Will The Clinton Foundation Be HRC's Downfall?

[Webster]

*deadpans* ...a lot of stuff doesn't apply to your foundation, does it?

 

[mrldii]

*deadpans* Yeah, I know what the definition of a hypocrite; I've been on both sides of that particular reference; at least I can say that when I do show a bit of hypocrisy, I'm upfront and honest about it.

Oh.


So, you don't mind being a hypocrite, when and if it suits - and promotes - your agenda. Got it.


Too bad there's not a real big market for snake oil anymore, huh?





In any event, you've just let be known you're not here for intelligent discussion or discourse...you simply enjoy trolling internet forums, being hypocritical and/or snarky and/or yanking chains just to get some - ANY - attention. AND, this site made you a Mod.


Interesting information. Speaks volumes...about something, anyway.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Ummmm...I'm sorry...I thought this was a predominantly English-speaking site.

AS I'D ALREADY STATED, of the currently-running [12] Republicans (Andrews, Bowers, Christensen, Cruz, Dummett, Everson, Hill, Kinlaw, Paul, Peyto, Rubio, and Russell), no...no name.

To be able TO run on the Republican ticket, in addition to being pro-military spending and action-taking, rah-rah-guns-EVERYone-should-have-one, and pro-we're-a-Christian-nation-built-to-serve-Jesus (we're not), you also have to be against gay marriage, against a woman's right to choose, and - if not anti-women - at least believe women are "lesser-thans", which is why women's equality is not even an issue worth mentioning on their campaign sites. Why devote precious time and space to something that doesn't even matter?


Nope. When and if the Republican party decides to STOP being the Old White Man's Club, I'll pay them some attention and perhaps think about returning my registration and my support to them. Until that time, not only will they not have my support


I'll continue to work against them.

Now you gave a name. Wrong in every sense of the word but you did give names this time. Comparing Cruz, Doctor Carson and Scott Walker to the criminal activities of the Clintons that should have people jailed and hung for treason is amusing and truly does give a out loud laugh this morning.


And again you need to be specific on who in the republican party you are talking about who you call the old white mans club. In general I might agree with that who run the party but would strongly disagree thats the way the newly elected in the republican party the most diverse group of young men, women and ethnic backgrounds ever want it.

 

[mrldii]

...In general I might agree with that who run the party but would strongly disagree thats the way the newly elected in the republican party the most diverse group of young men, women and ethnic backgrounds ever want it.

Oh. My bad. The Republican party has suddenly become more diverse and all-encompassing, and I just failed to notice.

Which of the 12 candidates running for POTUS in 2016 is a woman? And, why did she decide to have a sex-change operation TO run for president on the Republican ticket?

Choice when continuing/terminating a pregnancy is the Law of the Land; ergo, those railing against abortion being an option for others are being il-legal. Don't believe in it? Fine...don't do it.

It is unconstitutional to afford rights/privileges/punishments to one segment while denying/protecting another segment the same access; ergo, denying an American the right to marry the person they love (who is not a sibling or 1st cousin) or offering them "a separate but equal" option is unconstitutional. A Church doesn't want to marry a gay couple? Fine...don't; there's plenty who will, and who will gladly accept the fees associated with performing a ceremony, as they realize $250 from a gay couple buys just as many wafers and wine as $250 from a white couple who are planning on having the requisite 2.1 children.


I'm surprised I have to explain this to you...yanno, since you're so proud of the fact that you and Ted Cruz hold The Constitution so near-and-dear. The two of you should actually read it and understand it; it says a LOT of things which the two of you - and others - keep glossing over, because those words DON'T fit your agenda.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

ExceptTE="mrldii, post: 485271, member: 2266"]Oh. My bad. The Republican party has suddenly become more diverse and all-encompassing, and I just failed to notice.

Which of the 12 candidates running for POTUS in 2016 is a woman? And, why did she decide to have a sex-change operation TO run for president on the Republican ticket?

Choice when continuing/terminating a pregnancy is the Law of the Land; ergo, those railing against abortion being an option for others are being il-legal. Don't believe in it? Fine...don't do it.

It is unconstitutional to afford rights/privileges/punishments to one segment while denying/protecting another segment the same access; ergo, denying an American the right to marry the person they love (who is not a sibling or 1st cousin) or offering them "a separate but equal" option is unconstitutional. A Church doesn't want to marry a gay couple? Fine...don't; there's plenty who will, and who will gladly accept the fees associated with performing a ceremony, as they realize $250 from a gay couple buys just as many wafers and wine as $250 from a white couple who are planning on having the requisite 2.1 children.


