But she did make 600k a year at NBC, and no one would deny she got that gig thanks to her parentage. Shouldn't that preclude Hilary from decrying income inequality and how awful it is that the rich and well-connected have all these perks? Who the hell is she to complain about these things? With one hand, she wags her finger at the system for all of its unfairness. With the other hand, she milks said system for tens of millions of dollars? That's not revolting to you?

Same as one of Pres. Bush's daughters.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's not remotely the same, because Bush didn't base his campaign on bashing the system that made him stinking rich. Hilary is doing exactly that.

Clearly, Hilary isn't too offended by our capitalist system, because she's taking advantage of it for immense personal gain. WHy is OK when she does it, but not a hedge fund manager? Let me re-phrase, why is it wrong for hedge fund managers, except her son-in-law, to do what they do? Why does he deserve his riches, but no one else in his profession?

What the hell is in that Kool Aid, anyway?

You're right in this case, but please elaborate on I'm" ALWAYS CLOSE" on facts
but wrong on important details anywhere else. You paint with a broad brush. :)

she's 36 and she's worth 15 million and her parents are poor....quite a success story....love free market capitalism....what did she do again?

hard to determine what her compensation is at the Clinton Slush Fund but one of her buddies pulled down 275k for 5 months
(Eric Braverman, a friend of Chelsea Clinton, was paid nearly $275,000 in salary, benefits, and a housing allowance for just five months’ work )..soooo...not to mention all of the lavish and extravagant perks one enjoys while in the midst of non-profit work


"The website Celebrity Net Worth pegs Chelsea’s personal fortune at $15 million, with most of her dough earned as a consultant at McKinsey & Co. and by working for Avenue Capital Investment Group. The site estimates Mezvinsky, 36, is also worth $15 million, which he made as an investment banker at Goldman Sachs and while working at the hedge fund 3G Capital and at a hedge fund he co-founded in 2011."

Hillary was asked how she’ll convince voters she’s not “part of the problem” on the issue of income inequality.
“But they don’t see me as part of the problem,” she said, “because we pay ordinary income tax, unlike a lot of people who are truly well off, not to name names; and we’ve done it through dint of hard work.”

The Clinton Foundation joins Al Sharpton’s troubled National Action Network on Charity Navigator’s list. It seems appropriate that two great con artists, Bill Clinton and Al Sharpton, should be thus be joined.

Sharpton’s outfit reportedly made the list because it didn’t pay payroll taxes for several years. The Clinton Foundation’s problems run deeper. According to the Post, it took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.

Much of the Foundation’s money goes to travel ($8.5 million in 2013); conferences, conventions and meetings ($9.2 million); and payroll and employee benefits ($30 million).

Right, right. And the CEOs and hedge fund managers she blames for the inequities of our system, how does she know that none of them worked hard?

Earth to liberals...poverty is brutal and unfair. However, in most cases, it is not caused by another person's wealth. Wealth is not finite, it's not like a pizza. If Hilary pulls in another $1M in speaking fees this month, that does not mean there's $1M less for the rest of us to scrounge for.

That cannot be mad wrong, it is irrefutable fact. However - because one of the pillars of liberalism is that if you have been anointed with "victim" status, then nothing that goes wrong is ever your fault, all you problems are created by a rich white guy in a Brooks Brothers suit - Hilary is expected to rally her base with this lie.

You frequently get important facts wrong. You did in the thread about the classified emails. Previously, you claimed some liberal made a statement and if fact it was a conserv. (on another thread). Just a few examples.

But to the state of the GOP – examples - refuses to take $10 in spending cuts if $1 in tax increases, deny global warming (and pass rules for certain depts. to prevent them from looking at it), want to defund environmental depts. (who started the DEP? It would never be proposed by a Rep. now) seem racist, sexist (see Trump Mexicans/woman and the refusal of the candidates to say anything until the noise got so load), disrespectful of the Pres. (you can disagree strongly w/o the rude, disrespectful things said) the constant “if your poor, you’re lazy and on welfare”, insist. on bringing up social issues where the cand. position is much further right than the general pop. bc they’re appealing to the evangelical right, etc. etc. They have gotten further and further right and have alienated more and more segments of the population (“illegals”, “anchor babies”, etc) leaving their base as old white guys and married white woman. When they lose the next election, they will pay lip service to why and then continue to say it is bc people want things for free. White men are a shrinking % of the pop., yet that is who they focus on. This is not the GOP who use to regularly get my vote.

do not leave out the radical news reporter George Ramos's daughter... she is on the Clinton Foundation payroll too.....:)

"seem racist, sexist "

Oh, please tell that to Carly Fiorina, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, and Bobby Jindal.

"insist. on bringing up social issues "

You're right, how DARE we bring up social issues.

"They have gotten further and further right and have alienated more and more segments of the population"

This is great. You accuse us of alienating, yet you also call us racist and sexist. Yes, we can clearly learn to be inclusive by patterning our behavior after those on your side, who never ever talk about th actual issue, they just label everyone who disagrees with them as a racist hatemonger. That's inclusion, all right. Yesterday, Hilary compared the pro-life group (which is almost half the country) to ISIS. That's how to be inclusive?

