Clinton foundation... scam?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-07-2016, 11:46 AM
RE: Clinton foundation... scam?
(25-07-2016 09:14 AM)WillHopp Wrote:  
(25-07-2016 04:32 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  No...

But if you wanna play that game...please provide evidence that everything that comes from Washington Examiner can be dismissed as a right wing propaganda, because you also framed your post as a factual statement. Drinking Beverage
I guess you were just flexing your humorous muscle?

If you gonna go by standards you try to impose on me , your statement about Washington Examiner is equally ridiculous and unsupported by evidence.
If you insist , I am positive that I could find enough reports from Washington Examiner that are factually true thus making your statement about them factually untrue.

So stop that crap with statements/opinions made without providing evidence , you can`t win that argument here.

And I am not talking about getting payed to be a senator Rolleyes , nor was I talking about pro bono stuff. Nor do I care about handjobs or blowjobs or e-mails, even tho them being caught lying that many times should be telling enough about their ethics.
I am talking about them always opting and pushing for a military interventions that without exception and perfectly predictable lead to humanitarian disasters, like Libya and Iraq.

Hillary's exemplary work for women and children?

You mean like defending and getting a rapist of a 12 year old girl off the hook on technicalities even tho by her own words she believed him to be guilty ?





Also, until few years ago she was against gay marriage.









Not to mention being funded by Saudi Arabia, a country where women are in fact grossly oppressed.

You are basically defending a pair of politicians that have been caught lying so many times, like they are fakn angels and you are trying to give me shit about not making clear that my statement is an opinion rather then a factual statement like I have submitted it for a pier review, while in the same time you made equally unsupported claim and on top of that you are trying to claim some moral high ground.
Laughable.

The Washington Examiner is the voice of conservatives, owned by Philip Anschutz, a billionaire right-wing Evangelical. If the magazine/website were any more slanted, the type would fall off the page. These facts make it hard to take anything they publish as objective journalism. So any piece written by this rag that condemns any non-conservative in an election year can be dismissed rather easily. I don't need to post any such articles because their worldview automatically taints their objectivity.

I can just as easily post countless videos of either of the Clintons doing exemplary work, but would you accept that as proof your statement was false? You basically said they never would do anything without a personal ulterior motive and I called bullshit. I wasn't taking some moral high ground.

No, of course I would not except that as proof, because I am not questioning if she did some humanitarian work, I am questioning her motives. Like I stated earlier , I believe that her humanitarian work is just for show, building a resume.
Since I can't get in her head and extract proof of her thoughts , that remains just my opinion on her, and I provided some of the reasons I hold that opinion.
Exactly like the the reasons you posted for not trusting anything that comes from Washington Examiner, this is just your opinion, which I don't have any reason to doubt but there is absolutely nothing about the owner being a right wing conservative that proves in itself that the newspaper is wrong about everything they print. Meaning that you are still voicing just your opinion on the WE, regardless of your opinion being correct or not.

This is perfectly fine , there is no need to prove every opinion based statement you make or to explicitly state that you are making an opinion based statement , I am just pointing out the double standard you immediately jumped to after reading something you didn't like.

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2016, 12:08 PM
RE: Clinton foundation... scam?
(25-07-2016 11:46 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  
(25-07-2016 09:14 AM)WillHopp Wrote:  The Washington Examiner is the voice of conservatives, owned by Philip Anschutz, a billionaire right-wing Evangelical. If the magazine/website were any more slanted, the type would fall off the page. These facts make it hard to take anything they publish as objective journalism. So any piece written by this rag that condemns any non-conservative in an election year can be dismissed rather easily. I don't need to post any such articles because their worldview automatically taints their objectivity.

I can just as easily post countless videos of either of the Clintons doing exemplary work, but would you accept that as proof your statement was false? You basically said they never would do anything without a personal ulterior motive and I called bullshit. I wasn't taking some moral high ground.

No, of course I would not except that as proof, because I am not questioning if she did some humanitarian work, I am questioning her motives. Like I stated earlier , I believe that her humanitarian work is just for show, building a resume.
Since I can't get in her head and extract proof of her thoughts , that remains just my opinion on her, and I provided some of the reasons I hold that opinion.
Exactly like the the reasons you posted for not trusting anything that comes from Washington Examiner, this is just your opinion, which I don't have any reason to doubt but there is absolutely nothing about the owner being a right wing conservative that proves in itself that the newspaper is wrong about everything they print. Meaning that you are still voicing just your opinion on the WE, regardless of your opinion being correct or not.

