Hildabeast Announces: "Death To America Tour-2016"

[CID1990]

I never said there was no such thing- if course there is

But klam's assertion that hillary and Walker are the same in that category is just hyperbole

Hopefully he is off somewhere furiously searching the internets for something stronger than his stadium example, for which he has yet to connect the "crony capitalism" dots

You're right, Justice Roberts. Donations to Walker are pure as the driven Wisconsin snow. No access and influence peddling going on at all. That's only a liberal thang.

You've either dug yourself too deep to bail out or have taken a long ride on the struggle bus today.

Are you going to charge me a royalty if I adopt your method of winning the internets?

1. Drop a turd

2. Refuse to defend it with anything valid

3. Get blowed up

4. Declare victory

[Chizzang]

You're right, Justice Roberts. Donations to Walker are pure as the driven Wisconsin snow. No access and influence peddling going on at all. That's only a liberal thang.

You've either dug yourself too deep to bail out or have taken a long ride on the struggle bus today.

Are you going to charge me a royalty if I adopt your method of winning the internets?

1. Drop a turd

2. Refuse to defend it with anything valid

3. Get blowed up

4. Declare victory

T-mans been doing it for years

[Baldy]

I read your poor example of crony capitalism in the form of the stadium project.

So just one example of something that may or may not be crony capitalism is all you have?

Did he give the stadium project to family or business partners?

Seriously- you should start your own Chairman Mao Thought Struggle Group- maybe you can convince some more soft headed teens and hard core lefties

Here, I'm going to help you guys out a little:

Crony capitalism is a term describing an economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between business people and government officials. It may be exhibited by favoritism in the distribution of legal permits, government grants, special tax breaks, or other forms of state interventionism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

An economy that is nominally free-market, but allows for preferential regulation and other favorable government intervention based on personal relationships. In such a system, the false appearance of "pure" capitalism is publicly maintained to preserve the exclusive influence of well-connected individuals.

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/defin ... z3Y3TEQkDp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Pretty much jives with what Chomsky said in the quote Baldy never read.

But yeah, let's pretend certain politicians rise above this. Especially those on the Republican side.

kalm, you're being unusually thick today.
Chill out and try again later.

Nobody has claimed that crony capitalism doesn't exist or that it isn't prevalent in our system, but to compare Walker and Clinton as cut from the same cloth is beyond silly.

As far as your man crush, Chomsky...
There are several basic factual errors in his anti-capitalist diatribe you quoted, so please excuse me for not genuflecting at his little altar of hate and misinformation.

[travelinman67]

it is funny to see how deranged T-man, Baldy, et all at the thought of Hillary being President.

Jon, you're a single-issue voter, blind to a candidate's shortcomings.

Opponents of Hillary Clinton have realized she is the antithesis of a qualified POTUS candidate.

Take your blinders off, and you'd understand why there's such a massive number of opponents.

[Chizzang]

kalm, you're being unusually thick today.
Chill out and try again later.

Nobody has claimed that crony capitalism doesn't exist or that it isn't prevalent in our system, but to compare Walker and Clinton as cut from the same cloth is beyond silly.

As far as your man crush, Chomsky...
There are several basic factual errors in his anti-capitalist diatribe you quoted, so please excuse me for not genuflecting at his little altar of hate and misinformation.

Could you point out at least ONE factual error of the "several" he made... I'm curious
I don't disbelieve you but I am curious

[dbackjon]

it is funny to see how deranged T-man, Baldy, et all at the thought of Hillary being President.

Jon, you're a single-issue voter, blind to a candidate's shortcomings.

Opponents of Hillary Clinton have realized she is the antithesis of a qualified POTUS candidate.

Take your blinders off, and you'd understand why there's such a massive number of opponents.

And Cruz/Paul/Rubio/Walker/Bush are qualified?

Hillary is far more qualified to lead the US than those clowns.

Run Jon Huntsman - then we can talk.

[travelinman67]

Jon, you're a single-issue voter, blind to a candidate's shortcomings.

Opponents of Hillary Clinton have realized she is the antithesis of a qualified POTUS candidate.

Take your blinders off, and you'd understand why there's such a massive number of opponents.

And Cruz/Paul/Rubio/Walker/Bush are qualified?

Hillary is far more qualified to lead the US than those clowns.

Run Jon Huntsman - then we can talk.

Huntsman is not a conservative.

Clinton and Bush are there SOLELY FOR SELF AGGRANDIZEMENT.

Whether you agree with their positions or not, Rubio, Cruz, Paul, and Walker are driven by ideological purpose...if it works, use it.

And ultimately, being a single issue voter who opposes the American Dream, ultimately, you are a crony socialist.