“illegals” - Paul, why is that in quotes? If someone comes here illegally, it's inappropriate to say that out loud? Are you that politically correct?

"leaving their base as old white guys and married white woman"

again, tell that to Cruz, Rubio, Carson, Jindal, et al.

It's funny, I used to be a Democrat, and I felt like I got pushed out when the Dems got in bed with radicals like George Soros and Moveon.org. I also remember the way those racially sensitive democrats in the US Senate, led by Joe Biden, tried to block Clarence Thomas' nomination by playing to the lowest racial stereotype, by saying (with zero supporting evidence) that he i snot to be trusted around women.

A higher % of the US population identifies as conservative, rather than liberal. Which is probably we the GOP continues to do well in mid-terms, because those elections are decided more locally than presidential cycles.

The GOP controls both houses of congress, they have a majority of governborships and state legislatures. So while you did a great job regurgitating the MSNBC labels of Republicans, clearly the American public isn't buying it.

As the country becomes less white, I agree the GOP will have a hard time. But about the time that happens, is when Social Sucurity and Medicare will go belly up, and when that happens, lots of people will see irefutable proof that liberals lie through their teeth about such things to get votes.

Trump is a clown, but I get where his support comes from. In the last 2 elections, the GOP nomoinated McCain and Romney, 2 very very moderate guys. The country said no. So now some folks want to get someone who is further to the right. Is Obama a moderate? A guy who think sit's OK to kill babies who survive abortions and are outside the womb? A guy who sends his kids to a jillion dolla year private school, but is opposed to vouchers that let others escape failing schools?

The facts spit in the face of much of what you said. Less than one year ago, the GOP absolutely demolished the Democrats. How did that happen if the party only cares about rich white guys?

GOP agenda:
small federal govt
individual liberty
individual responsibility
power of the free market to provide upward economic mobility
being charitable to neighbors
sanctity of all life
fiscal responsibility
strong national defense
importance of American exceptionalism on the world stage

Granted, that's not how MSNBC describes the GOP agenda.

Paul, as to global warming, it's far from settled. I wa saround when the scientists all said that the earth was freezing, and we needed to act to stop that threat. Then it was global warming. Then climate change.

we need to look into these things, obviously. But I'm not ready to tell anyone, that they can't live as comfortably as I do, until we have mor efacts. If much of what the alarmists predicted was true, Denver would be underwater by now, and North Dakota would be exporting pineapples.

It must be nice to hide behind a theory where if it gets warmer you are right, if it gets colder you are right, if it rains you are right, if it doesn't rain you are right, if it snows you ar eright, and if it doesn't snow you are right. But it's OK for the face of this movement, Al Gore, to have huge mansions and a private jet because shut up!!

Please correct my facts with sources in both cases.

Amazing how closely you read my posts for a guy who claimed
he never reads them. :hihi:

Didn't Jim just point out it wasn't the foundation and didn't we tell you that the emails weren't classified when they were sent?

Although I can't recall stating I don't read your posts, to be honest I usually don't spend much time on them bc they usually are short on facts and usually contain just snide comments (not to say every post by anyone needs to contain facts as most of our posts are just opinions). Now I do ignore 1 or 2 other people's posts.

GOP view to help blacks in poverty:

Help for those who need it. Encourage accomplishment and achievement for those who have the ability to help themselves. Help black kids escape failing schools with vouchers to let them attend schools that will help them get out of poverty. Encourage behavior (staying in school, not having kids as teenagers, family values) that aren't likely to guarantee a perpetual poverty cycle. Empower blacks to help themselves.

Liberal view on blacks in poverty:

Pat them on the head and say "there, there." Give them enough cash to postpone death, but not enough to help them get ahead. Tell them that there's nothing wrong with 75% of babies being born out of wedlock (the few black babies who aren't aborted, that is). Keep telling them that none of it is their fault. Oppose all voucher programs, for no conceivable reason except that the teachers unions, which give huge $$ to democrats, are opposed to voucher programs. Instead of helping them meet competitive standards so they can achieve on their own, lower required standards for colleges and jobs, thus setting blacks up for failure.

As Lyndon Johnson said, "if we give these n*ggers free stuff, they'll vote for us for 200 years". I am paraphrasing a bit...

Which philospohy is constructive, and which is destructive?

Yes ,you and he did point out my error, and I admitted I was wrong, see post #34.
You seem to be a "selective reader" and yet paint your attack
on others with a "broad brush", using 1 or2 examples of mistakes
to try and prove your accusations.
Snide remarks are fun and good as they can sometimes bring
a point home quickly without a lot of fluff. Not for the thin skinned though.

Carry on with your facts, sources , personal attacks and keep up
your elitist perfectionism. :)

:blush:Yup, that is me.

But but but Gore...

Gore did a great thing by mainstreaming the science in a palatable way for the general public. If you think we scientists run around asking him what to say..... :scream:

This is such a line of crap that gets tossed around, largely due to a newsweek article. See below. :bs: I bolded a great line. Read Merchants of Doubt, it is a good book on the climate change rhetoric.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/What...l-cooling.html

"Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting future global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more global cooling papers than global warming papers.

