Article: Hillary Clinton Defends Use of Corporate Jet for Family Vacations - Page 2 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

TheLastBoyScout · #16 (**permalink**) 06-05-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by electric-rascal

Hillary Clinton Defends Use of Corporate Jet for Family Vacations

Excerpt:

On Wednesday, Hillary Clinton was challenged by the press about the Clinton family’s acceptance of more than $900,000 in free private travel from Infousa, a company linked to scamming the elderly.

Her reply? She said that she had complied with all Senate ethics rules and reimbursed the company for the amount of a first class air ticket — usually about 1 percent of the cost of the luxurious private jet travel. According to Hillary, “Those were the rules. You’ll have to ask someone else if it’s good policy.”

In other words, get lost.

Is there anyone out there who would say it's good policy for a U.S. senator and presidential candidate to accept apparently tax-free gifts of almost a million dollars from a corporation — especially a corporation involved in providing lists of vulnerable elderly people to scam artists?

...

Clinton’s financial disclosure forms never mention the trips provided by Infousa and until the lawsuit was filed, the Clintons released no information about how much Bill was paid — only declaring that it was “more than $1000.”

My hypocrisy meter just blew a fuse! This the leading candidate from the political party that is always trying to stir and invoke "class envy"... and she wants to be elected POTUS so she can control how I and my fellow Americans live??

Another article has other various details: Largess To Clintons Lands CEO In Lawsuit

This will come up again later. If mudslinging starts between Obama and Hillary, taking big payoffs is where Obama has nothing to hide. So the Obama campaign can snipe Hillary bigtime on this one if they so choose.

AjaxPress · #17 (**permalink**) 06-05-2007

But Clinton is correct. She did nothing wrong ethically or legally. It's just one of those things that looks disgusting when held up to the light. Hopefully this will contribute to her losing in the Primary.

TheLastBoyScout · #18 (**permalink**) 06-05-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by AjaxPress

But Clinton is correct. She did nothing wrong ethically or legally. It's just one of those things that looks disgusting when held up to the light. Hopefully this will contribute to her losing in the Primary.

In an election, you don't need to find impropriety to sink your opponent.... the appearance of impropriety will do just fine.

Few things piss off Americans than politicians on the take that are living lavishly. We don't want Royals in America, we want Roll up your sleeves get 'er done politicians.

Even if what we want is not realistic, it's still what we want.

Danny · #19 (**permalink**) 06-05-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traveler

Interesting...she thinks we're safer now then before 9-11, is she tsaking a swipe at her husband there?

At least she gets just that little much!

Wait...are you actually suggesting the USA is in a safer and more secure position as a result of George Bush's policies?

AjaxPress · #20 (**permalink**) 06-05-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheLastBoyScout

In an election, you don't need to find impropriety to sink your opponent.... the appearance of impropriety will do just fine.

Few things piss off Americans than politicians on the take that are living lavishly. We don't want Royals in America, we want Roll up your sleeves get 'er done politicians.

Even if what we want is not realistic, it's still what we want.

Pseudo-royalty is exactly what Hildabeast represents. I hope that the Dems are tired of being ruled by fake aristocrats.

jviehe · #21 (**permalink**) 06-05-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pogo

This reminds of that discussion we were having about when it's time for the people to stand up and forcibly remove the foxes from the henhouse. I'd say the time is long since past as at this point our republic is merely a hollowed out shell of it's former self, with damn little left as to merit the spilling of blood.

The solution is simple. Stop voting for incumbents.

AjaxPress · #22 (**permalink**) 06-05-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by jviehe

The solution is simple. Stop voting for incumbents.

Agreed.

noahath · #23 (**permalink**) 06-05-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by jviehe

The solution is simple. Stop voting for incumbents.

with an average re-election rate of 95%, the US ain't about to stop voting for incumbents anytime soon.

thirty-thousand.org - Reelection Rates of Incumbents in the U. S. House

Traveler · #24 (**permalink**) 06-06-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by jviehe

The solution is simple. Stop voting for incumbents.

I disagree, continuity in government is a very important thing, especially for the most powerful country in the world. It isn't like we're Canada or New Zealand or anything, the person we elect to the Presidency is the most powerful in the world.

jviehe · #25 (**permalink**) 06-06-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traveler

I disagree, continuity in government is a very important thing, especially for the most powerful country in the world. It isn't like we're Canada or New Zealand or anything, the person we elect to the Presidency is the most powerful in the world.

Turning over our representatives more often would hardly affect continuity. The president and all reps should serve one term with significant length. This would stop them from having to campaign, which is the primary reason they do not get anything done, IMO.

Bookmarks
Digg	del.icio.us	StumbleUpon	Google

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode