ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 2016 elections , Clinton controversies , hillary clinton , James Comey , presidential candidates

Reply
Old 30th October 2016, 09:46 PM   #281
KatieG
Rootin' Tootin' Raspberry
 
KatieG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: at the end of the Oregon Trail
Posts: 3,640
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
Oh, dear!
Move over and let me share this bench with you whilst I clutch my pearls
__________________
Trumps, Hiltons and Kardashians are proof there is no god and the universe hates decent people.

"I never thought leopards would eat MY face", sobs the woman who voted for Leopards Eating People's Faces Party
KatieG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2016, 10:14 PM   #282
Doghouse Reilly
Adrift on an uncharted sea
 
Doghouse Reilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,936
Originally Posted by cantonear1968 View Post
TPD, I was a long time lurker in the 9/11 forum and infrequent contributor. I was an admirer of yours in your participation of taking down the ridiculous arguments that were provided by truthers.

Now seeing you offer this drivel as a counter-argument saddens me to see your inadequacy but also my lack of judgement.
There's a logical fallacy in there somewhere. People can be inconsistent. You don't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Life is complicated sometimes.
Doghouse Reilly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2016, 11:41 PM   #283
Noztradamus
Illuminator
 
Noztradamus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,224
Originally Posted by Stacko View Post
Nobody does supermarket tabloids like the Shermans
__________________
The Australian Family Association's John Morrissey was aghast when he learned Jessica Watson was bidding to become the youngest person to sail round the world alone, unaided and without stopping.
Noztradamus is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2016, 01:24 AM   #284
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 27,648
Expert: Only criminal if classified emails....

That's a little obvious. I guess experts are masters of the obvious.
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2016, 01:38 AM   #285
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 61,933
Originally Posted by Mike! View Post
A perfectly acceptable expression, if one is a classical fan of the rabbit, that is.
You mean it wasn't a reference to the Montreal Maroons?

Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Swillary Clinton
Man, your fake persona is going to hate the next four years.
__________________
"So let it be written. So let it be done."
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2016, 02:53 AM   #286
PartSkeptic
Graduate Poster
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 1,817
Tony Stark #3996 of Part 3.

The first of my answers to that post:

Quote:
TS: Just as I knew, you think you know more than charity watchdogs because that's what you need to believe in order to maintain your conspiracy theory.

I don’t think I know, I do know. For about 4 years I was involved with various charities in South Africa. I was at the coal face where the “benefits” are supposed to be delivered.

My involvement would get to the point that I learned a lot about how many of them operated, and the reality was vastly different from the corporate audits and brochures.

I got involved because my late (American) wife was the director of a key South African charity. She did the fund raising for the organization. Prior to that she did international fund raising for the ruling ANC party, until she became aware of the extent of the corruption. Her late husband gathered and analyzed information for the CIA.

I had a lot of questions about her work since I traveled with her and assisted her. At no charge or cost to the organization directly or indirectly. The bureaucracy in her organization was minimal and downright sparse. They used little Renault wagons because they could go into poor areas without being hijacked. They delivered a lot of "bang for the buck".

She compared her organization to others that benefited the leaders with little or no benefit to the targeted poor. They rented expensive office space, drove luxury cars, traveled first class and stayed in five star accommodation.

Those would go to a resort close to a poor rural area, and employ a few people at $20 a day to go and sign up people for the courses. While maybe 10% got some sort of training in a conference setting (of no benefit really), the organization would report everyone that signed up as a “beneficiary”.
Their brochures were professional and looked good, but I was told how the figures lied.

I have had to deal with scamsters legally and conducted a forensic audit into a woman in NZ who had been investigated by the Serious Fraud Office. It took three High Court applications to get all the information out of her after I uncovered her dodges.

See my pending post about the Foundation and the so-called Watchdog.

Quote:
First of all $250k for a speech is nothing for a large corporation. Second of all it is not unusual or suspicious that a company would be willing to pay a former President and former First Lady/Senator/Secretary of State for speeches. If Obama wants to, he will make millions giving speeches too and he will never hold any public office again.

