Hillary's paychecks

[Patrick]

 
Interesting.​...And she tells us the banks don’t own her!  She absolutely denies she owes these contributors anything and, quite the contrary, her rhetoric is anti-banks.
 
Out of the 92, only about 5 or 6 are less than $225,000.00.
 
Here's The FULL List of 92 Paychecks Hillary Collected From Wall Street
BETWEEN 2013 and 2015!
 
http://thefederalistpapers.integratedmarket.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Hillary-angry.jpg
 
The media’s going nuts that Hillary Clinton took three big paychecks
for three speeches at Goldman Sachs. At $225,000 a pop that’s pretty good scratch – but it’s just the tip of the iceberg.
 
She’s been very, very busy, raking in millions in a three-year stretch since she left her post as the Secretary of State.

Her defense? It varies from “It’s what they offered me” to the hilarious “I happen to think we need more conversations about what’s going on in the world.”  Pricey “conversations” indeed.

Here’s a list of the 92 “conversations” that Clinton has had in just the past three years.

The total: $21.7 million.
 
http://thefederalistpapers.integratedmarket.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Hillary-Clinton-Speeches-2013-2015_1.jpg
She’s been very, very busy. What did Hillary promise in all these Speeches?
 
What was her advice to Deutche Bank, Cisco and the Council of Insurance Agents? What did she tell
eBay?
 
Or the “American Camping Association” and why on earth would the American Camping Association pay $260,000 to hear from
Hillary?
 
Has she ever been camping?  We may never know because she refuses to tell us.
 
What Hillary discloses to us peasants is on a “need to know” basis only.  And we all know she wouldn't lie.

Previous Message |  Next Message
  by Taboola Sponsored Links From Around The Web

[czuch]

I think she cant be elected.
Only because she would have to deliver on all her graft promises.
Think of the promises she made to all the unfriendly to America, friends of hers.
30,000 emails deleted, private server.
 Her yoga schedule,,,,,,,ummmm we're not quite that stupid.
She would have Mosad level operators out for vengeance, when she didn't deliver.
Well orchestrated failure.

[The emperor has no clothes]

This has been the gist of Bernie Sanders campaign all along. 

[Jess from VA]

The only thing worth paying her for.......... is to stop talking.

[Gavin_Sons]

i'd pay her to jump off a high bridge, which would lead to her not talking.

[Patrick]

i'd pay her to jump off a high bridge, which would lead to her not talking.

She'd be jabbering on all the way down though.

[..]

Ignore the end frame

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0LlGxmL40Y

[hubcapsc]

The media’s going nuts that Hillary Clinton took three big paychecks

The media's nuts... period.

Anyone who wants to pay me thousands of dollars to talk, contact me,
I'll let y'all know where to line up to give me the checks!

-Mike

[Rams]

The media’s going nuts that Hillary Clinton took three big paychecks

The media's nuts... period.

Anyone who wants to pay me thousands of dollars to talk, contact me,
I'll let y'all know where to line up to give me the checks!

-Mike

Mike,
I can write checks all day or until I run out of checks, will you take an IOU? 

I'm quite confident all that money will find it's way to middle class Americans soon, be patient......

[G-Man]

The media’s going nuts that Hillary Clinton took three big paychecks

The media's nuts... period.

Anyone who wants to pay me thousands of dollars to talk, contact me,
I'll let y'all know where to line up to give me the checks!

-Mike

If someone "gave" you thousands to talk, wouldn't you feel obligated to them to be available for questions?  

Well, what kind of availability do millions buy?  And how many entities, that "gave" you those millions are entitled to the would-be president's availability? 

[mike72903]

The media’s going nuts that Hillary Clinton took three big paychecks

The media's nuts... period.

Anyone who wants to pay me thousands of dollars to talk, contact me,
I'll let y'all know where to line up to give me the checks!

-Mike

Mike,

I'm quite confident all that money will find it's way to middle class Americans soon, be patient......

Wait,  Isn't the "Trickle Down Theory" one of the cornerstones of the Republican Party?  Make the rich and powerful even richer and it will trickle down to the middle class.  Reagan came up with this and surely he could not have been wrong 

[Patrick]

The media’s going nuts that Hillary Clinton took three big paychecks

The media's nuts... period.