I'm surprised I have to explain this to you...yanno, since you're so proud of the fact that you and Ted Cruz hold The Constitution so near-and-dear. The two of you should actually read it and understand it; it says a LOT of things which the two of you - and others - keep glossing over, because those words DON'T fit your agenda.[/QUOTE]

Except that whole analysis you wrote is utterly wrong and Cruz would still be correct.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

...God, let us hope so...then again, when have the Clintons' ever played by the rules?

Today from the free beLll

...God, let us hope so...then again, when have the Clintons' ever played by the rules?

...God, let us hope so...then again, when have the Clintons' ever played by the rules?

Today on the Radio they were reporting from the free beacon little miss mao pays women72 cents for every dollar they pay men. Criminals and mount Rushmore hypocrites! The woman who yells equal pay for women. Know I don't believe this myth exists but little miss mao can't even be bothered to try and do what she preaches.

 

[Webster]

Oh.
So, you don't mind being a hypocrite, when and if it suits - and promotes - your agenda. Got it.

In any event, you've just let be known you're not here for intelligent discussion or discourse...you simply enjoy trolling internet forums, being hypocritical and/or snarky and/or yanking chains just to get some - ANY - attention. AND, this site made you a Mod.

You're really good at circular logic, huh, my friend?
I did not say I didn't mind being called a hypocrite; what I said was is that whenever I've been called out for my hypocrisy, I've owned up to it and moved along...

*re-reads the troll part* ...all I've got to say there is....

 

[mrldii]

...I did not say I didn't mind being called a hypocrite; what I said was is that whenever I've been called out for my hypocrisy, I've owned up to it and moved along...

Then, in addition to being a "hypocrite", you are also a liar

as this thread, alone, proves.



In any event, since all of it, on this and other threads, IS still all there in black-and-white, you [at the very least] share the characteristics of an online troll. AND, you were made a Moderator on this site.

Because you are obviously not here for intelligent discussion and discourse, I am done with you...withOUT ever taking advantage of that online "ignore" button. Time will tell if I'm done with a site who makes people who are not interested in intelligent discussion and discourse and [at the very least] share the characteristics of an online troll, "Mods" on that site.



Enjoy your virtual existence, without my continued participation in it.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Little Miss Mao the queen of hypocrites.

QUOTE

Hillary Clinton’s War on Women
Analysis: As senator, Clinton paid women 72 cents for each dollar paid to men




February 23, 2015 5:00 am


Hillary Clinton portrays herself as a champion of women in the workforce, but women working for her in the U.S. Senate were paid 72 cents for each dollar paid to men, according to a Washington Free Beacon analysis of her Senate years’ salary data.

During those years, the median annual salary for a woman working in Clinton’s office was $15,708.38 less than the median salary for a man, according to the analysis of data compiled from official Senate expenditure reports.

The analysis compiled the annual salaries paid to staffers for an entire fiscal year of work from the years 2002 to 2008. Salaries of employees who were not part of Clinton’s office for a full fiscal year were not included. Because the Senate fiscal year extends from Oct. 1 to Sept. 30, Clinton’s first year in the Senate, which began on Jan. 3, 2001, was also not included in the analysis.

The salaries speak for themselves. The data shows that women in her office were paid 72 cents for every dollar paid to men.



Despite the numbers, Clinton and her allies have long-touted her as “a fighter for equal pay.”

Correct the Record, a pro-Clinton organization that fights negative reporting on her, pointed out that as a senator she chaired hearings on the issue and sponsored legislation to address it.

Clinton herself has raised the issue, saying last year that there is still “more work to do,” and that 20 years ago women made just “72 cents on the dollar to men”–a figure identical to the gender pay gap in her own Senate office.

http://freebeacon.com/politics/hillary-clintons-war-on-women/

QUOTE

 

[mrldii]

ExceptTE="mrldii, post: 485271, member: 2266"]Oh. My bad. The Republican party has suddenly become more diverse and all-encompassing, and I just failed to notice.

Which of the 12 candidates running for POTUS in 2016 is a woman? And, why did she decide to have a sex-change operation TO run for president on the Republican ticket?

Choice when continuing/terminating a pregnancy is the Law of the Land; ergo, those railing against abortion being an option for others are being il-legal. Don't believe in it? Fine...don't do it.

