Let's pick on Hillary (Her Thighness)

[gopher]

pgs,


Why are congressional democrats the ones that want to save the Import Export Bank ?
Securing loans for the top 600 or so American Corporations . Democrats = Crony Capitalism .

You are echoing the words of the Tea Baggers.

The E-IB turned a profit of $1+ billion last year and was said to create 200,000+ jobs. Perhaps the Tea Baggers want to have it dissolved in order to further disrupt improvement in the economy and cause further difficulties for the Obama administration. What little I've read from them offers no viable alternative. All they say is that trust us the economy will improve if you take our word for it. So where's the proof?

 

[pgs]

You are echoing the words of the Tea Baggers.

The E-IB turned a profit of $1+ billion last year and was said to create 200,000+ jobs. Perhaps the Tea Baggers want to have it dissolved in order to further disrupt improvement in the economy and cause further difficulties for the Obama administration. What little I've read from them offers no viable alternative. All they say is that trust us the economy will improve if you take our word for it. So where's the proof?

So you think it is a good idea for the government to guarantee loans for fortune 500 companies .
Are American Corporations to big to fail ?

 

[talloola]

Why are congressional democrats the ones that want to save the Import Export Bank ?
Securing loans for the top 600 or so American Corporations . Democrats = Crony Capitalism .


Yet you will have no trouble voting for Trudeau Junior .

lol, no, i won't be voting for trudeau junior.

liberals are so desperate, they are grasping at straws.

 

[JLM]

Yet you will have no trouble voting for Trudeau Junior .

That will be a frosty Friday in July- He's almost as bad as Mulcair.

 

[gopher]

So you think it is a good idea for the government to guarantee loans for fortune 500 companies .
Are American Corporations to big to fail ?

You say Fortune 500 companies but the facts say smaller businesses, especially from small overseas:


The misleading debate on the Export-Import Bank - The Washington Post



The CRS gives examples of transactions in 2013: a $155 million loan to Ghana for a hospital expansion supported by U.S. engineering and construction firms; a $1.1 billion loan guarantee to an Indonesian airline to buy Boeing jets; and a $694 million loan to an Australian company for U.S. mining and rail equipment from Caterpillar and General Electric ... Smaller firms — about 90 percent of Ex-Im clients




True some big businesses use its resources. But it would appear that it is the small fry who use it more often. If you are interested in saving the federal government much money the better thing to do is to dissolve or greatly reduce the Pentagon whose wastage is unmatchable.

 

[JLM]

liberals are so desperate, they are grasping at straws.

Would one of those "straws" be Trinity-Spadina? (I have mixed feelings about that one- hopefully he just took it from someone worse than he is) -

 

[captain morgan]

You say Fortune 500 companies but the facts say smaller businesses, especially from small overseas:


The misleading debate on the Export-Import Bank - The Washington Post



The CRS gives examples of transactions in 2013: a $155 million loan to Ghana for a hospital expansion supported by U.S. engineering and construction firms; a $1.1 billion loan guarantee to an Indonesian airline to buy Boeing jets; and a $694 million loan to an Australian company for U.S. mining and rail equipment from Caterpillar and General Electric ... Smaller firms — about 90 percent of Ex-Im clients




True some big businesses use its resources. But it would appear that it is the small fry who use it more often. If you are interested in saving the federal government much money the better thing to do is to dissolve or greatly reduce the Pentagon whose wastage is unmatchable.

Your position on corporate welfare is widely known... The above examples easily qualify as such regardless of the recipient company(s) in question

 

[BaalsTears]

There are some people who decry Corporate Welfare, but then turn around and support the existence of Big Govt. which is inextricably fused with Big Business in a form of Symbiotic Corporatism. Corporate Welfare is the way Big Govt. and Big Business exchange figurative body fluids. Such people are either ignorant or are hypocrites.
In contrast, the relationship between Small Business and Big Govt. is parasitic with Small Business being the host.

 

[gopher]

Your position on corporate welfare is widely known... The above examples easily qualify as such regardless of the recipient company(s) in question

You may call it "big government" or what you will. However, this type of government policy promotes the general welfare in compliance with the wishes of our Founding Fathers. As we discussed previously they knew that the definition of general welfare would evolve. But one thing that is for sure is that they condemned corporate welfarism {op cit}. For Tea Baggers and other extremists to condemn policies which benefit the poor for the betterment of society, while sidestepping the issue of corporate welfarism which does not benefit society but only serves to enrich the wealthy, is hypocrisy of the worse sort.

And as you saw from my link, the E-IB operated at a profit which resulted in increased tax revenues. By contrast, wealthy elites continue to shelter monies in overseas tax free accounts. Want to increase tax revenues and end the federal debt? Close elitist tax shelters. Closing down E-IB or ending SNAP in the effort to reduce Big Government may be a good idea. But this is the last step to take. End corporate elitist welfarism is the first and wisest step to take.

