Excellent post.
Yep, same old slimebags trying to mislead people - but just assume that the same dopes that bashed her during the primaries and repeated every slur will continue their boneheaded ways.
The not so humorous part of all this crap about the foundation is that is it is a GOOD thing when people contribute money to help fight aids in Africa. If anyone becomes aware of a foundation through ANY MEANS it is a good thing. It is fucked up to insist otherwise. But lotsa people are fucked up so there ya go.
Posted by the young Judith (tyj) at January 10, 2009 10:09 AMHillary did not become a senator until 2001. How did she support the law in 2000? Besides...the payment to Bill's foundation came just weeks AFTER the provision became law. Pay to players do not pay until they get what they want and talk about a bill is not good enough. She had to deliver.
Plus...there was more for the same developer. She also got an earmark in a highway bill to build a road to his mall.
I thought you guys were for the little guy and not for favors for rich developers. What gives? Now you are pro business and building of mega malls?
Posted by manapp99 at January 10, 2009 11:04 AMManapp99,
So when she was First Lady and then running for the NY Senate seat in 2000, Hillary was sitting and twiddling her thumbs presumably?
By your bizarre argument, almost all politicians would be criminals because if a politician supported a Bill in Year X and someone that Bill benefited (could be you or I for example) donated some money to that politician or a non-profit associated with that politician many many years later, that is pay for play. If you want to define it that way, have fun and write up petitions to fill our prisons.
Third, this post is not about small guys or big guys. It is about whether there was a quid pro quo involved in the way insinuated in the NYT piece or the WaPo piece. Perhaps you missed reading my post where I said that it is perfectly legitimate to debate whether this type of Government funding is justified. Having said that, it is pretty weird to suggest that because Government spends money on a project only big business benefits from it. That would leave a very tiny piece of Government spending that doesn't benefit the "big guys" in some form or the other.
Feel free to explain how you would like to see Government spend hundred of billions of dollars without benefiting the big guys in some form or the other, but only benefiting the "small guy".
Posted by eriposte at January 10, 2009 12:05 PMeriposte, of course the two things are not connected, but remember - logic and truth must not get in the way of animosity. Havent the last 8 years showed us that the right wingers always attack what they themselves are guity of? is this not an attempt to again say - oh the Clintons did something unethical so all the garbage we know about the Republican theft is somehow not as bad or is "the same as the democrats"? Sad part is when Democrats are so blinded by bs that they end up helping the GOP by buying into this stuff..
Posted by the young Judith (tyj) at January 10, 2009 03:03 PMGood point, young Judith.
Nice to see you back, eriposte!
Posted by Blue Jean at January 10, 2009 05:27 PM