[dbackjon]

I oppose the American Dream?

news to me.



What is YOUR definition of the American Dream?

[Grizalltheway]

The American Dream was shipped off to China a long time ago.

[travelinman67]

I oppose the American Dream?

news to me.



What is YOUR definition of the American Dream?

Minimal government. State rights. Strict constitutionalism. I.e., increased liberty.

It's the minority, extremist, single issue voters who are destroying America.

[kalm]

Here, I'm going to help you guys out a little:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/defin ... z3Y3TEQkDp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Pretty much jives with what Chomsky said in the quote Baldy never read.

But yeah, let's pretend certain politicians rise above this. Especially those on the Republican side.

kalm, you're being unusually thick today.
Chill out and try again later.

Nobody has claimed that crony capitalism doesn't exist or that it isn't prevalent in our system, but to compare Walker and Clinton as cut from the same cloth is beyond silly.

As far as your man crush, Chomsky...
There are several basic factual errors in his anti-capitalist diatribe you quoted, so please excuse me for not genuflecting at his little altar of hate and misinformation.

All I originally said was if you enjoy crony capitalism, Walker and Clinton are excellent choices. Buying access and big government favoritism is how our system works and most politicians have a bunch for sale. The brands and services offered might differ, but that's the reality and it includes guys like Walker. He has to in order to be relevant.

I know this hurts you and CID, and I'm sorry.

[kalm]

I oppose the American Dream?

news to me.



What is YOUR definition of the American Dream?

Minimal government. State rights. Strict constitutionalism. I.e., increased liberty.

It's the minority, extremist, single issue voters who are destroying America.

The American Dream is:

6 TV's
Two computers
3 tablets
4 smart phones
A flashy little Mazda
1 SUV
A home 3 times larger than your parent's

Regardless of how you afford it.

[CID1990]

kalm, you're being unusually thick today.
Chill out and try again later.

Nobody has claimed that crony capitalism doesn't exist or that it isn't prevalent in our system, but to compare Walker and Clinton as cut from the same cloth is beyond silly.

As far as your man crush, Chomsky...
There are several basic factual errors in his anti-capitalist diatribe you quoted, so please excuse me for not genuflecting at his little altar of hate and misinformation.

All I originally said was if you enjoy crony capitalism, Walker and Clinton are excellent choices. Buying access and big government favoritism is how our system works and most politicians have a bunch for sale. The brands and services offered might differ, but that's the reality and it includes guys like Walker. He has to in order to be relevant.

I know this hurts you and CID, and I'm sorry.

Claiming that the man is a crony capitalist in a blanket statement without concrete examples (that don't actually demonstrate crony capitalism) is what you already did.

Simply rewording what you said before isn't flying, klam.

In fact, I'm pretty sure that under your exacting definition pretty much anyone is a crony capitalist- like saying "well, if you want someone with two eyes and a nose, you could go with Hillary or Walker- they're the same"

But it and you are irrelevant as usual

[Ivytalk]

Minimal government. State rights. Strict constitutionalism. I.e., increased liberty.

It's the minority, extremist, single issue voters who are destroying America.

The American Dream is:

6 TV's
Two computers
3 tablets
4 smart phones
A flashy little Mazda
1 SUV
A home 3 times larger than your parent's

Regardless of how you afford it.

Bullshit.

No red-blooded American craves a goddam Mazda.

[kalm]

The American Dream is:

6 TV's
Two computers
3 tablets
4 smart phones
A flashy little Mazda
1 SUV
A home 3 times larger than your parent's

Regardless of how you afford it.

Bullshit.

No red-blooded American craves a goddam Mazda.

I agree. But they're everywhere!

[andy7171]

Minimal government. State rights. Strict constitutionalism. I.e., increased liberty.

It's the minority, extremist, single issue voters who are destroying America.

The American Dream is:

6 TV's
Two computers
3 tablets
4 smart phones
A flashy little Mazda
1 SUV
A home 3 times larger than your parent's

Regardless of how you afford it.

Fuck, I have to get to work acquiring shit. All my spare money goes to my kids tuition. Because you know, their happiness is my American Dream.

[kalm]

All I originally said was if you enjoy crony capitalism, Walker and Clinton are excellent choices. Buying access and big government favoritism is how our system works and most politicians have a bunch for sale. The brands and services offered might differ, but that's the reality and it includes guys like Walker. He has to in order to be relevant.

I know this hurts you and CID, and I'm sorry.

Claiming that the man is a crony capitalist in a blanket statement without concrete examples (that don't actually demonstrate crony capitalism) is what you already did.

Simply rewording what you said before isn't flying, klam.

In fact, I'm pretty sure that under your exacting definition pretty much anyone is a crony capitalist- like saying "well, if you want someone with two eyes and a nose, you could go with Hillary or Walker- they're the same"

But it and you are irrelevant as usual

Irrelevant enough to spend two pages denying a statement that you just admitted was true.

Only someone not paying attention or completely partisan would require concrete examples. BTW, the obvious one is here http://host.madison.com/transcript-of-p ... 002e0.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes, pretty much any candidate with a chance is involved with crony capitalism, just as Chomsky pointed out (funny because I wasn't the one who brought Chomsky into the situation but his ideas sure were useful and consternation causing )

I think the hypocrisy of Republicans pining for the free market while using government for copious amounts of private gain is as delicious as the hypocrisy of modern Democrats campaigning on populism while taking massive amounts of money from Wall Street.

It was an innocent little jab at both Walker and Clinton and I'm flattered by all the hard working conk denial. You've put up a good fight, and like any good angler, I'm gonna release you to fight another day.

Thanks!

[Baldy]

kalm, you're being unusually thick today.
Chill out and try again later.

Nobody has claimed that crony capitalism doesn't exist or that it isn't prevalent in our system, but to compare Walker and Clinton as cut from the same cloth is beyond silly.

As far as your man crush, Chomsky...
There are several basic factual errors in his anti-capitalist diatribe you quoted, so please excuse me for not genuflecting at his little altar of hate and misinformation.

Could you point out at least ONE factual error of the "several" he made... I'm curious
I don't disbelieve you but I am curious

Chomsky calling Harvard and M.I.T. "public" institutions, especially in the 50's and 60's is ridiculous. The IBM "stretch" computer wasn't developed at M.I.T. or Harvard. It was developed at IBM's facility in Poughkeepsie, NY. The "stretch" was very expensive, but it wasn't bought by businesses because it wasn't developed for businesses. The "stretch" was a scientific computer developed specifically for governmental use at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, not the NSA (though they did take delivery of one later). Etc. etc. etc...

Chomsky needs to STFU and stick to linguistics.

[Baldy]

Claiming that the man is a crony capitalist in a blanket statement without concrete examples (that don't actually demonstrate crony capitalism) is what you already did.

Simply rewording what you said before isn't flying, klam.

In fact, I'm pretty sure that under your exacting definition pretty much anyone is a crony capitalist- like saying "well, if you want someone with two eyes and a nose, you could go with Hillary or Walker- they're the same"

But it and you are irrelevant as usual

Irrelevant enough to spend two pages denying a statement that you just admitted was true.

Only someone not paying attention or completely partisan would require concrete examples. BTW, the obvious one is here http://host.madison.com/transcript-of-p ... 002e0.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes, pretty much any candidate with a chance is involved with crony capitalism, just as Chomsky pointed out (funny because I wasn't the one who brought Chomsky into the situation but his ideas sure were useful and consternation causing )

I think the hypocrisy of Republicans pining for the free market while using government for copious amounts of private gain is as delicious as the hypocrisy of modern Democrats campaigning on populism while taking massive amounts of money from Wall Street.

It was an innocent little jab at both Walker and Clinton and I'm flattered by all the hard working conk denial. You've put up a good fight, and like any good angler, I'm gonna release you to fight another day.

Thanks!

Are you going to charge me a royalty if I adopt your method of winning the internets?

1. Drop a turd

2. Refuse to defend it with anything valid

3. Get blowed up

4. Declare victory

CID nailed you to the cross.

[kalm]

Irrelevant enough to spend two pages denying a statement that you just admitted was true.

Only someone not paying attention or completely partisan would require concrete examples. BTW, the obvious one is here http://host.madison.com/transcript-of-p ... 002e0.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes, pretty much any candidate with a chance is involved with crony capitalism, just as Chomsky pointed out (funny because I wasn't the one who brought Chomsky into the situation but his ideas sure were useful and consternation causing )

I think the hypocrisy of Republicans pining for the free market while using government for copious amounts of private gain is as delicious as the hypocrisy of modern Democrats campaigning on populism while taking massive amounts of money from Wall Street.

It was an innocent little jab at both Walker and Clinton and I'm flattered by all the hard working conk denial. You've put up a good fight, and like any good angler, I'm gonna release you to fight another day.

Thanks!

Are you going to charge me a royalty if I adopt your method of winning the internets?

1. Drop a turd

2. Refuse to defend it with anything valid

3. Get blowed up

4. Declare victory

CID nailed you to the cross.

Boy howdy, did he ever!

[Baldy]

CID nailed you to the cross.

Boy howdy, did he ever!

Watching you bumbling, stumbling, and bumping into the furniture never gets old.

[travelinman67]

Boy howdy, did he ever!