 

[DurkaDurka]

Would one of those "straws" be Trinity-Spadina? (I have mixed feelings about that one- hopefully he just took it from someone worse than he is) -

That's my voting district, couldn't stomach voting for Vaughn or Cressy.

 

[Locutus]

 

[Walter]

Too funny.
Weasel Zippers | Scouring the bowels of the internet | Weasel Zippers

 

[Locutus]

Tevi Troy ‏@TeviTroy

By popular demand, here is the caption from Hillary’s book on the cease fire “that holds to this day” @DraftRyan2016

 

[Locutus]

 

[Locutus]

SC ‏@steelsmith9

Just a reminder she was corrupt then think of how bad she is now

 

[Locutus]

It would be hard to choose just one quote as the stupidest thing Hillary Clinton ever said, but this one is definitely cringeworthy.
In fact, if she were a Republican, the Internet would have blown up bigger than Kim Kardashian’s butt.


Speaking at a dinner at the New York Historical Society Friday night, Clinton embellished the Democrat talking points on Obama’s executive amnesty as only she can.







Alex Seitz-WaldVerified account ‏@aseitzwald

Hillary Clinton now on immigration order: "This is about people's lives, people, I would venture to guess, who served us tonight."






http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/11/22/hillarys-unbelievable-quote-blows-up-twitter-most-cringetastic-hrc-quote-in-some-time-160517

 

[Locutus]

Pro-Hillary Group: She's Not Rich, She's You

Hillary Group: She's Not Rich, She's You - The Daily Beast





The Morning Spew ‏@TheMorningSpew

#HillaryCountrySongs You Look So Good In Table Cloths

 

[BaalsTears]

What can one say about a privileged, entitled, incredibly wealthy, female senior citizen with delicate health and a failed marriage?

 

[Locutus]

Tom T. ‏@VRWCTexan

Very calculating Nursed resentments Caving into anger An unflattering NYT portrait of Hillary

An unflattering portrait of Hillary Clinton by the NYT

By Ed Lasky

The New York Times published on Saturday a somewhat scathing portrayal of Hillary Clinton by Peter Baker and Amy Chozik, focusing on her time as First Lady. Anger, paranoia, temper-tantrums, ego, ambition -- all there and more. The paper points out that she has been peddling a line to her presidential bid that flatters herself as a working mom, juggling the demands of a young daughter and a career while championing women’s rights, supporting her husband during periods of economic growth and enduring withering personal attacks. The reality is far more complicated -- and interesting. She was, from an early time, very calculating, and nursed resentments, gaving into her anger. Apparently, those stories about temper tantrums were not just the creation of fabulists after all.

Lest we forget before here was Obamacare there was HillaryCare.
Excerpts:

Now carefully controlled at 67, then she was fiery and unpredictable, lobbing sarcastic jabs in private meetings and congressional hearings. Now criticized as a centrist and challenged from the left, Mrs. Clinton then was considered the liberal whispering in her husband’s ear to resist the North American Free Trade Agreement and a welfare overhaul. (snip)

She was an independent force within the White House, single-handedly pushing health care onto the agenda and intimidating into silence those who thought she might be mishandling it. She was prone to bouts of anger and nursed deep resentment toward Washington. She endured a terribly complicated relationship with her philandering husband. And yet she was the one who often channeled his energies, steered him toward success and saved him from himself.

“She may have been critical from time to time with temper tantrums and things like that,” said Mr. Nussbaum, who went on to become Mr. Clinton’s first White House counsel. (snip)

But the Clintons were fiercely protective of each other, acting at times as if it were just them against the world. “I remember one time in one of these meetings where she was blowing up about his staff and how we were all incompetent and he was having to be the mechanic and drive the car and do everything — that we weren’t capable of anything, why did he have to do it all himself,” said Joan N. Baggett, an assistant for political affairs.
​

She also is framed as a political partner of Bill Clinton who was so confident of his and their future that she introduced him to her boss in the early 70s as a future president. She may not have baked cookies at home as she put it back in 1992, but she was forcefully defending him and their joint political future when his worrisome women issue hit the airwaves again and again. The article certainly gives us insights into a politician who is farther to the left than Bill Clinton, who has an inclination to seethe and to vent when confronting critics and opposition. No wonder Barack Obama might have felt some kinship with her.
Well worth reading as her non-campaign campaign gears up for 2016.

Thomas Lifson adds: I see this as the Times realizing she would be a lousy candidate, and signaling Elizabeth Warren, Bill deBlasio and other Dems that she can be Obama’d again in 2016, as she was in 2008.


Blog: An unflattering portrait of Hillary Clinton by the NYT

 

[Locutus]

NYTimes Fails to Disclose Clinton Paid for Interviews About Administration.


Your Moral And Intellectual Superiors - Small Dead Animals