Clinton Cash/Foundation

[teachercd]

 

 

 

People call it underwear? It's boxers, briefs, boxer-briefs or panties.

I don't like the word panties.

I have heard a lot of people say that. Is it just one of those words? I HATE saying swimming trunks. No idea why but it just creeps me out.

 

 

Moist. Nipple.

 

(Not together... that's worse)

 

Ohhh, Nipple! Good call on that one!

 

And discharge, super gross!

 

I also don't like, "tummy" all that much

[Danny Bateman]

Ironically, teach just steered us in the moist nipple direction in a thread about Hillary Clinton.

 

I always knew he had a thing for her...

[NM11046]

 

 

 

People call it underwear? It's boxers, briefs, boxer-briefs or panties.

I don't like the word panties.

I have heard a lot of people say that. Is it just one of those words? I HATE saying swimming trunks. No idea why but it just creeps me out.

 

 

Moist. Nipple.

 

(Not together... that's worse)

 

Ointment. (and I agree with all your others ... )

[teachercd]

Ironically, teach just steered us in the moist nipple direction in a thread about Hillary Clinton.

 

I always knew he had a thing for her...

Match point! You win! Ha

[cm husker]

I hate to be too cynical, but many non profits and foundations are basically corrupt and some are an outright scam.

 

I'm not convinced that if we did away with 501c3 status we would see a reduction in charity.

[HuskerNation1]

It looks like even the left-leaning NY Times and Huffington Post are starting to realize the corruption that exists with the Clinton Foundation. We are still in the early stages of this topic, and I think a lot more will be coming out in the coming weeks and months.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/hillary-clinton-presidential-campaign-charity.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0

[Danny Bateman]

Just because a bunch of politically motivated folks say something is corrupt because they don't like it doesn't make it so if they can't connect the dots. That term gets thrown around lazily a lot since it's the GOP's equivalent of low-hanging fruit.

[HuskerNation1]

Just because a bunch of politically motivated folks say something is corrupt because they don't like it doesn't make it so if they can't connect the dots. That term gets thrown around lazily a lot since it's the GOP's equivalent of low-hanging fruit.

 

First off, the Times and Huffington Post would not be politically motivated to call out Hillary unless they see the writing is on the wall. Second, if you failed to see all the connected dots in the video in the first post of this thread, spare me the lazy commentary.

[Danny Bateman]

 

Just because a bunch of politically motivated folks say something is corrupt because they don't like it doesn't make it so if they can't connect the dots. That term gets thrown around lazily a lot since it's the GOP's equivalent of low-hanging fruit.

 

First off, the Times and Huffington Post would not be politically motivated to call out Hillary unless they see the writing is on the wall. Second, if you failed to see all the connected dots in the video in the first post of this thread, spare me the lazy commentary.

 

 

They're reporting on the development that they announced the foundation won't accept foreign or corporate donations if she wins. They decided to do that to remove even the appearance of impropriety. The only reason this is a story is because the GOP have made it their new scandal du jour and have started tossing around negative terms like "corrupt" and "incestuous" about the foundation until they're blue in the face.

 

They're reporting on the story because some on the right continue to grasp at straws and look for something to manufacture into a weapon.

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

Just because a bunch of politically motivated folks say something is corrupt because they don't like it doesn't make it so if they can't connect the dots. That term gets thrown around lazily a lot since it's the GOP's equivalent of low-hanging fruit.

 

First off, the Times and Huffington Post would not be politically motivated to call out Hillary unless they see the writing is on the wall. Second, if you failed to see all the connected dots in the video in the first post of this thread, spare me the lazy commentary.

 

 

They're reporting on the development that they announced the foundation won't accept foreign or corporate donations if she wins. They decided to do that to remove even the appearance of impropriety. The only reason this is a story is because the GOP have made it their new scandal du jour and have started tossing around negative terms like "corrupt" and "incestuous" about the foundation until they're blue in the face.

 

They're reporting on the story because some on the right continue to grasp at straws and look for something to manufacture into a weapon.

 

 

You obviously still haven't watched the video which is not focused on what she will do with the Foundation should she win. It's focused on what has already transpired to date. You claiming that this is only a story because of the GOP would be like me claiming that the only reason Trump got coverage for his comments about the Khans was a result of Democrats and the media being in bed together. Sometimes a story deserves the attention it gets, and Trump was an idiot in taking on the Khans. It's funny to listen to some on here claim to be Independent thinkers and argue they are not in the tank for Hillary, yet they continue to defend her and the Democratic party at all costs. It just undermines any credibility you have on here.

