A strong message

[homersapien 12,172]

40 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

There seems to be this notion that not being charged equals innocence. 

Well, it hardly equals guilty.

I think the actual notion is that people are innocent until proven otherwise. It's a long legal tradition in this country.  

But this is a good example of why they Clinton's need to disassociate themselves from their foundation until Hillary is out of office. Clearly it's a political liability.

[AUFAN78 4,130]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Well, it hardly equals guilty.

I think the actual notion is that people are innocent until proven otherwise. It's a long legal tradition in this country.  

But this is a good example of why they Clinton's need to disassociate themselves from their foundation until Hillary is out of office. Clearly it's a political liability.

I agree. 

[homersapien 12,172]

53 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

No. You called it evidence. You explain homer

Well, if it's known that no 'pro' was received for the 'quid', I'd say that is evidence there was no 'quid pro quo' in this particular case.  

Now, let's hear your case for the contrary.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

1 hour ago, SaltyTiger said:

No. You called it evidence. You explain homer

Okay, I see.  You have no logic.  You have no reasoning.  Well, at least you were emphatic.  

[SaltyTiger 8,526]

16 hours ago, homersapien said:

Well, if it's known that no 'pro' was received for the 'quid', I'd say that is evidence there was no 'quid pro quo' in this particular case.  

Now, let's hear your case for the contrary.

No ' quid pro quo ' ?  Clinton Foundation - according to Sarge I have no logic but see no "evidence" my Auburn Brother

[homersapien 12,172]

1 hour ago, SaltyTiger said:

No ' quid pro quo ' ?  Clinton Foundation - according to Sarge I have no logic but see no "evidence" my Auburn Brother

That's not a case.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

1 hour ago, SaltyTiger said:

No ' quid pro quo ' ?  Clinton Foundation - according to Sarge I have no logic but see no "evidence" my Auburn Brother

To this point, your posts reflect nothing other than your opinion.  Your reluctance to share any basis for your opinion tells me something.  It should tell you something as well.

Perhaps your opinions have been formed by listening to biased, anecdotal information rather than, absorbing/discerning all information and, employing some critical thinking? Maybe you can not articulate the basis for your opinions because, your opinions lack any real basis?  You come across as just another ideological simpleton.  No offense but, you should try harder if you are going to participate.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Even the NYT is calling for the Clintons to separate themselves completely from their Foundation's activities calling the move an ethical imperative. When the biggest Clinton cheerleading most liberal rag in the country takes a position this strong, I'd say there's a lot more to this than just smoke. Bill is still taking money from foreign govts and has said he wont stop until Hillary is Pres. Anybody actually believe that lying sack of sh*t? LOL

“The fact that even the liberal New York Times thinks the Clinton Foundation presents an unacceptable conflict of interest is a devastating rebuke of Hillary Clinton’s poor judgment and broken ethical compass," spokesman Jason Miller said. "At a minimum, Hillary Clinton should heed the growing calls for her corrupt foundation to cease accepting foreign and corporate contributions immediately. With each donation she becomes more and more compromised

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/nyt-editorial-clinton-foundation-227529#ixzz4IvaqUPdP

 

[homersapien 12,172]

35 minutes ago, TheBlueVue said:

Even the NYT is calling for the Clintons to separate themselves completely from their Foundation's activities calling the move an ethical imperative. When the biggest Clinton cheerleading most liberal rag in the country takes a position this strong, I'd say there's a lot more to this than just smoke. Bill is still taking money from foreign govts and has said he wont stop until Hillary is Pres. Anybody actually believe that lying sack of sh*t? LOL

“The fact that even the liberal New York Times thinks the Clinton Foundation presents an unacceptable conflict of interest is a devastating rebuke of Hillary Clinton’s poor judgment and broken ethical compass," spokesman Jason Miller said. "At a minimum, Hillary Clinton should heed the growing calls for her corrupt foundation to cease accepting foreign and corporate contributions immediately. With each donation she becomes more and more compromised

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/nyt-editorial-clinton-foundation-227529#ixzz4IvaqUPdP

 

I feel the same way, but it's based on appearances.  It's obviously a political liability.