This is perfectly fine , there is no need to prove every opinion based statement you make or to explicitly state that you are making an opinion based statement , I am just pointing out the double standard you immediately jumped to after reading something you didn't like.

I didn't immediately resort to a double standard. I responded to bemore's post that had a video from a known right wing slanted source about a left wing candidate. These "news" sources are on the same level as FoxNews, and to say they have objective reporting is an effrontery to journalism and swims in a sea of ignorance.

Only after you accused those who believed the Clintons were capable of making even one selfless act of being lunatics, did I begin to offer anything you deemed a double standard.

I agree, the Clintons are far from perfect, and I'm sure the Clinton Cash "doc" will make its way on here soon to only reinforce the haters' biased. All I'm saying is, it's very difficult to trust a slanted news source as objective, so when bemore asks for our opinion on it, how can one be forthcoming?

While you use their "lies" to defend your "opinion" that they have purely ulterior motives only, I will use their actual acts of diplomacy, decades of public service, successful programs for women and children and humanitarian aid to shore up my "opinion" that you're wrong.

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2016, 01:22 PM
RE: Clinton foundation... scam?
(25-07-2016 12:08 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  
(25-07-2016 11:46 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  No, of course I would not except that as proof, because I am not questioning if she did some humanitarian work, I am questioning her motives. Like I stated earlier , I believe that her humanitarian work is just for show, building a resume.
Since I can't get in her head and extract proof of her thoughts , that remains just my opinion on her, and I provided some of the reasons I hold that opinion.
Exactly like the the reasons you posted for not trusting anything that comes from Washington Examiner, this is just your opinion, which I don't have any reason to doubt but there is absolutely nothing about the owner being a right wing conservative that proves in itself that the newspaper is wrong about everything they print. Meaning that you are still voicing just your opinion on the WE, regardless of your opinion being correct or not.

This is perfectly fine , there is no need to prove every opinion based statement you make or to explicitly state that you are making an opinion based statement , I am just pointing out the double standard you immediately jumped to after reading something you didn't like.

I didn't immediately resort to a double standard. I responded to bemore's post that had a video from a known right wing slanted source about a left wing candidate. These "news" sources are on the same level as FoxNews, and to say they have objective reporting is an effrontery to journalism and swims in a sea of ignorance.

Only after you accused those who believed the Clintons were capable of making even one selfless act of being lunatics, did I begin to offer anything you deemed a double standard.

I agree, the Clintons are far from perfect, and I'm sure the Clinton Cash "doc" will make its way on here soon to only reinforce the haters' biased. All I'm saying is, it's very difficult to trust a slanted news source as objective, so when bemore asks for our opinion on it, how can one be forthcoming?

While you use their "lies" to defend your "opinion" that they have purely ulterior motives only, I will use their actual acts of diplomacy, decades of public service, successful programs for women and children and humanitarian aid to shore up my "opinion" that you're wrong.

I'm fine with that. Wouldn't it be dull if we all held the same opinions.

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Slowminded's post
25-07-2016, 01:47 PM
RE: Clinton foundation... scam?
Me, too. And I'm just feeling particularly hornery this week, don't know why. I think it's because I'm officially middle-aged now. Pretty soon I'll be firing off irate irrational letters to the editor.

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WillHopp's post
25-07-2016, 01:57 PM
RE: Clinton foundation... scam?
Yeah.Facepalm
It's all just a scam.
http://www.who.int/workforcealliance/mem...linton/en/

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
25-07-2016, 02:06 PM
RE: Clinton foundation... scam?
(25-07-2016 01:47 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  Me, too. And I'm just feeling particularly hornery this week, don't know why. I think it's because I'm officially middle-aged now. Pretty soon I'll be firing off irate irrational letters to the editor.

Hahahah, You might be on to something there. I turned 40 two months ago and prospects of me becoming a grumpy old man are not looking so unrealistic any more.

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Slowminded's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: