Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Cooter

Schrillary Rotten

230 posts in this topic

On 1/26/2017 at 9:43 PM, Cooter said:

 My guess is her and Bill are gonna be on the road giving quarter million dollar speeches to the big nasty banks and corporations, foreign governments and the like

 

8 hours ago, PurpleFloyd said:

The Clinton Foundation‘s downward trajectory ever since since Hillary Clinton’s election loss provides further testimony to claims that the organization was built on greed and the lust for power and wealth—not charity.

 

 

Like I said, they will be focusing their attention elsewhere now that she lost the election, since she really has nothing to offer in return at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, swamptiger said:

 

 

 

Like I said, they will be focusing their attention elsewhere now that she lost the election, since she really has nothing to offer in return at this point.

Chelsea? Or Donald?

Edited by PurpleFloyd
pushbutton likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, PurpleFloyd said:

Chelsea? Or Donald?

 

They're not picky...wherever their dollar will deliver the most bang for the buck...

pushbutton likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks go to PF for posting the length Clinton related stuff. I was not aware of much of it and even though some of it seems a little shaky it certainly seems there is a lot of shady quid=pro-quo stuff going on in there. In this case I believe it is important to note the source of the material is Fox News.  Keep that in mind as you read through it.The one aspect everybody cites as "evidence" of evil is a common practice in the real world:  you really NEED access to the right people and who you know matter. It is not surprising people and perhaps even nations PAID to be on the good side of the Clinton Foundation because they thus hoped to be able to call on either of the Clinton's for a kind word in the right places. Let me assure you this is pretty common in the world of high stakes politics and business.....on the part of both parties.

I continue to believe the Foundation does some good work and I am still of the opinion Chelsea is not paid from Foundation funds and you'd have to be pretty stupid to pay for your kids wedding out of Foundation money so I seriously  doubt that took place.

Confusion and shifty dealing no doubt.  I have never said the Clinton's were my favorite couple. Ha Ha.  But if you think THEY were shifty and shady stay tuned.....you ain't seen nothin' yet!!!:)

Edited by Ufatz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Ufatz said:

Thanks go to PF for posting the length Clinton related stuff. I was not aware of much of it and even though some of it seems a little shaky it certainly seems there is a lot of shady quid=pro-quo stuff going on in there. In this case I believe it is important to note the source of the material is Fox News.  Keep that in mind as you read through it.The one aspect everybody cites as "evidence" of evil is a common practice in the real world:  you really NEED access to the right people and who you know matter. It is not surprising people and perhaps even nations PAID to be on the good side of the Clinton Foundation because they thus hoped to be able to call on either of the Clinton's for a kind word in the right places. Let me assure you this is pretty common in the world of high stakes politics and business.....on the part of both parties.

I continue to believe the Foundation does some good work and I am still of the opinion Chelsea is not paid from Foundation funds and you'd have to be pretty stupid to pay for your kids wedding out of Foundation money so I seriously  doubt that took place.

Confusion and shifty dealing no doubt.  I have never said the Clinton's were my favorite couple. Ha Ha.  But if you think THEY were shifty and shady stay tuned.....you ain't seen nothin' yet!!!:)

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, SledNeck said:

 

Confused sort that would vote against their own hobbies and state's economy.

 

 

Don't you see that is the problem? EVERYONE votes for their own self interest and not the best interests of the populous in general. In one way or another, everyone votes for some sort of welfare or government aid for themselves. Hunters and anglers are no exception. You want the population at large to subsidize your hobby, why is that any different than whatever self interest group a Democrat may vote for. 

 

Donald may be a good start but what we need in office are ADULT politicians who can give ALL the government teat suckers a kick in the pants instead of just the teat suckers on one side. 

 

The world is full of hypocrites and frauds....

pushbutton likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Big Dave2 said:

 

Don't you see that is the problem? EVERYONE votes for their own self interest and not the best interests of the populous in general. In one way or another, everyone votes for some sort of welfare or government aid for themselves. Hunters and anglers are no exception. You want the population at large to subsidize your hobby, why is that any different than whatever self interest group a Democrat may vote for. 

 

Donald may be a good start but what we need in office are ADULT politicians who can give ALL the government teat suckers a kick in the pants instead of just the teat suckers on one side. 

 

The world is full of hypocrites and frauds....