Anyone who wants to pay me thousands of dollars to talk, contact me,
I'll let y'all know where to line up to give me the checks!

-Mike

If someone "gave" you thousands to talk, wouldn't you feel obligated to them to be available for questions?  

Well, what kind of availability do millions buy?  And how many entities, that "gave" you those millions are entitled to the would-be president's availability? 

Seems as though that has been going on right along with those two.

[Lyonardo]

Of course this is an issue because it's campaign season, but Clinton is not alone here. Her fees are some of the highest ever, but still only a fraction of what Trump demands.
These type of payouts are basically the same as how Paris Hilton and the Kardashians make their millions, and are how almost every politician makes money between holding office. Sanders is pretty rare, since he's only made about $2,000 in speaking fees. Still, he's capitalized on business deals by using the fame he gained by being office.
Republican, Democrat, Independent, whatever... They all get paid for just showing up.
They all also argue that they are not influenced by those pay days.

The truth is that some companies actually want to buy influence. Some just want the marketing benefit that having a famous person speak at their shareholder meeting implies. Others want to open a dialogue that may or may not pay off later.
In my opinion, it's all a bad idea. But it's legal and it's not going to stop.

The only thing more harmful to our political process is direct campaign contributions, and "super pac" money.

The only reason to single out Clinton or Trump on this is as a political tactic. And from that perspective, it's a pretty good tactic.

The "never Trump", and the "never Hildabeast" camps will single out the one they hate, but why stop with them?

[Moonshot_1]

The media’s going nuts that Hillary Clinton took three big paychecks

The media's nuts... period.

Anyone who wants to pay me thousands of dollars to talk, contact me,
I'll let y'all know where to line up to give me the checks!

-Mike

Mike,

I'm quite confident all that money will find it's way to middle class Americans soon, be patient......

Wait,  Isn't the "Trickle Down Theory" one of the cornerstones of the Republican Party?  Make the rich and powerful even richer and it will trickle down to the middle class.  Reagan came up with this and surely he could not have been wrong 

Yeah I know. Trickle down, what rubbish. The "Let's get the poor, broke people to give us jobs" theory is way better. 

[MP]

Yep.  the guy on welfare, sitting on the corner, is sure going to hire BUNCHES of workers.

[Daddie O]

The opposite of "trickle down" is not let a welfare recipient hire you.  Either that is willful ignorance or purposeful mistruth.  The opposite of trickle down is creating more wealth for the middle and lower class through better wages.  Better wages equals more money to spend, which equals more demand for products and services, which equal the need to hire more workers.  Giving a billionaire more billions does not make him hire more workers if there is not more demand for products and services.  

Through tax breaks, subsidies, and offshore bank accounts, Republicans have been redistributing wealth to the top 1%.  That form of wealth distribution is unsustainable for the reasons I mentioned above.  You gut the middle class, and there is no money to be spent on products and services, so less need to hire workers.  The disparity grows greater every day.  The sad thing is, the big businesses are able to buy politicians, and Republicans have been fooled into thinking that any form of equality means taking away liberty.

So, Republicans vote against their interests, because they have been convinced that although they aren't in the 1%, that somehow in this rigged system they have a good opportunity to be, so they vote against the equality needed to give themselves a fair shot, all in the name of supposed "liberty".

They vote to keep big multinational corporations that rake in billions in profits getting subsidies.  They want Supreme Court justices that think that corporations are people too, except without limits on campaign contributions.  They want tax codes that shift the burden to the middle class, and away from the upper class, because the rich have fooled them into thinking that money will "trickle down".  Instead of demanding that the middle class get what they are paying for with their taxes, they want to see social programs cut, so that the rich can have even more money.

When someone like President Obama points out that we are a society, and it is our collective efforts that help propel us to greater prosperity, Republicans take a snippet out of context and say see, the President said "You didn't build that" and he thinks I don't work hard.

I wish Republicans were not so easily fooled by big business, the unbridled greed of corporate America, and the corrupt politicians that big business has bought.  They've convinced you that workers banding together in unions to protect their rights is somehow wrong.  They've convinced you that a living wage for workers is wrong.  They've convinced you that having a country of healthy, educated workers is somehow not in your best interest.

[DK]

Careful, I think everyone agrees that almost all members of congress spend in excess of 80% of their time panhandling for $$$$$.

This discussion may be a sensitive issue for legislators you admire. (If any)

As has been said, no one contributes that kind of money without receiving something in return. Unfortunately, this maxim applies to all members of congress.

[Daddie O]

This post illustrates how they have you worrying about Hillary's speaking fees, yet not worrying about Trump refusing to release his taxes.  A multi-millionaire vs a multi-billionaire, both skirting the edges of legality.

Bernie Sanders has a net worth of just over $500k including his house, car, and everything he owns.  He is not bought and paid for by corporate America.  Big business has Republicans scared and confused about Bernie.  They are told democratic socialism is the same as socialism, is the same as communism.  They falsely tell you that Bernie wants to take all your hard earned money and give it someone else, someone lazy.  They tell you he wants to take away your freedom.  I wonder, why do the mega rich companies, and the super wealthy want you to choose between the multi-millionaire or the multi-billionaire, both of which have and will take monstrously huge donations from them?

[Rams]

This post illustrates how they have you worrying about Hillary's speaking fees, yet not worrying about Trump refusing to release his taxes.  A multi-millionaire vs a multi-billionaire, both skirting the edges of legality.

Bernie Sanders has a net worth of just over $500k including his house, car, and everything he owns.  He is not bought and paid for by corporate America.  Big business has Republicans scared and confused about Bernie.  They are told democratic socialism is the same as socialism, is the same as communism.  They falsely tell you that Bernie wants to take all your hard earned money and give it someone else, someone lazy.  They tell you he wants to take away your freedom.  I wonder, why do the mega rich companies, and the super wealthy want you to choose between the multi-millionaire or the multi-billionaire, both of which have and will take monstrously huge donations from them?

Personally, I don't care what Hilary charges.    What I care about is her lack of integrity.

Bernie has Republicans worried/scared?    I don't think so.   I'll agree he's got a bunch of people confused but, that's more about his math skills.    They don't make sense... 

[Jess from VA]

Best news Virginia's had in a while.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/05/23/terry-mcauliffe-clinton-bagman-fbi-investigation/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

Look, another truckload of bribery money.  Yummy.  Thanks for the 200K felon votes buddy.

[Daddie O]

This post illustrates how they have you worrying about Hillary's speaking fees, yet not worrying about Trump refusing to release his taxes.  A multi-millionaire vs a multi-billionaire, both skirting the edges of legality.

Bernie Sanders has a net worth of just over $500k including his house, car, and everything he owns.  He is not bought and paid for by corporate America.  Big business has Republicans scared and confused about Bernie.  They are told democratic socialism is the same as socialism, is the same as communism.  They falsely tell you that Bernie wants to take all your hard earned money and give it someone else, someone lazy.  They tell you he wants to take away your freedom.  I wonder, why do the mega rich companies, and the super wealthy want you to choose between the multi-millionaire or the multi-billionaire, both of which have and will take monstrously huge donations from them?

Personally, I don't care what Hilary charges.    What I care about is her lack of integrity.

Bernie has Republicans worried/scared?    I don't think so.   I'll agree he's got a bunch of people confused but, that's more about his math skills.    They don't make sense... 

You think Trump has integrity?  Also, Bernie beats Trump in pretty much every poll.

[mike72903]

The opposite of "trickle down" is not let a welfare recipient hire you.  Either that is willful ignorance or purposeful mistruth.  The opposite of trickle down is creating more wealth for the middle and lower class through better wages.  Better wages equals more money to spend, which equals more demand for products and services, which equal the need to hire more workers.  Giving a billionaire more billions does not make him hire more workers if there is not more demand for products and services.  

Through tax breaks, subsidies, and offshore bank accounts, Republicans have been redistributing wealth to the top 1%.  That form of wealth distribution is unsustainable for the reasons I mentioned above.  You gut the middle class, and there is no money to be spent on products and services, so less need to hire workers.  The disparity grows greater every day.  The sad thing is, the big businesses are able to buy politicians, and Republicans have been fooled into thinking that any form of equality means taking away liberty.

So, Republicans vote against their interests, because they have been convinced that although they aren't in the 1%, that somehow in this rigged system they have a good opportunity to be, so they vote against the equality needed to give themselves a fair shot, all in the name of supposed "liberty".