But in no way does that prove anything unethical has actually been done. 

[SaltyTiger 8,526]

1 hour ago, icanthearyou said:

To this point, your posts reflect nothing other than your opinion.  Your reluctance to share any basis for your opinion tells me something.  It should tell you something as well.

Perhaps your opinions have been formed by listening to biased, anecdotal information rather than, absorbing/discerning all information and, employing some critical thinking? Maybe you can not articulate the basis for your opinions because, your opinions lack any real basis?  You come across as just another ideological simpleton.  No offense but, you should try harder if you are going to participate.

Just as your post reflect none other than your opinions. I read nothing in the article as evidence of anything.

I will not attempt to assume where your opinions have been formed nor do I care. 

[icanthearyou 4,468]

2 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Just as your post reflect none other than your opinions. I read nothing in the article as evidence of anything.  No.  I asked a very specific question.  Your answer was emphatic but, void of any reasoning.  If you are unable to articulate any logical basis, then maybe more thought would be appropriate?

I will not attempt to assume where your opinions have been formed nor do I care.   LOL!  I don't know and I don't care?  LOL!  You really want to be the voice of ignorance and indifference?  Okay.

You don't care much for thinking, do you?  Perhaps you don't need to think?  Perhaps you already know everything?

[SaltyTiger 8,526]

52 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

You don't care much for thinking, do you?  Perhaps you don't need to think?  Perhaps you already know everything?

Sir! Yes Sir! I still read no evidence - specific answer to specific question sir.

[AUFAN78 4,130]

Salty indeed. 

[AURaptor 1,137]

22 hours ago, homersapien said:

I feel the same way, but it's based on appearances.  It's obviously a political liability.

But in no way does that prove anything unethical has actually been done. 

First of all, the very act of getting a private e-mail server was Hillary's INTENT to cover up her tracks and keep her communications hidden from scrutiny. She TRIED to keep this hidden. Damn near would have too, had it not been for - Yep, BENGHAZI !!! ( Ain't the real world a bitch ? ) 

Second, it's clearly unethical. Just as it was totally unethical for AG Lynch to meet Bill at the airport, by PURE happenstance ( lie ) , to ONLY chat about grand kids and such. That's why he waited for her for 2 hours ? 

But you'll never admit to what is so blatantly obvious, because it damages your " side ", your gal Hillary. 

 

* it gets worse !!! WE paid for Hillary's " private " server!! 

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/09/01/gets-worse-bill-clinton-paid-install-hillarys-private-server-taxpayer-money/

[tiger88 934]

On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 8:25 PM, AUUSN said:

"Still not voting for Trump"  -  AUUSN

He won't need it. 

[icanthearyou 4,468]

4 hours ago, tiger88 said:

He won't need it. 

That thier is rite.  He dont need no votes.

[tiger88 934]

5 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

That thier is rite.  He dont need no votes.

He doesnxt need them all, braniac.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

8 minutes ago, tiger88 said:

He doesnxt need them all, braniac.

How profound.  Thank you.  Another amazingly insightful effort.  Wow!  

[tiger88 934]

39 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

How profound.  Thank you.  Another amazingly insightful effort.  Wow!  

I suppose my mistake was responding to the typical idiocy you posted. 

[icanthearyou 4,468]

26 minutes ago, tiger88 said:

I suppose my mistake wa responding to the typical idiocy you posted. 

Oh please, continue to make that same mistake!

[TitanTiger 21,064]

5 hours ago, tiger88 said:

He won't need it. 

[tiger88 934]

22 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Oh please, continue to make that same mistake!

Oooooh. You a bad man! (Humungous LOL!)

[tiger88 934]

19 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

That MIGHT be funny if my father hadn't drank himself to death. 

 

 

 

 

Not. 

[AUFAN78 4,130]

Beware the pseudo-intellectual. I love this place.