 

Isn't government just a free market like other free markets?   People vote for those who will best serve their interests as those who vote see them.   Perhaps some see their interests being served by being let alone, and others think differently.   

 

You are all free market solves everything, and yet here you are sounding like someone on slate decrying the choice of the market of voters.       Isn't that inconsistent?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, delcecchi said:

 

Isn't government just a free market like other free markets?  

 

NO. Not when the rules have been gamed by 2 parties to only allow the viability of 2 candidates that represent 2 view points. What product or service do you know of in a true free market where you only have 2 choices?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ufatz said:

Thanks go to PF for posting the length Clinton related stuff. I was not aware of much of it and even though some of it seems a little shaky it certainly seems there is a lot of shady quid=pro-quo stuff going on in there. In this case I believe it is important to note the source of the material is Fox News.  Keep that in mind as you read through it.The one aspect everybody cites as "evidence" of evil is a common practice in the real world:  you really NEED access to the right people and who you know matter. It is not surprising people and perhaps even nations PAID to be on the good side of the Clinton Foundation because they thus hoped to be able to call on either of the Clinton's for a kind word in the right places. Let me assure you this is pretty common in the world of high stakes politics and business.....on the part of both parties.

I continue to believe the Foundation does some good work and I am still of the opinion Chelsea is not paid from Foundation funds and you'd have to be pretty stupid to pay for your kids wedding out of Foundation money so I seriously  doubt that took place.

Confusion and shifty dealing no doubt.  I have never said the Clinton's were my favorite couple. Ha Ha.  But if you think THEY were shifty and shady stay tuned.....you ain't seen nothin' yet!!!:)

 

As with most of these topics we love to ponder down here in silly town, the answer is probably somewhere in the middle.

 

Does the Clinton Foundation do good works? Almost undoubtedly it does otherwise it probably would have been shut down by now. 

 

Is Clinton Foundation money wasted or used for personal gain or unsavory activities? Probably. Do other charities do the same things? Probably, although maybe not as extensively as the Clinton Foundation but I don't know that either.

 

All I know is the Clinton's are both obsolete now so I don't know why we spend so much time discussing them. We may as well talk about G.W. Bush, Ron Paul or Mitt Romney. They are all the same amount of irrelevant.

 

I don't know what's a credible source for news anymore but....

http://fortune.com/2016/08/27/clinton-foundation-health-work/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 While I will continue to support the work of the Foundation, I will step down from the Board and will no longer raise funds for it."  Bill Clinton (if Hillary was elected)

 

 

That would be on par with Trump retaining ownership of his businesses while turning the actual operation over to his sons..

 

 

 

Edited by swamptiger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Big Dave2 said:

 

NO. Not when the rules have been gamed by 2 parties to only allow the viability of 2 candidates that represent 2 view points. What product or service do you know of in a true free market where you only have 2 choices?

The founders made the rules.  Now you are down on the Constitution?  Or the Founders?

 

Maybe you would prefer the parlimentary system used in Israel, 

Quote

Israel's political system, based on proportional representation, allows for a multi-party system with numerous parties represented in the 120-seat Knesset. This article lists the political parties in Israel.

Due to the low election threshold of 3.25% (and only 1% from 1949 until 1988), a typical Knesset includes a large number of factions represented. In the 2015 elections, for instance, 10 parties or alliances cleared the threshold, and five of them won at least 10 seats. The low threshold, in combination with the nationwide party-list system, make it all but impossible for a single party to win the 61 seats needed for a majority government. No party has ever won a majority of seats in an election, the most being 56, won by the Alignment grouping in the 1969 elections (the Alignment had briefly held a majority of seats before the elections following its formation in January 1969). As a result, while only three parties (or their antecedents) have ever led governments, all Israeli governments as of 2015 have been coalitions comprising two or more parties.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is some confusion between the Clinton Foundation and the offshoots like the (now defunct) Clinton Global Initiative.  

Big Dave2 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, delcecchi said:

The founders made the rules.  Now you are down on the Constitution?  Or the Founders?

 

Please show me where it is written in the constitution anything about political parties let alone the creation of a 2 party system?

 

The founding fathers wanted a 2 party system? Are you serious?

 

Quote

John Adams said:

 

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.

 

George Washington agreed, saying in his farewell presidential speech:

 

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe it is now time to closely examine the administration of Woodrow Wilson and that bag of wimps he associated with.