A typical Hillary pivot. What you needed to answer was: “What is/was the benefit to the corporations?”

One of my late wife's sayings was the Five Finger Rule (WHAT DO I GET OUT) which she applied to many situations to get to the truth. She said there are very few truly charitable people.
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2016, 03:14 AM   #287
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 8,828
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
Tony Stark #3996 of Part 3.

The first of my answers to that post:




I don’t think I know, I do know. For about 4 years I was involved with various charities in South Africa. I was at the coal face where the “benefits” are supposed to be delivered.

My involvement would get to the point that I learned a lot about how many of them operated, and the reality was vastly different from the corporate audits and brochures.

I got involved because my late (American) wife was the director of a key South African charity. She did the fund raising for the organization. Prior to that she did international fund raising for the ruling ANC party, until she became aware of the extent of the corruption. Her late husband gathered and analyzed information for the CIA.

I had a lot of questions about her work since I traveled with her and assisted her. At no charge or cost to the organization directly or indirectly. The bureaucracy in her organization was minimal and downright sparse. They used little Renault wagons because they could go into poor areas without being hijacked. They delivered a lot of "bang for the buck".

She compared her organization to others that benefited the leaders with little or no benefit to the targeted poor. They rented expensive office space, drove luxury cars, traveled first class and stayed in five star accommodation.

Those would go to a resort close to a poor rural area, and employ a few people at $20 a day to go and sign up people for the courses. While maybe 10% got some sort of training in a conference setting (of no benefit really), the organization would report everyone that signed up as a “beneficiary”.
Their brochures were professional and looked good, but I was told how the figures lied.

I have had to deal with scamsters legally and conducted a forensic audit into a woman in NZ who had been investigated by the Serious Fraud Office. It took three High Court applications to get all the information out of her after I uncovered her dodges.

See my pending post about the Foundation and the so-called Watchdog.
Your experience with charities in South Africa is completely irrelevant to the charities in the United States.

Your claim that you know more about how to evaluate American charities than American charity watchdogs is laughable.

Fact is that the a small percentage of the Clinton Foundation money goes to overhead. The rest goes to helping people. Yes, I know, the evidence for this was all faked. Your evidence for this assertion is non existent of course. You just believe it because you desperately want to.


Quote:
A typical Hillary pivot. What you needed to answer was: “What is/was the benefit to the corporations?”

One of my late wife's sayings was the Five Finger Rule (WHAT DO I GET OUT) which she applied to many situations to get to the truth. She said there are very few truly charitable people.
They get to have an extremely important and famous person show up to their event and give a speech.

Lots of famous people get paid to give speeches, and most of them aren't even politicians.

https://priceonomics.com/why-do-famo...000-to-give-a/


If Obama decides to cash in on the paid speech circuit, how could he possibly be accepting bribes or whatever? He will never hold office again.

When Ronald Reagan gave paid speeches after leaving office, how could he have possibly been accepting bribes?

Last edited by Tony Stark; 31st October 2016 at 03:42 AM.
Tony Stark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2016, 03:39 AM   #288
PartSkeptic
Graduate Poster
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 1,817
Part two of my reply to Tony Stark #3996 of Part 3.

Quote:
Arbitrary standard that you pulled out of your ass. Fact of the matter is that they give millions to charity. Which is in fact infinitely more than your Fuhrer does as he gives nothing despite being an alleged multibillionaire.

If you wish to trade insults, I would say that what I pull out my rear end is worth many times more than what comes out of your mouth (or your typing fingers).

It is no "standard". Strawman! It was a comment about what scammers do to make themselves look good. "Look how charitable I am". What percentage did Robin Hood give to the poor from his spoils?

The one person I know of who was truly charitable turned over the bulk of his fortune in billions and rented a modest flat and drove a second hand car.

Quote:
It is not reasonable to believe they are paid for working on the foundation board since they aren't.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact...nal-benefit-f/

Can you prove they are compensated some other way? No, of course you can't. And so the sane, non conspiracy theory whackjob explanation for why they serve on the board is that want to ensure that the charity that they founded and bears their name continues to do good work. And they can certainly afford to work for free.