They vote to keep big multinational corporations that rake in billions in profits getting subsidies.  They want Supreme Court justices that think that corporations are people too, except without limits on campaign contributions.  They want tax codes that shift the burden to the middle class, and away from the upper class, because the rich have fooled them into thinking that money will "trickle down".  Instead of demanding that the middle class get what they are paying for with their taxes, they want to see social programs cut, so that the rich can have even more money.

When someone like President Obama points out that we are a society, and it is our collective efforts that help propel us to greater prosperity, Republicans take a snippet out of context and say see, the President said "You didn't build that" and he thinks I don't work hard.

I wish Republicans were not so easily fooled by big business, the unbridled greed of corporate America, and the corrupt politicians that big business has bought.  They've convinced you that workers banding together in unions to protect their rights is somehow wrong.  They've convinced you that a living wage for workers is wrong.  They've convinced you that having a country of healthy, educated workers is somehow not in your best interest.

Well said Daddie O. Reflects my views about Republican manipulation pretty much. The sad thing is they are laughing at the population they are taking advantage of on the way to the off shore bank.  Not to be outdone the far right media stokes the fires of fear, uncertainty, hatered and bigotry and enjoying the cash that rolls in.

[Roadog]

The opposite of "trickle down" is not let a welfare recipient hire you.  Either that is willful ignorance or purposeful mistruth.  The opposite of trickle down is creating more wealth for the middle and lower class through better wages.  Better wages equals more money to spend, which equals more demand for products and services, which equal the need to hire more workers.  Giving a billionaire more billions does not make him hire more workers if there is not more demand for products and services.  

Through tax breaks, subsidies, and offshore bank accounts, Republicans have been redistributing wealth to the top 1%.  That form of wealth distribution is unsustainable for the reasons I mentioned above.  You gut the middle class, and there is no money to be spent on products and services, so less need to hire workers.  The disparity grows greater every day.  The sad thing is, the big businesses are able to buy politicians, and Republicans have been fooled into thinking that any form of equality means taking away liberty.

So, Republicans vote against their interests, because they have been convinced that although they aren't in the 1%, that somehow in this rigged system they have a good opportunity to be, so they vote against the equality needed to give themselves a fair shot, all in the name of supposed "liberty".

They vote to keep big multinational corporations that rake in billions in profits getting subsidies.  They want Supreme Court justices that think that corporations are people too, except without limits on campaign contributions.  They want tax codes that shift the burden to the middle class, and away from the upper class, because the rich have fooled them into thinking that money will "trickle down".  Instead of demanding that the middle class get what they are paying for with their taxes, they want to see social programs cut, so that the rich can have even more money.

When someone like President Obama points out that we are a society, and it is our collective efforts that help propel us to greater prosperity, Republicans take a snippet out of context and say see, the President said "You didn't build that" and he thinks I don't work hard.

I wish Republicans were not so easily fooled by big business, the unbridled greed of corporate America, and the corrupt politicians that big business has bought.  They've convinced you that workers banding together in unions to protect their rights is somehow wrong.  They've convinced you that a living wage for workers is wrong.  They've convinced you that having a country of healthy, educated workers is somehow not in your best interest.

Did you realize you mentioned  Republicans 5 times and 'they' (repubs) 11 times and 'them' (repubs) once. so you pointed at the Republicans 17 times in your rant and mentioned the dems '0' times.   So...you believe the dems have 0 off shore accounts , only Republicans can do that sort of thing .   Just sayin' very easy to 'see' what side you might be on.   Oh and I dont believe anybody died on Trumps watch.  You failed to mention any of that.  I am sure Ambassador Stevens would not agree with your choice .  I am sure he would have much to add to H's resume , you know wanting to Pres. and all.  Trump should make his taxes public when 'O' releases his school records. You didnt mention anything about that guess you just forgot.  As always, JMHO.

Roadog

[hukmut]

OK y'all. This outta open up a bigass can o'worms:   just for grins, let' just say that just one of you looks up the

"Act of 1871"



Get back with us later.








Ride safe....

[Rams]

This post illustrates how they have you worrying about Hillary's speaking fees, yet not worrying about Trump refusing to release his taxes.  A multi-millionaire vs a multi-billionaire, both skirting the edges of legality.

Bernie Sanders has a net worth of just over $500k including his house, car, and everything he owns.  He is not bought and paid for by corporate America.  Big business has Republicans scared and confused about Bernie.  They are told democratic socialism is the same as socialism, is the same as communism.  They falsely tell you that Bernie wants to take all your hard earned money and give it someone else, someone lazy.  They tell you he wants to take away your freedom.  I wonder, why do the mega rich companies, and the super wealthy want you to choose between the multi-millionaire or the multi-billionaire, both of which have and will take monstrously huge donations from them?

Personally, I don't care what Hilary charges.    What I care about is her lack of integrity.

Bernie has Republicans worried/scared?    I don't think so.   I'll agree he's got a bunch of people confused but, that's more about his math skills.    They don't make sense... 

You think Trump has integrity?  Also, Bernie beats Trump in pretty much every poll.

Compared to Hilary, Trump is a Boy Scout Honor Man, Is Eagle Scout the correct term for the highest ranking?    My disclaimer is, I'm not a Trump fan but, he'll get my vote long before Hilary.   Bring Bernie on, his chances of winning are so small, I doubt he can even get a date to the big dance.

[baldo]

Did you realize you mentioned  Republicans 5 times and 'they' (repubs) 11 times and 'them' (repubs) once. so you pointed at the Republicans 17 times in your rant and mentioned the dems '0' times.   So...you believe the dems have 0 off shore accounts , only Republicans can do that sort of thing .   Just sayin' very easy to 'see' what side you might be on.   Oh and I dont believe anybody died on Trumps watch.  You failed to mention any of that.  I am sure Ambassador Stevens would not agree with your choice .  I am sure he would have much to add to H's resume , you know wanting to Pres. and all.  Trump should make his taxes public when 'O' releases his school records. You didnt mention anything about that guess you just forgot.  As always, JMHO.

Roadog

B...B...B....Benghazi

And AGAIN with the school records??? Do I need to whip out my Snopes?

[The emperor has no clothes]

Did you realize you mentioned  Republicans 5 times and 'they' (repubs) 11 times and 'them' (repubs) once. so you pointed at the Republicans 17 times in your rant and mentioned the dems '0' times.   So...you believe the dems have 0 off shore accounts , only Republicans can do that sort of thing .   Just sayin' very easy to 'see' what side you might be on.   Oh and I dont believe anybody died on Trumps watch.  You failed to mention any of that.  I am sure Ambassador Stevens would not agree with your choice .  I am sure he would have much to add to H's resume , you know wanting to Pres. and all.  Trump should make his taxes public when 'O' releases his school records. You didnt mention anything about that guess you just forgot.  As always, JMHO.

Roadog

B...B...B....Benghazi

And AGAIN with the school records??? Do I need to whip out my Snopes?

What is this fascination they have with his school records ? Don't waste your time Bob, everybody knows Snopes is a Communistic website put out by Fidel Castro. 

[mike72903]

Did you realize you mentioned  Republicans 5 times and 'they' (repubs) 11 times and 'them' (repubs) once. so you pointed at the Republicans 17 times in your rant and mentioned the dems '0' times.   So...you believe the dems have 0 off shore accounts , only Republicans can do that sort of thing .   Just sayin' very easy to 'see' what side you might be on.   Oh and I dont believe anybody died on Trumps watch.  You failed to mention any of that.  I am sure Ambassador Stevens would not agree with your choice .  I am sure he would have much to add to H's resume , you know wanting to Pres. and all.  Trump should make his taxes public when 'O' releases his school records. You didnt mention anything about that guess you just forgot.  As always, JMHO.

Roadog

B...B...B....Benghazi

And AGAIN with the school records??? Do I need to whip out my Snopes?

What is this fascination they have with his school records ? Don't waste your time Bob, everybody knows Snopes is a Communistic website put out by Fidel Castro. 

Oh, sarcasm,  I like it

[Willow]

What is this fascination they have with his school records ? Don't waste your time Bob, everybody knows Snopes is a Communistic website put out by Fidel Castro. 

I'm pretty sure that very few believe it's communistic and no one thinks that Fidel Castro had the means to put it out.  That said almost everyone realizes that Snopes is left leaning in their explanations and denials.  The article referenced played games with definitions.  School records are by definition of what they are sealed.  They used that to explain that Barrack Obama did not have his records sealed.  It would have, agreed, been more accurate for people to say that he refused to share his school records or simply chose to keep them secret.

Benghazi?  Americans gave their lives there while serving their country and specifically because someone chose to not order them rescued.  A lot of us hold the administration and the Secretary of State responsible for those deaths and some, including me, believe there is ample reason to suspect that the administration and the Secrtetary of State orchestrated the situation that resulted in those deaths.  The subsequest cover up and redirection efforts were more than dispicable.

The post was not worthy of your normal quality, Meathead. 

[The emperor has no clothes]

I don't know if any of my posts are quality. But you are correct in that it was a hasty sarcastic response. Sometimes my filter doesn't work properly.

[G-Man]

What is this fascination they have with his school records ? Don't waste your time Bob, everybody knows Snopes is a Communistic website put out by Fidel Castro. 

I'm pretty sure that very few believe it's communistic and no one thinks that Fidel Castro had the means to put it out.  That said almost everyone realizes that Snopes is left leaning in their explanations and denials.  The article referenced played games with definitions.  School records are by definition of what they are sealed.  They used that to explain that Barrack Obama did not have his records sealed.  It would have, agreed, been more accurate for people to say that he refused to share his school records or simply chose to keep them secret.

Benghazi?  Americans gave their lives there while serving their country and specifically because someone chose to not order them rescued.  A lot of us hold the administration and the Secretary of State responsible for those deaths and some, including me, believe there is ample reason to suspect that the administration and the Secrtetary of State orchestrated the situation that resulted in those deaths.  The subsequest cover up and redirection efforts were more than dispicable.

The post was not worthy of your normal quality, Meathead. 

AND............ She then lied to the American citizens, claiming it was not a terrorist attack, after e-mailing (of the discovered deleted e-mails) her daughter and Egyptian heads of state that it WAS an terrorist attack.  BTW, this lie was uncovered as she so eloquently and beautifully sat there for 11 hours.  (That's what the left took away, that she sat for 11 hours.  A brilliant accomplishment, completely overlooking the lies that were uncovered)  Then sent out Rice to tell the world for the next 5 weeks about a video.  The administration blamed a video because Obama stated terrorism was at bay.  If they admitted it was a terrorist attack, it would be seen as failure in foreign policy with re-election around the corner.  All came out in during her wonderful 11 hour sit. 

And on top of it all, she then lied to the parents of dead soldiers.  If there was nothing else to convince me of her disgustingness, this would be more than enough.  What could be worse than lying to the parents of dead soldiers?  Nothing.  She makes me sick.

[..]

What is this fascination they have with his school records ? Don't waste your time Bob, everybody knows Snopes is a Communistic website put out by Fidel Castro. 

I'm pretty sure that very few believe it's communistic and no one thinks that Fidel Castro had the means to put it out.  That said almost everyone realizes that Snopes is left leaning in their explanations and denials.  The article referenced played games with definitions.  School records are by definition of what they are sealed.  They used that to explain that Barrack Obama did not have his records sealed.  It would have, agreed, been more accurate for people to say that he refused to share his school records or simply chose to keep them secret.

Benghazi?  Americans gave their lives there while serving their country and specifically because someone chose to not order them rescued.  A lot of us hold the administration and the Secretary of State responsible for those deaths and some, including me, believe there is ample reason to suspect that the administration and the Secrtetary of State orchestrated the situation that resulted in those deaths.  The subsequest cover up and redirection efforts were more than dispicable.

The post was not worthy of your normal quality, Meathead. 

AND............ She then lied to the American citizens, claiming it was not a terrorist attack, after e-mailing (of the discovered deleted e-mails) her daughter and Egyptian heads of state that it WAS an terrorist attack.  BTW, this lie was uncovered as she so eloquently and beautifully sat there for 11 hours.  (That's what the left took away, that she sat for 11 hours.  A brilliant accomplishment, completely overlooking the lies that were uncovered)  Then sent out Rice to tell the world for the next 5 weeks about a video.  The administration blamed a video because Obama stated terrorism was at bay.  If they admitted it was a terrorist attack, it would be seen as failure in foreign policy with re-election around the corner.  All came out in during her wonderful 11 hour sit. 

