The War Room Lounge v.8: Conor was Framed by the Deep State Edition

Status
Not open for further replies.
Have to run, I edited it last time so you didn’t need to read the whole thing.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/30/...entities-of-donors-to-clinton-foundation.html

They promised donor transparency. What actually happened?

They lied about who gave the money. Claiming that one donor of 30 million, was multiple donors.

They lied about the entire reason they set it up. They claimed it was for tax breaks for donors, but Canadian tax experts called BS.





Again, the Clintons have been accepting money and favors in return for the Clintons political influence for a LONG time.

If any of you liberals had an ounce of dignity, you would admit they’ve been doing the same type of shit dirtbags like Paul Manafort and Tony Podesta have been doing, and are just now being held accountable for.


FFS, at least feign a little outrage.

1. About the transparency thing, the Clinton foundation stated "the foundation maintains that the Canadian partnership is not bound by that agreement and that under Canadian law contributors’ names cannot be made public." The article stated: "it is not at all clear that privacy laws prohibit the partnership from disclosing its donors, the tax lawyers and officials in Canada said."

I don't know what to make of that other than it is unclear what to make of that.

2. From an article in 2007 about the one donor verses multiple donor issue: "The foundation has closely guarded the identities of its donors — including one who gave $31.3 million last year."

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20clinton.html?pagewanted=all&referrer=

3. About the tax break thing the article stated that the foundation was founded in 2007, but then makes the argument "since 2010, Canadians could have donated to the foundation directly and received the same tax break." Telfar made donations after that, but "Hillary didn't have to power to make that deal, and there is no evidence that any uranium ended up in Russia."

4. You still have not demonstrated that there has been any "favors in return" for donations to the Clinton Foundation (which does humanitarian work around the world), and your argument for how Hillary could have made the uranium one thing work is against reality. What are the favors in return you are talking about?

5. Bill had his own special counsel, why didn't Ken Starr find any evidence of the Clintons "accepting money and favors in return for the Clintons political influence for a LONG time?" Is Mueller just that much better than Starr that he has been able to nail so many folks close to Trump, are the Clintons just that much smarter than Trump, or is there just no there there? For them to achieve what they have politically I am sure that there is a lot of shady shit in their past that is part and parcel of that game, but the right wing mythology about Hillary (as evidenced by the whole Seth Rich thing and Pizza Gate) is insane. I am all for cleaning up politics, if Sessions wants to open an investigation on something legitimate about Hillary then cool, but it is Trump's DOJ and still nothing despite the "you would be in jail" talk.

6. We don't know yet all that Manafort has done, but for you to compare the Clintons to Manafort shows how far off the deep end you are. Honest question, do you think she was involved in Rich's murder?
 
1. About the transparency thing, the Clinton foundation stated "the foundation maintains that the Canadian partnership is not bound by that agreement and that under Canadian law contributors’ names cannot be made public." The article stated: "it is not at all clear that privacy laws prohibit the partnership from disclosing its donors, the tax lawyers and officials in Canada said."

I don't know what to make of that other than it is unclear what to make of that.

2. From an article in 2007 about the one donor verses multiple donor issue: "The foundation has closely guarded the identities of its donors — including one who gave $31.3 million last year."

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20clinton.html?pagewanted=all&referrer=

3. About the tax break thing the article stated that the foundation was founded in 2007, but then makes the argument "since 2010, Canadians could have donated to the foundation directly and received the same tax break." Telfar made donations after that, but "Hillary didn't have to power to make that deal, and there is no evidence that any uranium ended up in Russia."

4. You still have not demonstrated that there has been any "favors in return" for donations to the Clinton Foundation (which does humanitarian work around the world), and your argument for how Hillary could have made the uranium one thing work is against reality. What are the favors in return you are talking about?

5. Bill had his own special counsel, why didn't Ken Starr find any evidence of the Clintons "accepting money and favors in return for the Clintons political influence for a LONG time?" Is Mueller just that much better than Starr that he has been able to nail so many folks close to Trump, are the Clintons just that much smarter than Trump, or is there just no there there? For them to achieve what they have politically I am sure that there is a lot of shady shit in their past that is part and parcel of that game, but the right wing mythology about Hillary (as evidenced by the whole Seth Rich thing and Pizza Gate) is insane. I am all for cleaning up politics, if Sessions wants to open an investigation on something legitimate about Hillary then cool, but it is Trump's DOJ and still nothing despite the "you would be in jail" talk.

6. We don't know yet all that Manafort has done, but for you to compare the Clintons to Manafort shows how far off the deep end you are. Honest question, do you think she was involved in Rich's murder?



I gave you a specific example where they took money from blackwater and started working on favors the next fucking day.


Spin that
 
"Greg, I know you deal with adult felonies 100% of the time but since you did 3 domestic violence hearings can you clerk the case type 3 entry of contempt orders special set this afternoon?

tenor.gif
 



I guess I’ll post this entire thing again since it didn’t sink in last time. Again, think about who and what you’re defending.

Bill Clinton- It depends on what the definition of “is” is.



WASHINGTON (AP) — More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money — either personally or through companies or groups — to the Clinton Foundation. It’s an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.

At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.


For instance,


Clinton was host at a September 2009 breakfast meeting at the New York Stock Exchange that listed Blackstone Group chairman Stephen Schwarzman as one of the attendees. Schwarzman’s firm is a major Clinton Foundation donor, but he personally donates heavily to GOP candidates and causes. One day after the breakfast, according to Clinton emails, the State Department was working on a visa issue at Schwarzman’s request. In December that same year, Schwarzman’s wife, Christine, sat at Clinton’s table during the Kennedy Center Honors. Clinton also introduced Schwarzman, then chairman of the Kennedy Center, before he spoke.

Blackstone donated between $250,000 and $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Eight Blackstone executives also gave between $375,000 and $800,000 to the foundation
 
I guess I’ll post this entire thing again since it didn’t sink in last time. Again, think about who and what you’re defending.

Bill Clinton- It depends on what the definition of “is” is.



WASHINGTON (AP) — More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money — either personally or through companies or groups — to the Clinton Foundation. It’s an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.

At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.


For instance,


Clinton was host at a September 2009 breakfast meeting at the New York Stock Exchange that listed Blackstone Group chairman Stephen Schwarzman as one of the attendees. Schwarzman’s firm is a major Clinton Foundation donor, but he personally donates heavily to GOP candidates and causes. One day after the breakfast, according to Clinton emails, the State Department was working on a visa issue at Schwarzman’s request. In December that same year, Schwarzman’s wife, Christine, sat at Clinton’s table during the Kennedy Center Honors. Clinton also introduced Schwarzman, then chairman of the Kennedy Center, before he spoke.

Blackstone donated between $250,000 and $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Eight Blackstone executives also gave between $375,000 and $800,000 to the foundation

So the worst thing you can find on Killary, the criminal mastermind who is as bad as Paul Manafort, is that she sent (and cced) an email checking on the status of a Visa application, in which she also was addressing larger issues brought up by the CEO of Honeywell? It's not like Schwarzman was donating to her political campaign (strange that he wouldn't be a strong supporter of her over Cruz, or Trump, if he had an ongoing quid pro quo with Clinton and could have his hooks into the POTUS) or investing in a Clinton Tower, he was donating to a charity.

Sessions, in the past, has talked a lot of shit about the Clinton Foundation and Hillary as SOS peddling her influence, and there has been an ongoing investigation into these accusations since before the election (and the Blackstone email issue certainly isn't a secret), but you don't have Sessions or Wray ordering no knock raids of the Clintons, or on anyone from the Clinton foundation.

If you were a Bernie guy (and I supported Bernie in the primaries) this could be a different argument, but to argue that there is criminality here is unfounded, unless there is a change of the winds of that investigation. At worst, you are talking about ethical violations (which is miles and miles away from your uranium one conspiracy theory and our original point of debate), and ethical violations are not something that 99% of Trump haters (outside of Richard painter) even have the time to go into with the Trump administration facing the full wrath of the DOJ, and Trump threatening to fire everyone to protect himself.
 
@Cake4Breakfast

I fucking hate you so much.

It has nothing to do with your politics and everything to do with your goddamn name.

Always makes me crave fucking pancakes with chicken fried steak and eggs.

GODDAMN YOU!
 
So the worst thing you can find on Killary, the criminal mastermind who is as bad as Paul Manafort, is that she sent (and cced) an email checking on the status of a Visa application, in which she also was addressing larger issues brought up by the CEO of Honeywell? It's not like Schwarzman was donating to her political campaign (strange that he wouldn't be a strong supporter of her over Cruz, or Trump, if he had an ongoing quid pro quo with Clinton and could have his hooks into the POTUS) or investing in a Clinton Tower, he was donating to a charity.