From the link you quoted:
"So the Clintons don’t receive compensation from the foundation. However, you can make a case that they have received some indirect personal benefits. This is not to say that any of these benefits are unethical or improper. Experts on nonprofit ethics told us these are pretty standard, and they haven’t seen anything reported about the Clinton Foundation that proves corruption."

And I then looked up the 2014 tax return of the Clinton Foundation. (My rounding)

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/si...ublic_2014.pdf

Page 28
Revenue = $177 million
Expense = $ 91 million
Grants = $ 5 million
Salaries = $ 35 million
Fundraising = $ 1 million
Other = $ 50 million

Page 37 for Details of Expenses
Conferences = $ 12 million
Travel = $ 8 million
Travel for government officials = $ 12 million
Depreciation = $ 5 million

Page 68 for Compensation
First class travel ticked but hard to see who compensates. But why first class? Are Bill, Hillary and Chelsea in this group?

I am no tax expert and am not going to learn. But ONLY $ 5 million in grants from revenue of $ 177 million - and to companies to improve their services? Why is your watchdog not picking this up?

After my checks I found this article while looking for any salary to Chelsea:

Quote:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archiv...e-clintons.php

Posted on April 26, 2015 by Paul Mirengoff

The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last month, the New York Post reports.

Charity Navigator, which rates nonprofits, refused to rate the Clinton Foundation because its “atypical business model . . . doesn’t meet our criteria.” Instead, it placed the Foundation on its “watch list,” which warns potential donors about investing in problematic charities.

...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). Ten executives received salaries of more than $100,000 in 2013. Eric Braverman, a friend of Chelsea Clinton, was paid nearly $275,000 in salary, benefits, and a housing allowance for just five months’ work as CEO that year.
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2016, 03:46 AM   #289
PartSkeptic
Graduate Poster
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 1,817
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
Your experience with charities in South Africa is completely irrelevant to the charities in the United States.

Your claim that you know more about how to evaluate American charities than American charity watchdogs is laughable.

Fact is that the a small percentage of the Clinton Foundation money goes to overhead. The rest goes to helping people. Yes, I know, the evidence for this was all faked. Your evidence for this assertion is non existent of course. You just believe it because you desperately want to.

Irrelevant! What nonsense. The Clinton's Foundation claims to benefit foreigners in such countries as South Africa. How did people know about the lack of benefit to Haiti? From the people in Haiti who were supposed to benefit.

The laugh is on you. Check the figures in my previous post. Faked evidence? It comes from the Clinton Foundation itself.

To me you have very little credibility. You use insult and distortion. Just like the Clinton campaign.
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2016, 03:48 AM   #290
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 27,648
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
Irrelevant! What nonsense. The Clinton's Foundation claims to benefit foreigners in such countries as South Africa. How did people know about the lack of benefit to Haiti? From the people in Haiti who were supposed to benefit.

The laugh is on you. Check the figures in my previous post. Faked evidence? It comes from the Clinton Foundation itself.

To me you have very little credibility. You use insult and distortion. Just like the Clinton campaign.
OMG! Why aren't you doing the news circuit with this evidence?

__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2016, 03:53 AM   #291
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 61,933
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
Tony Stark #3996 of Part 3.
Why not just the quote function like usual?

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
OMG! Why aren't you doing the news circuit with this evidence?

Well, obviously because they are lib-biased and wouldn't air it. Or something.
__________________
"So let it be written. So let it be done."
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2016, 04:03 AM   #292
Firestone
Proud Award Award recipient
 
Firestone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,808
PartSkeptic is doing the same mistake as Carly Fiorina when evaluating the Clinton Foundation:

Quote:
By only looking at the amount the Clinton Foundation doled out in grants, Fiorina “is showing her lack of understanding of charitable organizations,” Borochoff said. “She’s thinking of the Clinton Foundation as a private foundation.” Those kinds of foundations are typically supported by money from a few people, and the money is then distributed to various charities. The Clinton Foundation, however, is a public charity, he said. It mostly does its own charitable work. It has over 2,000 employees worldwide.
“What she’s doing is looking at how many grants they write to other groups,” Borochoff said. “If you are going to look at it that way, you may as well criticize every other operating charity on the planet.”
In order to get a fuller picture of the Clinton Foundation’s operations, he said, people need to look at the foundation’s consolidated audit, which includes the financial data on separate affiliates like the Clinton Health Access Initiative.
“Otherwise,” he said, “you are looking at just a piece of the pie.”
Considering all of the organizations affiliated with the Clinton Foundation, he said, CharityWatch concluded about 89 percent of its budget is spent on programs. That’s the amount it spent on charity in 2013, he said.
We looked at the consolidated financial statements (see page 4) and calculated that in 2013, 88.3 percent of spending was designated as going toward program services — $196.6 million out of $222.6 million in reported expenses.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/whe...tion-money-go/
__________________
The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it, with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age. -- Carl Sagan

Last edited by Firestone; 31st October 2016 at 04:07 AM.
Firestone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2016, 04:30 AM   #293
Megalodon
Illuminator
 
Megalodon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,227
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
From the link you quoted:
[i]"So the Clintons don’t receive compensation from the foundation. However, you can make a case that they have received some indirect personal benefits.
You can make the case that the only reason why humans do things it's because they get something from it, even if it's only the satisfaction of doing the right thing (or the wrong one, depending on taste).

Quote:
And I then looked up the 2014 tax return of the Clinton Foundation. (My rounding)

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/si...ublic_2014.pdf

Page 28
Revenue = $177 million
Expense = $ 91 million
Grants = $ 5 million
Salaries = $ 35 million
Fundraising = $ 1 million
Other = $ 50 million

Page 37 for Details of Expenses
Conferences = $ 12 million
Travel = $ 8 million
Travel for government officials = $ 12 million
Depreciation = $ 5 million

Page 68 for Compensation
First class travel ticked but hard to see who compensates. But why first class? Are Bill, Hillary and Chelsea in this group?
Maybe, but more importantly, why would that be a problem? An organization pays thousands of dollars for an executive's time, and then will skimp on the price of an upgrade?

"Yes, we know it's a 12 hour flight and you have a presentation when you arrive, but we're saving 500 bucks, so you'll have to sleep sitting."

That makes no sense at all. Anyone that has ever been in such a situation knows that you overspend on travel comfort or you fly early and overspend on hotel stays.

Quote:
I am no tax expert and am not going to learn. But ONLY $ 5 million in grants from revenue of $ 177 million - and to companies to improve their services? Why is your watchdog not picking this up?
Probably because that item doesn't mean what you think it means. That's normally why the non-experts pick up things the experts apparently failed to notice: because they're wrong.

Quote:
After my checks I found this article while looking for any salary to Chelsea:
Again, why is this supposed to be a bad thing (it's not)? Is it higher or lower than average for the same position at equivalent charities (meh)? Is it the highest salary ever (nope)?
Should the Clinton Foundation only hire unknown people? You do realize that the network of a former POTUS and Sec.State are gigantic, don't you?

Also, the article makes a big thing of the Charity Navigator not rating the CF. But that was before, and now they rate them with their top rating. Other watchdogs rated the CF as a very good foundation for a long time.

So we have some more of the "Clinton Syndrome": whenever a subject is not crystal clear, ignore all other sources and assume the absolute worse. The next step, which I hope you don't take, is to handwave the whole matter as really unimportant, and focusing on the next outrage. The final step is, of course, to continue to spread the initial rumours as if they were never dispelled.
__________________
Stupid is depressing...


Last edited by Megalodon; 31st October 2016 at 04:50 AM.
Megalodon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2016, 04:44 AM   #294
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 8,828
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
Part two of my reply to Tony Stark #3996 of Part 3.




If you wish to trade insults, I would say that what I pull out my rear end is worth many times more than what comes out of your mouth (or your typing fingers).

It is no "standard". Strawman! It was a comment about what scammers do to make themselves look good. "Look how charitable I am". What percentage did Robin Hood give to the poor from his spoils?