[Danny Bateman]

Yes, god forbid I defend a 501c3 that helps third-world countries procure malaria and HIV/AIDS medication or helps with earthquake relief. I feel horrible.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

Just because a bunch of politically motivated folks say something is corrupt because they don't like it doesn't make it so if they can't connect the dots. That term gets thrown around lazily a lot since it's the GOP's equivalent of low-hanging fruit.

First off, the Times and Huffington Post would not be politically motivated to call out Hillary unless they see the writing is on the wall. Second, if you failed to see all the connected dots in the video in the first post of this thread, spare me the lazy commentary.

They're reporting on the development that they announced the foundation won't accept foreign or corporate donations if she wins. They decided to do that to remove even the appearance of impropriety. The only reason this is a story is because the GOP have made it their new scandal du jour and have started tossing around negative terms like "corrupt" and "incestuous" about the foundation until they're blue in the face.

 

They're reporting on the story because some on the right continue to grasp at straws and look for something to manufacture into a weapon.

Well....no. It's still a story even if it makes hillary look bad.

 

I don't trust the Clinton foundation to be legitimate at all.

 

So....they are going to ban foreign donations if they win?????? Wow. Ummmm.....won't that be after the foreign interests have bought and paid for hillary?

[Danny Bateman]

That's where I draw the line. I think the email thing was a completely unforced error. That was completely of her own doing and they continue to handle it poorly. They deserve whatever crap they get for 1) being so stupid and 2) not handling the aftermath well.

 

Other people can get their knickers in a bunch about a charity. I don't care to.

And yes, if that's the view you subscribe to, then sure, she's a puppet.

[Creighton Duke]

Yes, god forbid I defend a 501c3 that helps third-world countries procure malaria and HIV/AIDS medication or helps with earthquake relief. I feel horrible.

Haha....yep. Definitely didn't watch the movie.

[Danny Bateman]

 

Yes, god forbid I defend a 501c3 that helps third-world countries procure malaria and HIV/AIDS medication or helps with earthquake relief. I feel horrible.

Haha....yep. Definitely didn't watch the movie.

 

 

Why the hell would I watch something that's the brainchild of the head of Breitbart?

 

Yep, seems like some stanky corruption.

 

 

• More than 11.5 million people in over 70 countries have access to lifesaving HIV/AIDS drugs at 90 percent lower cost through our affiliated Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI), including more than 800,000 children. That’s more than half the adults and three quarters of the children on treatment today.

• CHAI has also organized the training of thousands of health care workers as part of an effort to address critical shortages in poor countries and help others build strong, self-sufficient health systems, and expanded access to high-quality, low-cost treatment and diagnostics for many other diseases and conditions.

• Through our work with the affiliated Alliance for a Healthier Generation, more than 18 million students in over 31,000 American schools, in every state, now have healthier food and more physical activity options, and our agreements with the beverage industry have reduced the caloric intake from drinks by 90 percent in the vast majority of U.S. schools.

• Our Health Matters Initiative is working in six communities to improve health and has worked with innovative drug companies to help reverse opioid overdoses and combat prescription painkiller misuse by lowering the cost of autoinjection naloxone and making naloxone nasal spray available to every high school in the U.S. at no cost.

• The Foundation’s Haiti initiative has promoted sustainable investment resulting in the planting of more than 5 million trees, the development of 5 new agricultural supply chains benefiting more than 4,000 smallholder farmers, and support for more than 20 entrepreneurial businesses. And members of CGI’s Haiti Action Network have made more than 100 Commitments to Action to strengthen the health, education, agriculture, and infrastructure sectors.

• Our climate change projects have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by more than 33,500 tons annually across the U.S. We’ve also partnered on reforestation and land restoration efforts in South America and East Africa, and are working with island nations to develop renewable energy projects and reduce dependence on expensive imported diesel and petroleum.

• More than 500,000 people in Latin America are benefiting from social enterprises that connect people to job training, supply chains, and entrepreneurship opportunities.

• More than 105,000 farmers in East Africa have dramatically increased their yields and their incomes.

• And, through Too Small to Fail (TSTF), we are working with the faith-based community, pediatricians, community and business leaders, and Head Start educators to provide parents with resources in everyday settings to support their young children’s early brain and language development, and have reached 155,000 parents with tips through direct text messages.

I have found great joy in simple moments shared with people who are benefiting from our work: holding a baby who is alive and healthy because he now has access to AIDS medication; planting rows of seeds with smallholder farmers in Malawi and hearing about how our programs have lifted their incomes, enabling them to send their children to school and electrify their homes; meeting with female entrepreneurs in Peru who are earning a good living for the first time in their lives by providing essential goods to their remote communities. This work has been my life for the last 15 years, and I couldn’t be more grateful.