Sessions, in the past, has talked a lot of shit about the Clinton Foundation and Hillary as SOS peddling her influence, and there has been an ongoing investigation into these accusations since before the election (and the Blackstone email issue certainly isn't a secret), but you don't have Sessions or Wray ordering no knock raids of the Clintons, or on anyone from the Clinton foundation.

If you were a Bernie guy (and I supported Bernie in the primaries) this could be a different argument, but to argue that there is criminality here is unfounded, unless there is a change of the winds of that investigation. At worst, you are talking about ethical violations (which is miles and miles away from your uranium one conspiracy theory and our original point of debate), and ethical violations are not something that 99% of Trump haters (outside of Richard painter) even have the time to go into with the Trump administration facing the full wrath of the DOJ, and Trump threatening to fire everyone to protect himself.



Ok, now you’re starting to admit the Clintons are not infallible.


Btw, what do you think the uranium one conspiracy is? Because I have a feeling you’re completely not on the same page with me. I think it’s simply a continuation of the Clintons history of accepting money and favors, for their political good will.



Now this from the Hill

“Before the Obama administration approved a controversial deal in 2010 giving Moscow control of a large swath of American uranium, the FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States, according to government documents and interviews.

Federal agents used a confidential U.S. witness working inside the Russian nuclear industry to gather extensive financial records, make secret recordings and intercept emails as early as 2009 that showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, FBI and court documents show.

They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill”






Now that you’ve admitted the Clintons are not infallible, are you going to tell us, that considering it’s been proven that Russian nuclear officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, etc. that it is impossible for the parties involved to have funneled money toward the Clintons to get her ok at the state department?
 
Ok, now you’re starting to admit the Clintons are not infallible.


Btw, what do you think the uranium one conspiracy is? Because I have a feeling you’re completely not on the same page with me. I think it’s simply a continuation of the Clintons history of accepting money and favors, for their political good will.



Now this from the Hill

“Before the Obama administration approved a controversial deal in 2010 giving Moscow control of a large swath of American uranium, the FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States, according to government documents and interviews.

Federal agents used a confidential U.S. witness working inside the Russian nuclear industry to gather extensive financial records, make secret recordings and intercept emails as early as 2009 that showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, FBI and court documents show.

They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill”






Now that you’ve admitted the Clintons are not infallible, are you going to tell us, that considering it’s been proven that Russian nuclear officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, etc. that it is impossible for the parties involved to have funneled money toward the Clintons to get her ok at the state department?

I never said that they were "infallible," but you said that they were criminals, yet you can't provide evidence.

As for what I am calling the uranium one conspiracy theory, I am talking about the one Trump was peddling and that I posted many articles (and a PBS News clip) that should disabuse you of your wrongheaded conclusions, if you ever actually read them.

As for your Hill article, we went over that one back in February: http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/c...estigation-v-14.3716441/page-5#post-138937237
 
I never said that they were "infallible," but you said that they were criminals, yet you can't provide evidence.

As for what I am calling the uranium one conspiracy theory, I am talking about the one Trump was peddling and that I posted many articles (and a PBS News clip) that should disabuse you of your wrongheaded conclusions, if you ever actually read them.

As for your Hill article, we went over that one back in February: http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/c...estigation-v-14.3716441/page-5#post-138937237






Address this specifically.



They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill”
 
Maybe "speed advantage" isn't a good description. Ali would be getting off first at mid-range and beyond, in part because he was really fast and in part because he didn't load up nearly as much. I'm not saying that he didn't have a great rival to define him. I'd say that about Holmes--top dog for a really long time, beat lots of solid opponents but no really great ones. I'm saying that it's normal to see a really impressive offensive fighter destroy everyone on the way up and look unbeatable and then get kind of exposed when he faces someone who can outjab him and/or control the distance. You can say that Tyson was never tested or you can say that he was tested when he was just 23, and failed the test. That's probably where the difference of opinion comes in. How much do you discount the Douglas fight? My take is that I've heard the excuses, and I see some validity to some of them (the notion that a 23-year-old man with a nine-figure net worth fell apart because he didn't have a babysitter is one I dismiss, though), but that was the kind of fighter that I would have wanted to see him do well against to dispel any concerns. BTW, you can point to Tyson's win over Thomas as kind of dispelling some concerns, but really, that's the one fight that has me most convinced that Ali beats him, and probably by a good margin.The Holmes matchup comes down to the same issue. Holmes could have done what Douglas did but better. But if you think that was just an aberration or not the True Tyson, maybe he could have won. It does seem to me that he was in a way training for Holmes for a lot of his early years and he might have had an answer, but it would never be easy because Larry had a much bigger frame and skills that would allow him to take advantage of that.
From a technical "Prime on Prime" analysis I can't disagree. Tyson was a small HW and Ali's size advantage plus his reflexes would have likely frustrated Tyson. Of course Tyson could win the fight with his speed and power but as much of a Tyson fanboy as I am I figure Mike wins maybe 1 out of 3 in that matchup.