Watching you bumbling, stumbling, and bumping into the furniture never gets old.

[kalm]

Watching you bumbling, stumbling, and bumping into the furniture never gets old.

You'll have to excuse Baldy. He's mistaking bumbling for patience. My audience is a little slow sometimes and needs the extra help. Speaking of which, it's not a bad idea for you to re-read the thread as well.

[AZGrizFan]

Bullshit.

No red-blooded American craves a goddam Mazda.

I agree. But they're everywhere!

Really? I NEVER see a Mazda. Saw a Subaru yesterday and almost crashed my truck I was so shocked....

[travelinman67]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... dency.html

 April 23, 2015 12:29 p.m.

The Disastrous Clinton Post-Presidency

By Jonathan Chait

The qualities of an effective presidency do not seem to transfer onto a post-presidency. Jimmy Carter was an ineffective president who became an exemplary post-president. Bill Clinton appears to be the reverse. All sorts of unproven worst-case-scenario questions float around the web of connections between Bill’s private work, Hillary Clinton’s public role as secretary of State, the Clintons’ quasi-public charity, and Hillary’s noncompliant email system. But the best-case scenario is bad enough: The Clintons have been disorganized and greedy.

How ‘Negative Partisanship’ Has Transformed American Politics

The news today about the Clintons all fleshes out, in one way or another, their lack of interest in policing serious conflict-of-interest problems that arise in their overlapping roles:The New York Times has a report about the State Department’s decision to approve the sale of Uranium mines to a Russian company that donated $2.35 million to the Clinton Global Initiative, and that a Russian investment bank promoting the deal paid Bill $500,000 for a speech in Moscow.
The Washington Post reports that Bill Clinton has received $26 million in speaking fees from entities that also donated to the Clinton Global Initiative.
The Washington Examiner reports, “Twenty-two of the 37 corporations nominated for a prestigious State Department award — and six of the eight ultimate winners — while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State were also donors to the Clinton family foundation.”
And Reuters reports, “Hillary Clinton's family's charities are refiling at least five annual tax returns after a Reuters review found errors in how they reported donations from governments, and said they may audit other Clinton Foundation returns in case of other errors.”
The Clinton campaign is batting down the darkest and most conspiratorial interpretation of these stories, and where this all leads remains to be seen. But the most positive interpretation is not exactly good.When you are a power couple consisting of a former president and a current secretary of State and likely presidential candidate, you have the ability to raise a lot of money for charitable purposes that can do a lot of good. But some of the potential sources of donations will be looking to get something in return for their money other than moral satisfaction or the chance to hobnob with celebrities. Some of them want preferential treatment from the State Department, and others want access to a potential future Clinton administration. To run a private operation where Bill Clinton will deliver a speech for a (huge) fee and a charity that raises money from some of the same clients is a difficult situation to navigate. To overlay that fraught situation onto Hillary’s ongoing and likely future government service makes it all much harder.
And yet the Clintons paid little to no attention to this problem. Nicholas Confessore described their operation as “a sprawling concern, supervised by a rotating board of old Clinton hands, vulnerable to distraction and threatened by conflicts of interest. It ran multimillion-dollar deficits for several years, despite vast amounts of money flowing in.” Indeed, as Ryan Lizza reported in 2012, Bill Clinton seemed to see the nexus between his role and his wife’s as a positive rather than a negative:

""Regardless of Bill Clinton’s personal feelings about Obama, it didn’t take him long to see the advantages of an Obama Presidency. More than anyone, he pushed Hillary to take the job of Secretary of State. “President Clinton was a big supporter of the idea,” an intimate of the Clintons told me. “He advocated very strongly for it and arguably was the tie-breaking reason she took the job.” For one thing, having his spouse in that position didn’t hurt his work at the Clinton Global Initiative. He invites foreign leaders to the initiative’s annual meeting, and her prominence in the Administration can be an asset in attracting foreign donors. “Bill Clinton’s been able to continue to be the Bill Clinton we know, in large part because of his relationship with the White House and because his wife is the Secretary of State,” the Clinton associate continued. “It worked out very well for him. That may be a very cynical way to look at it, but that’s a fact. A lot of the stuff he’s doing internationally is aided by his level of access.”
The Obama administration wanted Hillary Clinton to use official government email. She didn’t. The Obama administration also demanded that the Clinton Foundation disclose all its donors while she served as Secretary of State. It didn’t comply with that request, either.
The Clintons’ charitable initiatives were a kind of quasi-government run by themselves, which was staffed by their own loyalists and made up the rules as it went along. Their experience running the actual government, with its formal accountability and disclosure, went reasonably well. Their experience running their own privatized mini-state has been a fiasco.