Or here's another:  Chester A. Arthur....wow!  what a dandy he was. And I have read or maybe heard on Fox News, that he even accepted a cigar from a guy lobbying for lower tariffs on Chinese made spinning wheels.

Okay,  I gave you boys a start,  Take it from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, delcecchi said:

I think there is some confusion between the Clinton Foundation and the offshoots like the (now defunct) Clinton Global Initiative.  

 

That wouldn't be surprising.  When you look at the list of foundations and initiatives created by the Clintons, it's nearly as confusing as the meaning of the word "is"....

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Foundation

Big Dave2 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Big Dave2 said:

 

Please show me where it is written in the constitution anything about political parties let alone the creation of a 2 party system?

 

The founding fathers wanted a 2 party system? Are you serious?

 

 

Regardless of what they wanted, the system they defined, and the actions of the states almost guaranteed it.  Either that or their would have been some bizarre stuff in the congress every election.  So, you can conclude they wanted it, or didn't properly anticipate the implications of their decisions.

 

Perhaps you could explain how presidential elections, as defined in the Constitution, would work with three or four (or no) political parties?  

 

So, I take it that the Israeli system would be more to your liking, where geographic diversity is traded for political diversity, and the Libertarian Party might have a couple of representatives.?

Edited by delcecchi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, delcecchi said:

Regardless of what they wanted, the system they defined, and the actions of the states almost guaranteed it.  Either that or their would have been some bizarre stuff in the congress every election.  So, you can conclude they wanted it, or didn't properly anticipate the implications of their decisions.

 

Perhaps you could explain how presidential elections, as defined in the Constitution, would work with three or four (or no) political parties?  

 

So, I take it that the Israeli system would be more to your liking, where geographic diversity is traded for political diversity, and the Libertarian Party might have a couple of representatives.?

 

What actually happened is the Republicans turned into Federalists at some point, so it would actually work better today if the Republicans and Democrats would merge into one party.  And Libertarian-minded folks could form the opposition.

 

 

By the start of the 5th Congress (which coincided with the Inauguration of John Adams as President on 4 March 1797), two national Major Political Parties had emerged from among the strong supporters of the policies of outgoing President Washington and those who had pretty much been opposed to these policies, respectively. Those who had supported the policies of the Washington Administration became known as Federalists because they supported a strong national  government as a counterweight to the States; those who had been in Opposition became known as Republicans because they felt that defending the sovereignty of the States against encroachments by the Federal Government was a truer essence of the federal republic known as the United States of America; however, the Federalists, feeling that their contrary vision of what a federal republic should be was the more "republican" in spirit, derisively referred to the Republicans as "democrats" (a term which, at the time, had connotations of the mob rule associated with the then-still very recent Reign of Terror following the French Revolution of 1789). It is true that some Republicans of this era came to see identification with Democracy as a badge of honor and one often sees the term Democratic-Republicans applied to this Party in historical literature (this usage also creating a lineal relationship between these early Republicans and the Democrats of today); however, many political observers, instead, refer to the Republicans of this era as the "old", or "Jeffersonian", Republicans as a better, and more accurate, method of distinguishing them from the Republicans of today.

 

Big Dave2 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, swamptiger said:

 

What actually happened is the Republicans turned into Federalists at some point, so it would actually work better today if the Republicans and Democrats would merge into one party.  And Libertarian-minded folks could form the opposition.

 

 

 

 

Hes-right-you.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ufatz said:

I believe it is now time to closely examine the administration of Woodrow Wilson and that bag of wimps he associated with.

Or here's another:  Chester A. Arthur....wow!  what a dandy he was. And I have read or maybe heard on Fox News, that he even accepted a cigar from a guy lobbying for lower tariffs on Chinese made spinning wheels.

Okay,  I gave you boys a start,  Take it from there.

No, why dont u further examine schrillary first.  Maybe learn something and quit making a clown out of yourself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Coot ol' pal,   somebody said we had trashed the Clinton's enough and it was time to move on-they are yesterday's news. So in an effort to be helpful I suggested a couple possibilities. As to your suggestion that I examine Hilary further, I already know all I need to know about her....going way back to the old days in Arkansas.