The Douglas bout is no measuring point though. Tyson had just fired his entire support system and was in the clutches of the Don Kings and Robin Givenss of the world. He trained little if at all for that fight. Instead of competent trainers in his corner he had a few of his yes-men who were so lame that they didn't bring an ice-pack to the ring. Even with all that Tyson almost pulled that fight out of his ass with that late knockdown. When Tyson was right he routinely smoked fighters with better skill sets than Douglas.

Also (to your other post), in ordinary circumstances, I tend to assume the jury does a good job. I didn't see all the evidence. The fact that he admits to equally horrible acts (like helping old ladies with their groceries and then beating them up and robbing them) but denies that is, I suppose, a point in favor of thinking he got a bum rap. But also a point in favor of thinking that he's a POS that you can't put anything past.
I'm going to tread lightly here. The evidence IIRC is that D. Washington went to Tyson's room, voluntarily disrobed, voluntarily let him go down on her, and at some point after that she claimed that she was raped. Look, I'm not some caveman. If a woman says stop you stop. Been there, done that, it sucks but I can live by that rule. I believe that any man who forces himself on a woman disgraces himself as a man.

That being said, I think there's some reasonable speculation as to where that encounter between Tyson and Washington may or may not have crossed over from bad sex to rape. I figure that if she let him go down on her she let him put his dick in her, or at least that's some reasonable expectation at that point between consenting adults. At some point she realized that Iron Mike wasn't the gentle sensitive lover she envisioned and she wanted out. No doubt Tyson wasn't paying fuck-all attention to her needs and finished up, told her to get her clothes on and get the fuck out.

Washington had no injuries. She was not struck, didn't show bruising consistent with being restrained, I think her injuries were to her pride and hell hath no fury. Mike Tyson was an easy target and public sentiment was leaning against him and good luck finding a juror who didn't have an opinion on Mike Tyson. None of this makes Tyson anything other than the tremendously flawed individual he is but I think he got the shaft on that one.

But that's like, just my opinion man.
 
Last edited:
OOF

I don't know how I've never heard this before. Noam Chomsky drops his usual respectful dryness and goes after Zizek.


I love Zizek but mainly for entertainment purposes. I do think he's says insightful things at times but I do see Chomsky's point, you get the sense they could be explained without all the puff and fluff. Consider this here


Isn't he basically saying that the burqa prevents the kind of social connection that face to face interactions can facilitate while confronting the average Euro with alien norms? Maybe I missed his point and the nuance but that's basically what I got.
 
I love Zizek but mainly for entertainment purposes. I do think he's says insightful things at times but I do see Chomsky's point, you get the sense they could be explained without all the puff and fluff. Consider this here


Isn't he basically saying that the burqa prevents the kind of social connection that face to face interactions can facilitate while confronting the average Euro with alien norms? Maybe I missed his point and the nuance but that's basically what I got.


I'll get to this later.

Basically, Zizek is okay. He doesn't say much that I feel is insightful and he certainly isn't an icon in the Marxist tradition even in the vein of peripheral figures like Althusser.

Chomsky, on the other hand, is a true icon.
 
I'll get to this later.

Basically, Zizek is okay. He doesn't say much that I feel is insightful and he certainly isn't an icon in the Marxist tradition even in the vein of peripheral figures like Althusser.

Chomsky, on the other hand, is a true icon.
That's interesting, the opinions I've seen on him are generally polarizing. Either he's a genius or a quack.
 
That's interesting, the opinions I've seen on him are generally polarizing. Either he's a genius or a quack.

Yeah, I definitely do not think either is the case. I'd say he's closer to genius than quack due to the fact that he's coherent.

But I haven't read too, too much of Zizek, so maybe I shouldn't be so definitive.
 
Yeah, I definitely do not think either is the case. I'd say he's closer to genius than quack due to the fact that he's coherent.

But I haven't read too, too much of Zizek, so maybe I shouldn't be so definitive.
I'll admit, I'm not too into theory and I've basically read nothing of Zizek but I like hearing him talk about movies and whatnot. That's probably the case for most Zizek fans.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top