The one person I know of who was truly charitable turned over the bulk of his fortune in billions and rented a modest flat and drove a second hand car.
Not a strawman. You are literally creating an arbitrary standard and then claiming that anyone who doesn't meet it isn't charitable. For the sole reason so you can claim that the Clintons aren't charitable despite giving millions to charity.

And to top it off you couldn't care less that your alleged multibillionaire Fuhrer claims to be charitable but gives literally nothing to charity.

Quote:
From the link you quoted:
"So the Clintons don’t receive compensation from the foundation. However, you can make a case that they have received some indirect personal benefits. This is not to say that any of these benefits are unethical or improper. Experts on nonprofit ethics told us these are pretty standard, and they haven’t seen anything reported about the Clinton Foundation that proves corruption."
So indirect benifits that are standard, not unethical or improper, and do not prove corruption. So what.

Quote:
And I then looked up the 2014 tax return of the Clinton Foundation. (My rounding)

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/si...ublic_2014.pdf

Page 28
Revenue = $177 million
Expense = $ 91 million
Grants = $ 5 million
Salaries = $ 35 million
Fundraising = $ 1 million
Other = $ 50 million

Page 37 for Details of Expenses
Conferences = $ 12 million
Travel = $ 8 million
Travel for government officials = $ 12 million
Depreciation = $ 5 million

Page 68 for Compensation
First class travel ticked but hard to see who compensates. But why first class? Are Bill, Hillary and Chelsea in this group?
Oh no, people at the charity, not even necessarily any of the Clintons flew first class. That therefore proves the whole thing is a sham.

Quote:
I am no tax expert and am not going to learn. But ONLY $ 5 million in grants from revenue of $ 177 million - and to companies to improve their services? Why is your watchdog not picking this up?
You're just making **** up. The $5m is grants they gave to other charities. Exactly where this money went to is listed on page 66.

You're right. You're clearly not an expert on American taxes and charities. You know who are? Charity watchdogs that give the CF very high ratings.

Quote:
After my checks I found this article while looking for any salary to Chelsea:
OMG, someone that Chelsea knows and trusts did work for the foundation and was paid for it.

BTW, your article cites Charity Navigator which has since updated their non rating of the foundation to a very high rating.

Last edited by Tony Stark; 31st October 2016 at 05:02 AM.
Tony Stark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2016, 04:53 AM   #295
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 8,828
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
Irrelevant! What nonsense. The Clinton's Foundation claims to benefit foreigners in such countries as South Africa. How did people know about the lack of benefit to Haiti? From the people in Haiti who were supposed to benefit.
You working on charities in South Africa does not even slightly make you an expert on American charities. Certainly not more than American charity watchdogs.

Quote:
The laugh is on you. Check the figures in my previous post. Faked evidence? It comes from the Clinton Foundation itself.
The only thing your use of the figures in that post proves that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Quote:
To me you have very little credibility. You use insult and distortion. Just like the Clinton campaign.
Says someone who worships Donald Trump.
Tony Stark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2016, 05:04 AM   #296
Fast Eddie B
Illuminator
 
Fast Eddie B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 4,132
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Guess who was a drunkard?


Churchill



Guess who rarely drank?


Hilter.



Now I have Godwined the thread.....
If anything, the thought of Hillary imbibing, even occasionally to excess, actually endears her just a little to me.

Just a little!
__________________
"God is not a magician" - Pope Francis

"I doubt that!" - James Randi
Fast Eddie B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2016, 05:06 AM   #297
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 8,828
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Guess who was a drunkard?


Churchill



Guess who rarely drank?


Hilter.



Now I have Godwined the thread.....
And Donald Trump supposedly never drinks...
Tony Stark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2016, 05:06 AM   #298
Fast Eddie B
Illuminator
 
Fast Eddie B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 4,132
Originally Posted by Doghouse Reilly View Post
There's a logical fallacy in there somewhere. People can be inconsistent. You don't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Life is complicated sometimes.
Hasty Generalization?
__________________
"God is not a magician" - Pope Francis

"I doubt that!" - James Randi
Fast Eddie B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2016, 05:17 AM   #299
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 8,828
Surely PartSkeptic didn't skip over this because he has no answer.

Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
They get to have an extremely important and famous person show up to their event and give a speech.

Lots of famous people get paid to give speeches, and most of them aren't even politicians.

https://priceonomics.com/why-do-famo...000-to-give-a/


If Obama decides to cash in on the paid speech circuit, how could he possibly be accepting bribes or whatever? He will never hold office again.

When Ronald Reagan gave paid speeches after leaving office, how could he have possibly been accepting bribes?
Tony Stark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2016, 05:36 AM   #300
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 61,933
Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B View Post
Hasty Generalization?
How do you call it when it's done by someone of lower rank?

Hasty Colonisation.
__________________
"So let it be written. So let it be done."
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2016, 06:19 AM   #301
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,843
Hillary sent her awful surrogates out to raise the mobs against the Director of the FBI.

I have never seen so many threats against a law enforcement officer ever.

Pathetic
__________________
INDOCTRINATED!
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2016, 06:23 AM   #302
Fast Eddie B
Illuminator
 
Fast Eddie B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 4,132
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Hasty Colonisation.
I had a case of that once.

It wasn't pretty.
__________________
"God is not a magician" - Pope Francis

"I doubt that!" - James Randi
Fast Eddie B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2016, 06:30 AM   #303
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 8,828
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Hillary sent her awful surrogates out to raise the mobs against the Director of the FBI.

I have never seen so many threats against a law enforcement officer ever.

Pathetic
Perhaps he should have done his job right.

His career at the FBI is likely over and it is his fault.
Tony Stark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2016, 06:31 AM   #304
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 61,933
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Hillary sent her awful surrogates out to raise the mobs against the Director of the FBI.
Linky?
__________________
"So let it be written. So let it be done."
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2016, 06:32 AM   #305
eerok
Quixoticist
 
eerok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,502
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Pathetic
Your self-serving attitude toward criminal action is indeed pathetic. There's no question that Comey should be made to answer for his interference with the election.
__________________
"Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." - Oscar Wilde
eerok is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2016, 06:36 AM   #306
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 8,828
Originally Posted by eerok View Post
Your self-serving attitude toward criminal action is indeed pathetic. There's no question that Comey should be made to answer for his interference with the election.
It isn't criminal but it is something he deserves to lose his job over. Hopefully Obama will fire him after the election.
Tony Stark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2016, 06:36 AM   #307
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,035
Originally Posted by eerok View Post
Your self-serving attitude toward criminal action is indeed pathetic. There's no question that Comey should be made to answer for his interference with the election.
He didn't interfere. It is true, they are looking at emails. That is their prerogative. It doesn't affect either candidate.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2016, 06:38 AM   #308
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 10,889
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Hillary sent her awful surrogates out to raise the mobs against the Director of the FBI.

I have never seen so many threats against a law enforcement officer ever.

Pathetic
How horrible for that FBI Director!

I am sure that if you were to offer your services to him, then he would be glad to have such a highly intelligent and honest individual such as yourself on his team of protectors.
__________________
On 16 MAY 2017 Paul Bethke discussed some of the sexual prohibitions of his god regarding man-to-man sex acts and woman-to-woman sex acts: "So not only lesbian acts but also anal sex.."
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...0#post11840580

A man's best friend is his dogma.
Crossbow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2016, 06:46 AM   #309
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 19,823
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
He didn't interfere. It is true, they are looking at emails. That is their prerogative. It doesn't affect either candidate.
Come on man.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2016, 06:47 AM   #310
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 8,828
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
He didn't interfere. It is true, they are looking at emails. That is their prerogative. It doesn't affect either candidate.
Looking at the emails isn't the interference. Sending that vague letter to Congress was. It was a highly unusual move; they typically never comment on investigations. He must have known the Republicans would instantly leak it and attempt to use it against Hillary. And if he didn't know that, he is way too stupid to be the Director of the FBI.

Last edited by Tony Stark; 31st October 2016 at 06:48 AM.
Tony Stark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2016, 06:47 AM   #311
Megalodon
Illuminator
 
Megalodon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,227
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
He didn't interfere. It is true, they are looking at emails. That is their prerogative. It doesn't affect either candidate.
He sent a letter to congresspeople, knowing that it would go to the press in a second. That is unprecedented, and it falls under the Hatch Act.

To say that it doesn't affect either candidate shows lack of thought on the matter. If the audiences for Trump's fraud and rape trials had been set for this week, would you be of the opinion that it wouldn't affect the election?
__________________
Stupid is depressing...

Megalodon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2016, 06:50 AM   #312
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,035
Originally Posted by Megalodon View Post
He sent a letter to congresspeople, knowing that it would go to the press in a second. That is unprecedented, and it falls under the Hatch Act.

To say that it doesn't affect either candidate shows lack of thought on the matter. If the audiences for Trump's fraud and rape trials had been set for this week, would you be of the opinion that it wouldn't affect the election?
Correct. This doesn't alter any evidence about any candidate (as demonstrated by the opinions of people on this thread). No one is prevented from campaigning or voting.

Last edited by BobTheCoward; 31st October 2016 at 06:54 AM.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2016, 06:54 AM   #313
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 19,823
Originally Posted by Megalodon View Post
He sent a letter to congresspeople, knowing that it would go to the press in a second. That is unprecedented, and it falls under the Hatch Act.

To say that it doesn't affect either candidate shows lack of thought on the matter. If the audiences for Trump's fraud and rape trials had been set for this week, would you be of the opinion that it wouldn't affect the election?
He sent the letter to a specific congressman before sending it out en masse - removing any doubt as to his intentions.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2016, 06:56 AM   #314
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 19,823
Originally Posted by Megalodon View Post
He sent a letter to congresspeople, knowing that it would go to the press in a second. That is unprecedented, and it falls under the Hatch Act.

To say that it doesn't affect either candidate shows lack of thought on the matter. If the audiences for Trump's fraud and rape trials had been set for this week, would you be of the opinion that it wouldn't affect the election?
Bad example.

It's already pretty clear no matter what comes out about Trump, the galactic morons who support him wouldn't care.

Any other year this "what if" scenario would be prudent. Not this year.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2016, 07:00 AM   #315
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,843
So many experts on the Hatch Act

Must have gotten a primer when issued the torch and pitchfork.

Pathetic.
__________________
INDOCTRINATED!
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2016, 07:04 AM   #316
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,035
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
So many experts on the Hatch Act

Must have gotten a primer when issued the torch and pitchfork.

Pathetic.
I agree with you.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2016, 07:15 AM   #317
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 8,828
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
So many experts on the Hatch Act

Must have gotten a primer when issued the torch and pitchfork.

Pathetic.
As you know, a law professor and former chief Bush White House ethics lawyer filed a Hatch complaint because of this.

Let me guess, you are more of an expert than him.
Tony Stark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2016, 07:17 AM   #318
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 35,350
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
So many experts on the Hatch Act

Must have gotten a primer when issued the torch and pitchfork.

Pathetic.
Oh, Dear!

Welcome to the internet. You must be new in town. Anyone can read the Hatch Act. Which part of it are you having trouble with? Perhaps we could help you out? You are normally quite good at interpreting the words of judge's rulings, conflicting government regulations, etc... Or is that a mental dexterity that only applies to nailing witches' hides to the partisan barn?
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele
"Chicken **** Poster!"
Help! We're being attacked by sea lions!
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2016, 07:22 AM   #319
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,035
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
As you know, a law professor and former chief Bush White House ethics lawyer filed a Hatch complaint because of this.

Let me guess, you are more of an expert than him.
Want to make a bet that comey is never convicted of violation?
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2016, 07:22 AM   #320
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 61,933
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
As you know, a law professor and former chief Bush White House ethics lawyer filed a Hatch complaint because of this.

Let me guess, you are more of an expert than him.
Well, all he has to do is change the skill levels of his Republican character.
__________________
"So let it be written. So let it be done."
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:55 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.