Regarding your suggestion I quit " making a clown of yourself",  you gotta be kidding!  Have you ever stepped back after a week away from this "forum" and looked into it with fresh eyes.  Clowns? Brainless remarks based on little or no information? Pointless arguments that go on and on. Insults and snide comments about other members. There is a reason folks call this Silly Town.

So you see Coot,  a clown fits right in down here. Just like smart Azz young twerps insulting their superiors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get it, nothing personal - my apologies if i went too far.  Just rubs me the wrong way when folks here want to be treated seriously and post something presented as rock solid fact until they are proven otherwise then it turns into light hearted political humor.  As far as the Clintons go they got every bit and more coming their way as a result of their own actions.  Similar to what goes on here we got statement after statement where she claimed no wrong doing, no knowledge of, innocence like the wind driven snow about her emails until the evidence mounted then it turned to oops, my bad.  Meanwhile mr trump is under attack the likes of which we've never seen even before day one in office.  Certainly some of it justified, and there will be more  - and as a trump voter i have and will call him out when he fails in his duties.  But the attacks right now are from a butthurt media and population group unable or unwilling to accept the outcome of an election that didnt go their way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/4/2017 at 8:45 AM, Ufatz said:

Thanks go to PF for posting the length Clinton related stuff. I was not aware of much of it and even though some of it seems a little shaky it certainly seems there is a lot of shady quid=pro-quo stuff going on in there. In this case I believe it is important to note the source of the material is Fox News.  Keep that in mind as you read through it.The one aspect everybody cites as "evidence" of evil is a common practice in the real world:  you really NEED access to the right people and who you know matter. It is not surprising people and perhaps even nations PAID to be on the good side of the Clinton Foundation because they thus hoped to be able to call on either of the Clinton's for a kind word in the right places. Let me assure you this is pretty common in the world of high stakes politics and business.....on the part of both parties.

I continue to believe the Foundation does some good work and I am still of the opinion Chelsea is not paid from Foundation funds and you'd have to be pretty stupid to pay for your kids wedding out of Foundation money so I seriously  doubt that took place.

Confusion and shifty dealing no doubt.  I have never said the Clinton's were my favorite couple. Ha Ha.  But if you think THEY were shifty and shady stay tuned.....you ain't seen nothin' yet!!!:)

It's not just Fox news reporting on it. I take it you are a grown man so feel free to use your cognitive skills to research it for yourself and come to your own conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, delcecchi said:

Regardless of what they wanted, the system they defined, and the actions of the states almost guaranteed it.  Either that or their would have been some bizarre stuff in the congress every election.  So, you can conclude they wanted it, or didn't properly anticipate the implications of their decisions.

 

Perhaps you could explain how presidential elections, as defined in the Constitution, would work with three or four (or no) political parties?  

 

So, I take it that the Israeli system would be more to your liking, where geographic diversity is traded for political diversity, and the Libertarian Party might have a couple of representatives.?


Either the system is flawed and need to be replaced or the people running the show are corrupt and need to be replaced. So we have to look for a new system that isn't as manipulated and corrupt or we boot out all the Democrats and Republicans in office right now and get some fresh eyes on the problems. Not matter what we do keeping the status quo is not going to solve much short or long term. They say most people hate congress as a whole but think their own representatives are good, we need to get past that retire a bunch of them. At the very least we need to set some term limits or boot out those who have been there the longest.

 

We all know the system of rigged or maybe even designed to keep out any and all 3rd parties, that alone tells you all you need to know about the quality of political and voting process. Why this process is continually defended is beyond me but I imagine it feels save to those who fear change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just commenting on the issue of the "two party system" and the constitution.   The solution is not to wail about the system, but to get different candidates.  

 

Trump and Bernie showed that it is possible for an outsider to run, and even to win if they have appeal to enough people.    The tea party had an impact within the Republicans.  

 

If your viewpoints aren't getting heard and represented, either they represent only a small group or you're not working to promote them.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't it worth looking into new systems if the current model is so easily corrupted and manipulated? Isn't that like going to vegas and expecting to win every time even though the odds are always stacked against you?

 

Silly town is a wonderful example of how politics operates, people are so attached to their parties they still defend their party leaders no matter what facts are pointed out against them. You are correct about Trump and Bernie, changes are in the air and there is plenty of momentum is building against the two party system. It might take a while but it will happen, the parties are losing their grip and in time they won't have power or be able to manipulate the voters as they once did. Fun times ahead.

Big Dave2 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now