And on top of it all, she then lied to the parents of dead soldiers.  If there was nothing else to convince me of her disgustingness, this would be more than enough.  What could be worse than lying to the parents of dead soldiers?  Nothing.  She makes me sick.

Here we go with those darned facts again.

Those who support her morals and values don't care about the facts.

[FLAVALK]

Once again....arguing with a liberal is like wrestling a pig in the mud. Why bother????

 

[The emperor has no clothes]

Once again....arguing with a liberal is like wrestling a pig in the mud. Why bother????

 

You won't get any argument from me about her speaking fees. But let's keep it real. Just about every politician is in this circle jerk set up we have. It's freaking time to get the money out of it. Starting with the Citizens United case.

[baldo]

Once again....arguing with a liberal is like wrestling a pig in the mud. Why bother????

 

Funny, I'd say the very same thing, only replacing liberal with conservative/libertarian/teabagger. Again, why bother.

[mike72903]

Once again....arguing with a liberal is like wrestling a pig in the mud. Why bother????

 

Funny, I'd say the very same thing, only replacing liberal with conservative/libertarian/teabagger. Again, why bother.

I heard it this way.   Arguing with a libertarian/teabagger is like playing chess with a pigeon.  You will win but the pigeon will just crap on the board and strut around like he won anyway. 

[baldo]

Once again....arguing with a liberal is like wrestling a pig in the mud. Why bother????

 

Funny, I'd say the very same thing, only replacing liberal with conservative/libertarian/teabagger. Again, why bother.

I heard it this way.   Arguing with a libertarian/teabagger is like playing chess with a pigeon.  You will win but the pigeon will just crap on the board and strut around like he won anyway. 

LOL   

[The emperor has no clothes]

Once again....arguing with a liberal is like wrestling a pig in the mud. Why bother????

 

Funny, I'd say the very same thing, only replacing liberal with conservative/libertarian/teabagger. Again, why bother.

I heard it this way.   Arguing with a libertarian/teabagger is like playing chess with a pigeon.  You will win but the pigeon will just crap on the board and strut around like he won anyway. 

That is so close to the truth it's almost not funny.

[Willow]

Once again....arguing with a liberal is like wrestling a pig in the mud. Why bother????

 

Funny, I'd say the very same thing, only replacing liberal with conservative/libertarian/teabagger. Again, why bother.

I heard it this way.   Arguing with a libertarian/teabagger is like playing chess with a pigeon.  You will win but the pigeon will just crap on the board and strut around like he won anyway. 

That is so close to the truth it's almost not funny.

There is truth in that.  One can substitute any social/political position that is diametrically opposed to what we ourselves believe.  Truthfully few if any of us argue with a mind open enough to be convinced or moved by the other person's points.  Most often we are thoroughly convinced that we are right and than anyone holding an opposing view is obviously stupid.  That's true of baldo, CI-Borg, Daddy-O, and myself.

As to the original point, it should be stated that arguing with anyone who has already made up his mind is like wrestling a pig in the mud.

[baldo]

Once again....arguing with a liberal is like wrestling a pig in the mud. Why bother????

 

Funny, I'd say the very same thing, only replacing liberal with conservative/libertarian/teabagger. Again, why bother.

I heard it this way.   Arguing with a libertarian/teabagger is like playing chess with a pigeon.  You will win but the pigeon will just crap on the board and strut around like he won anyway. 

That is so close to the truth it's almost not funny.

There is truth in that.  One can substitute any social/political position that is diametrically opposed to what we ourselves believe.  Truthfully few if any of us argue with a mind open enough to be convinced or moved by the other person's points.  Most often we are thoroughly convinced that we are right and than anyone holding an opposing view is obviously stupid.  That's true of baldo, CI-Borg, Daddy-O, and myself.

As to the original point, it should be stated that arguing with anyone who has already made up his mind is like wrestling a pig in the mud.

Willow, I'll agree with your post to a point. I've stated many times that I understand people that don't agree with me, believe in their positions just as strongly as I do. Personally, I don't think people with views opposing mine are stupid.   That's reserved for those, that when presented with overwhelming information to the contrary, absolutely refuse to believe it. In fact, I've had members on this board literally say...'I don't care what the facts are, they don't mean a thing'. Then they launch into the liberal-type language. At that point, game over.