It is unconstitutional to afford rights/privileges/punishments to one segment while denying/protecting another segment the same access; ergo, denying an American the right to marry the person they love (who is not a sibling or 1st cousin) or offering them "a separate but equal" option is unconstitutional. A Church doesn't want to marry a gay couple? Fine...don't; there's plenty who will, and who will gladly accept the fees associated with performing a ceremony, as they realize $250 from a gay couple buys just as many wafers and wine as $250 from a white couple who are planning on having the requisite 2.1 children.


I'm surprised I have to explain this to you...yanno, since you're so proud of the fact that you and Ted Cruz hold The Constitution so near-and-dear. The two of you should actually read it and understand it; it says a LOT of things which the two of you - and others - keep glossing over, because those words DON'T fit your agenda.

Except that whole analysis you wrote is utterly wrong and Cruz would still be correct.

Please learn how to effectively push buttons while online. Because of your ignorance, it now appears that YOU finally began making some sense while posting.


You practically gave poor ol' Webber and a few others a damned-near heart attack. Praise Allah they didn't understand a word of what it appears you just said due to your ineffectual online button pushing skills when attempting to quote others and it ends up looking like you finally posted something intelligent.


In your haste to claim my words as your own, you neglected to tell me which one of the currently-running 12 Republican candidates is a woman who had a sex change operation, so she'd be more acceptable to the Ol' White-Haired He-Man Club while running for office as a man.




ETA: I made my words a bigger and bolder red, so now I'M *right*er than you.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Please learn how to effectively push buttons while online. Because of your ignorance, it now appears that YOU finally began making some sense while posting.


You practically gave poor ol' Webber and a few others a damned-near heart attack. Praise Allah they didn't understand a word of what it appears you just said due to your ineffectual online button pushing skills when attempting to quote others and it ends up looking like you finally posted something intelligent.


In your haste to claim my words as your own, you neglected to tell me which one of the currently-running 12 Republican candidates is a woman who had a sex change operation, so she'd be more acceptable to the Ol' White-Haired He-Man Club while running for office as a man.




ETA: I made my words a bigger and bolder red, so now I'M *right*er than you.

Firstly, I have no idea what in the hell you are ranting about.

Secondly, why can't people like you who disagree just have a back and forth disagreement without making it so personal without these personal attacks against the poster like a petulant little child.

Thirdly, LOL!

 

[mrldii]

Firstly, I have no idea what in the hell you are ranting about.

Secondly, why can't people like you who disagree just have a back and forth disagreement without making it so personal without these personal attacks against the poster like a petulant little child.

Thirdly, LOL!

Indeed.


Why don't you tell us why you're incapable of having a discussion "without these personal attacks against the poster like a petulant little child."


Oh, the sweet irony.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Indeed.


Why don't you tell us why you're incapable of having a discussion "without these personal attacks against the poster like a petulant little child."


Oh, the sweet irony.

I attack the topic not the poster. But yet others prefer just the opposite. So! Not so much irony at all. But I do have a conversation I just can't help you if you do not like my responses.

 

[mrldii]

I attack the topic not the poster. But yet others prefer just the opposite. So! Not so much irony at all. But I do have a conversation I just can't help you if you do not like my responses.

Oh.

Which part of "the topic not the poster" were you attacking with the "like a petulant little child" phrasing? Were you calling The Clinton Foundation a "petulant little child" or was Hillary the "petulant little child"?

Yanno, since "(You) attack the topic not the poster" with the wording "like a petulant little child", while 'attacking the topic, not a poster'.




Oh, the sweet irony. And, hypocrisy. And, online blindness. And, *right*eousness.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Oh.

Which part of "the topic not the poster" were you attacking with the "like a petulant little child" phrasing? Were you calling The Clinton Foundation a "petulant little child" or was Hillary the "petulant little child"?

Yanno, since "(You) attack the topic not the poster" with the wording "like a petulant little child", while 'attacking the topic, not a poster'.




Oh, the sweet irony. And, hypocrisy. And, online blindness. And, *right*eousness.

No, I was clearly calling you that. I can only sit back and let it go for so long until I gotta respond back. Now if you wanna continue to disagree with me on virtually every subject I am good with that and will even enjoy it and you will never see a comment like that again. But after while when you might once again get frustrated because you do not like my answers and say what you did above well then I will call it out once again. Bet you can't do it!

 

[Nebulous]

Just posted this in another thread:



Just throwing this out there..

If you click in to someone's profile, then click "Ignore," all their posts will no longer be visible to you.

There's plenty of people to talk to on here. Avoid the one's you know you're going to have conflicts with.

Healthy debates and occasional disagreements are one thing, but if it's going beyond that, hit that ignore button and save yourself from the drama.

That's my advice anyway.