So in fact, the large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than climate science predicting cooling, the opposite is the case. Most interesting about Peterson's paper is not the debunking of an already well debunked skeptic argument but a succinct history of climate science over the 20th century, describing how scientists from different fields gradually pieced together their diverse findings into a more unified picture of how climate operates."

The science the CO2 is a greenhouse gas is settled, as is the fact that we are contributing to changes to the climate. This is not just done with models, which larely do work, but with actual data. A chosen few stay and try to fight that, but the legitimate science on this is done.

Trust me, scientists are contrarians by nature. The but but but grant money so they lie argument is crap. Do you know how much funding would be available to those who could disprove (legitimately) human's impact on climate change? What attempts get made, an email hack that basically showed nothing when viewed in context, a bunch of people playing games with statistics on other peoples results, etc..

I think reasonable people can debate the changes that are very likely to (are) occurring. Ask local fisherman with a long memory; Laptew was quoted in an article lately outlining all the changes he has observed, particularly on the changes of species ranges, which lines up with the temperature measurement data from local waters. Not models, actual measurements.

There are alarmists, and Hansen's latest paper is one. Is it out of the realm of possibility that rates of sea level rise could be drastically higher than currently estimated? Of course not, but it may be on the extreme. That is what we should be discussing, will sea level be 1ft bt 2050, or 2075 or 5ft by 2100; not bury our heads in the sand and accuse all the scientists of lying.

What I find really ironic is that the scientific process shares much more with conservative thinking than does liberalism.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The models are based, largely, on speculative assumptions. That's where the skepticism comes from.

No, that is not how they work. Models are tuned to existing data to replicate complex problems and then are used to make projections. Are some assumptions involved? Of course. But most good models don;t just start today and look forward blindly. Note they language in the video; trends are important here, not exact dates. Like I said reasonable people can disagree on where/how fast we are headed, and exact dates are squirrelly given the short-term variability in climate/weather patterns.

As an aside, many of the climate models made 20 years ago have been compared to measurements since then, and the scare part for at least SLR, which I am most well-versed in, is that we are trending towards the higher predictions.... Rahstorf et al out of Germany have numerous peer-reviewed papers on this.

Good primer here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v9aRQpumPA

Bryan, I love nature, and I spend a lot more time in the woods, deep in the woods, than most.

You cannot tell me that the global freezing scare was one article. It wasn't. I remember very clearly.

If those models are accurate, why are none of the predictions coming true? Global warming changed very abruptly to 'climate change'.

And why isn't it valid to ask why Al Gore lives the way he does, if he believes what he claims to believe?

1. Read what I posted, the science clearly was majority warming not cooling in the 70's

2. Many are. I pointed out specific SLR models that are 'coming true' Watch the video. Learn something about the models.

3. Ask away. Gore became the right's face of climate in many regards. He is also a hypocrite in many on the climate change side of things. Have I EVER on this forum pointed to Gore regarding climate change, EVER?

maybe but it's been clearly shown that the climate alarmists ignored or corrupted scientific process, falsified data and were flat out disingenuous about many claims and promises to serve their agenda which is probably more in line with modern liberalism/progressivism

Bryan, mankind is putting more CO2 in the atmosphere, that is beyond dispute. What the effect of that will be, is far from settled. We have no idea what ability the atmosphere has to harmlessly absorb more CO2, we don't know how the ocean fits into that equation...all the models make speculative (wildly speculative) assumptions about such things.

It's vital we keep studying and examining. But it's not settled science, far from it. If it was, your side would not have been forced to re-name the issue from global warming to climate change. Oh, the Earth isn't warming the way we thought? Let's just call it climate change, that way, no matter what happens, we can say we are correct!

Thanks for that insight Professor Obvious.

Believe it or not Chelsea actually has some serious education and a very impressive resume. I'd think NBC was willing to drop some coin on an individual they thought would get attention.

So if it's obvious that her parentage got her that gig, then isn't it equally obvious that Hilary is a hypocrite for exploiting the system for her benefit, and bashing the system for favoring the powerful and the wealthy?

Here is the opinion of a "right wing conservative" on the state of the GOP:

http://www.redstate.com/2015/08/31/t...tm_campaign=nl

Great comments in that article
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, let's ponder the state of the GOP...Last time I checked, the GOP absolutely demolished the Dems less than one year ago in the last national election. It was an historic drubbing. Am I remembering that wrong? The GOP currently has both houses of congress, a majority of governorships, and a majority of state legislatures. And I'm supposed to believe the party is in tatters because Bill Maher and Rachael Maddow desperately want me to believe that?

There are a lot of things I wish the GOP did differently at the national level. And given certain demographic shifts, the GOP may find itself struggling unless they make progress with the Hispanic vote. But that's not unrealistic, as Bush did fine with Hispanics. Enter Marco Rubio.

Take a look at the approval rating for congress and the senate ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device