecState to accept the same exact donations?
I cannot wait for your reply. I'm all a-twitter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-24-2016, 08:16 PM
|
#2
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
By what possible logic is it unethical
|
“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the–if he–if ‘is’ means is and never has................... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-24-2016, 09:03 PM
|
#3
|
|
Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Middleboro MA
Posts: 17,120
|
I got a secret for you Jim
Money will buy you anything ANYTHING
|
The United States Constitution does not exist to grant you rights; those rights are inherent within you. Rather it exists to frame a limited government so that those natural rights can be exercised freely.
1984 was a warning, not a guidebook!
It's time more people spoke up with the truth. Every time we let a leftist lie go uncorrected, the commies get stronger.
|
|
|
|
|
08-24-2016, 09:07 PM
|
#4
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Libtardia
Posts: 21,561
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slipknot
I got a secret for you Jim
Money will buy you anything ANYTHING
|
There's two things money can't buy. and that's true love and homegrown tomatoes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-24-2016, 09:54 PM
|
#5
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe
There's two things money can't buy. and that's true love and homegrown tomatoes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
I bought a big tomato to go with my lunch today. The market labeled the tomatoes as "homegrown." It wasn't specified in whose home the tomatoes were grown. Maybe some big California agri-farm which uses migrant laborers who live somewhere on the property.
As for true love, if because of some legal dispute in which "true love" is supposed to be a factor, it goes before a Progressive judge, he/she might interpret, for social justice purposes, that true love does indeed involve money. Maybe like if some poor hooker type is just trying to make a living, that it is indeed "true love" for humanity, in the grand scale of things, to sell her favors in order to make some lonely guy happy.
And then there is the "true love" of money. Money can buy you as much of that true love as you can afford.
You have to be careful, Nebe, of putting your faith or rationality in any absolutes. We live in a world of Spencist relativity. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-25-2016, 06:38 AM
|
#6
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Libtardia
Posts: 21,561
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
I bought a big tomato to go with my lunch today. The market labeled the tomatoes as "homegrown." It wasn't specified in whose home the tomatoes were grown. Maybe some big California agri-farm which uses migrant laborers who live somewhere on the property.
As for true love, if because of some legal dispute in which "true love" is supposed to be a factor, it goes before a Progressive judge, he/she might interpret, for social justice purposes, that true love does indeed involve money. Maybe like if some poor hooker type is just trying to make a living, that it is indeed "true love" for humanity, in the grand scale of things, to sell her favors in order to make some lonely guy happy.
And then there is the "true love" of money. Money can buy you as much of that true love as you can afford.
You have to be careful, Nebe, of putting your faith or rationality in any absolutes. We live in a world of Spencist relativity.
|
My comment went way over your head.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-25-2016, 07:17 AM
|
#7
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe
There's two things money can't buy. and that's true love and homegrown tomatoes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
in can buy a luxury home on a beach in Vermont for a socialist who professes the importance and need to redistribute everyone else's wealth  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-25-2016, 07:38 AM
|
#8
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Libtardia
Posts: 21,561
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw
in can buy a luxury home on a beach in Vermont for a socialist who professes the importance and need to redistribute everyone else's wealth |
Dig deeper and you will learn that that house was bought with funds from a house that his wife inherited in Maine. 
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-25-2016, 07:45 AM
|
#9
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,429
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe
Dig deeper and you will learn that that house was bought with funds from a house that his wife inherited in Maine.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
No one is accusing Sanders of stealing the money they used to buy that house. The point is, he has a $600,000 second house, which means that he has no problem keeping enough of what he thinks is his, to pamper himself. Yet he doesn't think others have the same right. Again, it's ALWAYS do as I say, not as I do. He spent most of his campaign telling us that income inequality is evil, yet he has no issue with lavishing himself with the spoils of income inequality.
If it's OK for him to acquire enough wealth to have a $600,000 vacation home, then he has no right to say it's wrong that an investment banker at Goldman Sachs tries to do the same exact thing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-25-2016, 08:19 AM
|
#10
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe
Dig deeper and you will learn that that house was bought with funds from a house that his wife inherited in Maine.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
even worse....those funds should have been redistributed to the masses...this is an outrage! how many homes does a devoted socialist need!
actually....he's doing alright for a guy that's never had a real job.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-25-2016, 07:46 AM
|
#11
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,429
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw
“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the–if he–if ‘is’ means is and never has...................
|
Quite right. And zip from Spence as far as answering my question goes. Because he can't. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-25-2016, 09:49 AM
|
#12
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,183
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
Quite right. And zip from Spence as far as answering my question goes. Because he can't.
|
The question about why now but not when she was Sec State? The answer is simple, because as POTUS she sets policy, as Sec State she didn't. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-25-2016, 09:55 AM
|
#13
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
The question about why now but not when she was Sec State? The answer is simple, because as POTUS she sets policy, as Sec State she didn't.
|
don't tell her that 
she'd better kill Julian Assange pretty soon here..... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-25-2016, 10:49 AM
|
#14
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
The question about why now but not when she was Sec State? The answer is simple, because as POTUS she sets policy, as Sec State she didn't.
|
Yes, the answer is simple. The point of doing it when she was SecState was to help her become POTUS. When she was the Secretary, she had influence and could make promises to donors about what policy she would set when she became POTUS. When she gets that prize, mission will be accomplished--she will no longer need the Foundation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-25-2016, 10:51 AM
|
#15
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,183
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
Yes, the answer is simple. The point of doing it when she was SecState was to help her become POTUS. When she gets that prize, mission will be accomplished--she will no longer need the Foundation.
|
You forgot the evil laugh. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-25-2016, 10:55 AM
|
#16
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
You forgot the evil laugh.
|
The evil laugh would not be useful when asking for money. It is useful to pooh pooh those who would point out what she was doing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-25-2016, 11:25 AM
|
#17
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,429
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
The question about why now but not when she was Sec State? The answer is simple, because as POTUS she sets policy, as Sec State she didn't.
|
You're saying that the SecState has zero authority to set, or even to influence, policy. That is demonstrably false. SecState can't unillaterally declare war. But SecState can decide who to meet with, and who to suggest we sell arms to. During her tenure, it sure seems to have been beneficial for those who want US-made arms, to give big. The guy from Bahrain wrote a personal check of 32M to her foundation, then - VOILA!! - he is able to buy more weapons from America, which he used to crush those who suggested that democracy might be a better option than totalitarianism.
To you, that's not even the appearance of impropriety.
Enjoy your denial-fest. |
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:43 AM.
|
| |
Hybrid Mode