General Discussion

Qutzupalotl

(14,286 posts)

151. owned.

Reply to OnlinePoker (Reply #114)

Sat May 16, 2015, 11:49 PM

May 2015

I love DU sometimes.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

198 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I wish we could talk sanely about the Clintons and their long history [View all] cali May 2015 OP

Good luck, Cali. marym625 May 2015 #1

YOU MUSST NOT SPEAK ILL of the Clintonesss...We loves them my precious... Katashi_itto May 2015 #28

hee hee marym625 May 2015 #38

:) Katashi_itto May 2015 #39

Brilliant. Jackpine Radical May 2015 #64

Lol! Cool! Katashi_itto May 2015 #88

lol LiberalLovinLug May 2015 #48

Lol! BeanMusical May 2015 #51

The easy to get at Precious is mostly in the Middle East eridani May 2015 #120

They are flawed for sure unlike Bernie redstateblues May 2015 #154

Same As The Bushes billhicks76 May 2015 #145

I have no problem with them making money out of office redstateblues May 2015 #2

Last time we had a Clinton as president we didn't go into Bosnia? GummyBearz May 2015 #7

too bad he didn't go into rwanda certainot May 2015 #60

No shit! L0oniX May 2015 #133

Ouch! 7962 May 2015 #138

+1000 marym625 May 2015 #146

Somalia too. beltanefauve May 2015 #169

No boots on the ground. No thousands of our soldiers dead redstateblues May 2015 #153

Got a picture for you... Scootaloo May 2015 #172

thanks for your reply and its non-defensive tone. cali May 2015 #16

The quid pro quo is what Exilednight May 2015 #37

I agree with you. It's extremely naive to think there is no quid pro quo when rhett o rick May 2015 #101

Even when it's not completely intentional... rbnyc May 2015 #129

I find this to be the same in journalism Exilednight May 2015 #140

great point rbnyc May 2015 #141

Money Interests - Especially in the Hundreds of Thousands in Greenbacks LovingA2andMI May 2015 #166

There was no quid pro quo awoke_in_2003 May 2015 #180

If you are being sarcastic please give me a sign I am sarcasm deficient. rhett o rick May 2015 #185

Sorry, when I read it awoke_in_2003 May 2015 #186

No it's me. I usually have a chip on my shoulder just waiting to unload. nm rhett o rick May 2015 #188

Read 1939 May 2015 #23

I don't have a problem with them making money if they get a job and work for it. rhett o rick May 2015 #102

+1 who cares how much money they make? treestar May 2015 #106

Then let's stop criticizing Republicans who do the same thing. People want to hear them also, sabrina 1 May 2015 #162

Thank You!!! LovingA2andMI May 2015 #167

But other people are deciding they want to pay the money treestar May 2015 #174

And Hillary pulled herself out of poverty!!!! nt Logical May 2015 #122

Because that $25,000,000 was all because they are so entertaining, not that everyone knew Dustlawyer May 2015 #124

Perhaps the focus should on the efforts the Clintons do rather than the money issue. Thinkingabout May 2015 #3

that's right. And when we look at some of what BC did while in office, we cali May 2015 #18

If you want to say this, it was also a time when Bernie was in Congress, what did Thinkingabout May 2015 #24

You do realize Bernie Sanders voted against repealing Glass-Steagal right? think May 2015 #27

He was still a part of Congress which repealed the Glass-Steagal, he should be looked Thinkingabout May 2015 #34

So he's responsible for the Democrats that sold out and voted for it? That's really twisted logic. think May 2015 #45

Did he try to influnce others? Did he talk to other Congressional members? Thinkingabout May 2015 #47

He VOTED against it. And what did Bill Clinton do? Oh ya, He made it law..... think May 2015 #56

May I ask, how far back does your "know your current events" date back to? 2banon May 2015 #104

From the Congressional Record OnlinePoker May 2015 #114

owned. Qutzupalotl May 2015 #151

"Did he try to influence others?" Why are you asking that. If you are trying to make rhett o rick May 2015 #187

Speaking of IWR vote neverforget May 2015 #99

Did you forget the conditions of the IWR? Thinkingabout May 2015 #109

I know Senator Clinton is not responsible for her vote. She's blameless. I get it. neverforget May 2015 #116

But just a few posts above that poster said Sanders was responsible for ALL of congress' cui bono May 2015 #160

Yes it certainly is possible neverforget May 2015 #164

Did I say she was blameless for her vote? Even Hillary has said she would like to Thinkingabout May 2015 #173

That vote had a consequence which you seem unable to acknowledge. It gave President Bush legal neverforget May 2015 #175

Okay, wait... so Sanders is responsible for all members of Congress' vote even though he voted cui bono May 2015 #158

He did actually, when he votes against a bill his habit is to use his floor time to speak forcefully Dragonfli May 2015 #117

Have you ever known him to just sit quietly and not speak? 7962 May 2015 #139

Wow. So now one member of congress is responsible for the votes of all other members cui bono May 2015 #157

Senator Sanders.... LovingA2andMI May 2015 #168

You need to do some research. He voted against the repeal of Glass-Steagall cali May 2015 #40

I did not say Bernie did not vote for the repeal of Glass-Steagall, he was a part of Congress Thinkingabout May 2015 #43

you are not thinkingabout this too clearly are you? LiberalLovinLug May 2015 #52

Oh, wow, they can never compromise, guess this is why we have a do nothing congress, Thinkingabout May 2015 #53

disingenuous blather. cali May 2015 #66

Woooooooooooooooosh LiberalLovinLug May 2015 #67

and there's the stupid food fight- which I stupidly got sucked right into cali May 2015 #71

you are so full of.... nonsense that it's pointless trying to have a discussion with you cali May 2015 #65

Perhaps bringing up subjects such as Glass-Stegall may be overwhelming for some. Thinkingabout May 2015 #82

You don't even make any sense. defensive garbage cali May 2015 #84

There will never be a sane conversation, won't happen. Some has Thinkingabout May 2015 #115

I think there was a great effort... rbnyc May 2015 #131

Jaw dropping Comment. Absolutely Devoid of Logic alone, forget pretense of intellectual honesty. 2banon May 2015 #105

Welfare "reform", the Telecom Act, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act hifiguy May 2015 #89

same old same old, nothing new. Thinkingabout May 2015 #110

Given the immense damage Clinton-backed policies caused, hifiguy May 2015 #112

More of the same, still nothing new. Thinkingabout May 2015 #113

What do you mean? rbnyc May 2015 #135

OK - let's start with NAFTA, Banking deregulation, brutal welfare "reform", offshoring whereisjustice May 2015 #79

So true. And they have to raise money. treestar May 2015 #107

Chump change to a Koch Brother, a Walton, or an Adelson. onehandle May 2015 #4

No the real enemy is within. zeemike May 2015 #15

+1 marym625 May 2015 #42

Blammo. hifiguy May 2015 #90

yes, but that's not the only point. The Clintons are wealthy today because of their close cali May 2015 #21

Somewhat tangentially, this reminds me again to ask Erich Bloodaxe BSN May 2015 #5

You're right, but let's face it. Any attempt to discuss the intersection of money and politics cali May 2015 #22

Nah, then they'd have to actually discuss the "attack". jeff47 May 2015 #119

The "Clintons" aren't running BainsBane May 2015 #6

Regarding their income it is a joint effort madville May 2015 #9

How about the Sanders and the O'Malleys? BainsBane May 2015 #11

The topic is their income madville May 2015 #13

Sure, let's discuss it. I don't know much about the O'Malley's finances cali May 2015 #25

sorry, I don't buy that. Far more than most potential nominees- and not just cali May 2015 #29

+1 BeanMusical May 2015 #46

I don't have it any way BainsBane May 2015 #62

THEY made it. cali May 2015 #73

She has already run for President and was a Senator, if her positions are so different then it TheKentuckian May 2015 #178

That is true but I seem to remember that during his term she was called one of his advisors. And jwirr May 2015 #41

Members of political dynasties forfeit to some degree their ability to be viewed as individuals. tritsofme May 2015 #55

A dynasty BainsBane May 2015 #58

You may view it that way. tritsofme May 2015 #63

Worshipping... LovingA2andMI May 2015 #170

She conflates the two herself shaayecanaan May 2015 #165

I still would have voted for John Kennedy given the chance. DemocratSinceBirth May 2015 #8

Poor comparison. Kennedy didn't make his money through being in politics. cali May 2015 #30

Precisely...His dad set him and his siblings up with trust funds so they would never have to work... DemocratSinceBirth May 2015 #35

We have had many rich Presidents but how they made their money was not always okay with the jwirr May 2015 #44

Hillary Rodham Clinton and her husband made at least $30 million over the last 16 months, stonecutter357 May 2015 #10

Exactly MaggieD May 2015 #121

First, change the system. procon May 2015 #12

In other words "don't hate the playa, hate the game." DemocratSinceBirth May 2015 #14

I was going to point this out too justiceischeap May 2015 #17

The obvious solution is publically funded national campaigns. procon May 2015 #81

I actually suggested in another post in this OP an justiceischeap May 2015 #91

Most of it came from speeches to corporate interests. Quid pro quo? Tierra_y_Libertad May 2015 #19

I'm not even suggesting that. But to deny influence is INSANITY cali May 2015 #32

The quid pro quo I'm talking about IS influence. Tierra_y_Libertad May 2015 #36

"I'd be happy to stipulate that they haven't done anything illegal" brooklynite May 2015 #20

thing is bigtree May 2015 #26

I prefer to discuss the policy differences between Secretary of State Clinton, Senator Agnosticsherbet May 2015 #31

Cali, you are spot on. Mbrow May 2015 #33

Kick and R. Good post. BeanMusical May 2015 #49

Here's a list of the 10 richest politicians in US politics justiceischeap May 2015 #50

Small correction... F4lconF16 May 2015 #96

Government is a profitable business... kentuck May 2015 #54

Whether people want to talk about it or not..... daleanime May 2015 #57

I'd like to know what she is saying in the speeches fadedrose May 2015 #59

I agree fadedrose. I've heard it called RiverLover May 2015 #70

Wow fadedrose May 2015 #85

Payola extrodinaires. L0oniX May 2015 #137

It comes down to the question of, do you want to continue this miserable status quo, or not. Enthusiast May 2015 #61

They couldn't wash the political stink off the "foundation" with bleach and a firehose. eom whereisjustice May 2015 #68

I think what that actually means is... wyldwolf May 2015 #69

The polls may not be rigged, but our sources of information are RufusTFirefly May 2015 #87

You're assuming you have some special insight... wyldwolf May 2015 #94

This is a dumb post: Its takes money to become President!! lewebley3 May 2015 #72

bullshit propaganda. Not even tangentially connected to reality. cali May 2015 #75

Paved the way for offshoring our jobs as well with NAFTA & China's PNTR's status. RiverLover May 2015 #78

You are probably a right wing troll, not a Bernie supporter: lewebley3 May 2015 #191

Let's examine that proposition, genius. cali May 2015 #192

Using the word stupid: Detracts from your argument lewebley3 May 2015 #195

calling me a right wing troll discredited every already lame word YOU cali May 2015 #197

Troll, is the right word for someone pretending to be Bernie supporter: It fits! lewebley3 May 2015 #198

There is something wrong with how they earn their money. They take cash from corporations whereisjustice May 2015 #80

No there is not something wrong with earning money: Its what it takes to become President! lewebley3 May 2015 #100

There is something wrong with the WAY they earn money. See the difference? Or are you whereisjustice May 2015 #176

There is no free market: Thats a GOP lie: but Senators are being hired and sold. lewebley3 May 2015 #181

gee, funny that not all Senators are hired are sold. One of mine is the longest cali May 2015 #193

They politicians, they had to get their money from somewhere: They are for Sale too! lewebley3 May 2015 #194

fail. your record of fail is impeccable- if you don't know cali May 2015 #196

I would agree they have to be at least middle class treestar May 2015 #108

To put it into simple-minded terms, Jackpine Radical May 2015 #74

yes, and it's insane to think that the banksters weren't grateful cali May 2015 #76

evaluating US politics is dishonest and incomplete until the left certainot May 2015 #77

Isn't just the money. It's their friends, too. Octafish May 2015 #83

Thank you, Ocatafish, for truthtelling. NYC_SKP May 2015 #161

That picture has always disturbed me too LovingA2andMI May 2015 #171

Hillary Clinton is highly respected and KMOD May 2015 #86

125 million is walking around money for the Koch bros workinclasszero May 2015 #92

Polarization and partisanship are not sane carolinayellowdog May 2015 #93

I'm a HRC supporter and I agree. BKH70041 May 2015 #95

I disagree. F4lconF16 May 2015 #98

Of course, no one person can give $50k. The limit is $2700. salib May 2015 #128

We can talk about it all we want to, nobody is stopping us. Rex May 2015 #97

If the Bushes got rich for destroying the republic... DemocratSinceBirth May 2015 #103

NAFTA, banking deregulation, throwing poor people into the street with brutal welfare reform? Both whereisjustice May 2015 #177

Under Bill Clinton DemocratSinceBirth May 2015 #182

He signed the laws that nearly destroyed us with corruption and sent a million jobs away and whereisjustice May 2015 #183

Presidents are responsible for their tenures... DemocratSinceBirth May 2015 #184

Presidents are responsible for the laws they design to impact the next generation, the data whereisjustice May 2015 #189

I trust HRC will usher in another era of unprecedented peace and prosperity like her husband... DemocratSinceBirth May 2015 #190

I do agree heaven05 May 2015 #111

Gee, the last time I talked to Bill Clinton, it cost me....... DFW May 2015 #118

I would say anyone if pretty accessible if you get past their handlers! WTF? nt Logical May 2015 #123

Don't spend a lot of time in DC, do you? WTF? DFW May 2015 #159

That would be great. You start. MineralMan May 2015 #125

wow rbnyc May 2015 #126

I wish you could, too. nt aka-chmeee May 2015 #127

"I wish we could talk sanely about the Clintons" azureblue May 2015 #130

The way I read the OP and this reply: rbnyc May 2015 #132

Hmm, the OP made the prospect of even-handed discussion a nonstarter kjones May 2015 #156

Thank you so much! workinclasszero May 2015 #144

Great post. The idea that Clinton is corrupt because redstateblues May 2015 #155

It started in Arkansas with the Waltons , Tysons and The Stephens boys. LiberalArkie May 2015 #134

Here??? Spitfire of ATJ May 2015 #136

I'm an idiot. joshcryer May 2015 #142

It seems like all you do is talk about it. nt BreakfastClub May 2015 #143

dunno cali. you have pretty much done nothing but talk the horrors of clinton vs sanders the savior seabeyond May 2015 #147

Put in my Twonies worth... Thespian2 May 2015 #148

are morals needed, for a presidential candidate? quadrature May 2015 #149

Thanks for trying dreamnightwind May 2015 #150

Okay. OnyxCollie May 2015 #152

OK, what did they talk about? What did they say? nt jazzimov May 2015 #163

"Money buys access" awoke_in_2003 May 2015 #179