(August 29, 2016 at 3:09 pm)KUSA Wrote: Why do presidential candidates release their tax returns anyway?

It's not a requirement. It's just an expected tradition based off of well-earned mistrust of previous candidates. Any candidate who doesn't do it now is suspected of hiding something bad.

(August 29, 2016 at 3:09 pm)KUSA Wrote: Why do presidential candidates release their tax returns anyway?

Seriously?  Because how we make and spend money reveals: our income and a little bit about how we make it (which tells us something about abilities, moralirty, capabilitycapability,; real proffession); our charitable contributions (which tells us about charactor),  finacial conflicts of interest (which tells us about where we should be suspicious about policy based on self interest); and tax burden (which tells us what the tax burden of the candidate's tax policy on their own pocketbook). It is why we require tax information from many , many executive government officials.  

(August 29, 2016 at 1:47 pm)Arkilogue Wrote:

(August 29, 2016 at 11:45 am)Whateverist Wrote: And what is the 'evil' you see in 'sneaky' Hillary.  Isn't that just the disinformation message republicans have been carefully cultivating for the last twenty plus years?  Try not to be a tool.

Those rose colored glasses must feel so nice

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/02/even_cri...libya_was/

Even critics understate how catastrophically bad the Hillary Clinton-led NATO bombing of Libya was
The NY Times reports on Clinton's war leadership don't go far enough. Hillary's disaster in Libya should haunt her

The New York Times published two lengthy pieces this week detailing Hillary Clinton’s role in the 2011 NATO bombing of Libya. Both are important documents, and provide much insight into how, as secretary of state for the Obama administration, Clinton played a uniquely hands-on role in the war.

Sec. Clinton pressured a wary President Obama to join France and the U.K. in the war, the Times reported. Vice President Biden, National Security Adviser Tom Donilon and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, among others, opposed the war effort. Numerous government officials recalled that her hawkish enthusiasm was decisive in the “51-49 decision.”

Throughout the campaign, Clinton has tried to have her cake and eat it too. She has flaunted her leadership in the war as a sign of her supposed foreign policy experience, yet, at the same moment, strived to distance herself from the disastrous results of said war.

Today, Libya is in ruins. The seven months of NATO bombing effectively destroyed the government and left behind a political vacuum. Much of this has been filled by extremist groups.

Millions of Libyans live without a formal government. The internationally recognized government only controls the eastern part of the country. Rivaled extremist Islamist groups have seized much of the country.

Downtown Benghazi, a once thriving city, is now in ruins. Ansar al-Sharia, a fundamentalist Salafi militia that is designated a terrorist organization by the U.S., now controls large chunks of it. ISIS has made Libya home to its largest so-called “caliphate” outside of Iraq and Syria.

Thousands of Libyans have been killed, and this violent chaos has sparked a flood of refugees. Hundreds of thousands of Libyan civilians have fled, often on dangerous smuggling boats. The U.N. estimates more than 400,000 people have been displaced.




You like ISIS? thank Hillary.
What to talk about perjury in front of Congress?
Don't even get me started on the Clinton Foundation.

Lol, Clinton led the air assault on Libya?

Man, if I weren't in recovery, I'd ask for some of what you smoked ... That's obviously some dank shit.

(August 29, 2016 at 3:39 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(August 29, 2016 at 1:47 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: Those rose colored glasses must feel so nice

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/02/even_cri...libya_was/

Even critics understate how catastrophically bad the Hillary Clinton-led NATO bombing of Libya was
The NY Times reports on Clinton's war leadership don't go far enough. Hillary's disaster in Libya should haunt her

The New York Times published two lengthy pieces this week detailing Hillary Clinton’s role in the 2011 NATO bombing of Libya. Both are important documents, and provide much insight into how, as secretary of state for the Obama administration, Clinton played a uniquely hands-on role in the war.

Sec. Clinton pressured a wary President Obama to join France and the U.K. in the war, the Times reported. Vice President Biden, National Security Adviser Tom Donilon and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, among others, opposed the war effort. Numerous government officials recalled that her hawkish enthusiasm was decisive in the “51-49 decision.”

Throughout the campaign, Clinton has tried to have her cake and eat it too. She has flaunted her leadership in the war as a sign of her supposed foreign policy experience, yet, at the same moment, strived to distance herself from the disastrous results of said war.

Today, Libya is in ruins. The seven months of NATO bombing effectively destroyed the government and left behind a political vacuum. Much of this has been filled by extremist groups.

Millions of Libyans live without a formal government. The internationally recognized government only controls the eastern part of the country. Rivaled extremist Islamist groups have seized much of the country.

Downtown Benghazi, a once thriving city, is now in ruins. Ansar al-Sharia, a fundamentalist Salafi militia that is designated a terrorist organization by the U.S., now controls large chunks of it. ISIS has made Libya home to its largest so-called “caliphate” outside of Iraq and Syria.

Thousands of Libyans have been killed, and this violent chaos has sparked a flood of refugees. Hundreds of thousands of Libyan civilians have fled, often on dangerous smuggling boats. The U.N. estimates more than 400,000 people have been displaced.




You like ISIS? thank Hillary.
What to talk about perjury in front of Congress?
Don't even get me started on the Clinton Foundation.

Lol, Clinton led the air assault on Libya?

Man, if I weren't in recovery, I'd ask for some of what you smoked ... That's obviously some dank shit.

I'd gladly smoke some of that shit, and could never get high enough to believe such nonsense. Besides, everyone knows it's really the Secretary of Agriculture who commands air assaults.

What's hilarious is you guys stick to your biases despite damning evidence written by Hillary who also lied in front of congress about it/tried to hide it.

(August 29, 2016 at 3:55 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: What's hilarious is you guys stick to your biases despite damning evidence written by Hillary who also lied in front of congress about it/tried to hide it.

I'm not a Democrat and don't carry their water. That said, I'd vote for Manson (Charlie or Marilyn) before Trump.

Now stop being a cunt and pass that blunt.

(August 29, 2016 at 3:35 pm)Jenny A Wrote:

(August 29, 2016 at 3:09 pm)KUSA Wrote: Why do presidential candidates release their tax returns anyway?

Seriously?  Because how we make and spend money reveals: our income and a little bit about how we make it (which tells us something about abilities, moralirty, capabilitycapability,; real proffession); our charitable contributions (which tells us about charactor),  finacial conflicts of interest (which tells us about where we should be suspicious about policy based on self interest); and tax burden (which tells us what the tax burden of the candidate's tax policy on their own pocketbook). It is why we require tax information from many , many executive government officials.  

And when has this information ever changed an election? They all give to charity for a tax write off.

I don't care either way, I was just asking.

(August 29, 2016 at 3:55 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: What's hilarious is you guys stick to your biases despite damning evidence written by Hillary who also lied in front of congress about it/tried to hide it.

What's hilarious is the magnitude of hyperbole, obfuscation and demented conspiracy-nut-level rationalizations you have to pull out of your anus, in order to justify support for the republican presidential nominee. Boy, your rectum must be sore...  

This is the good thing about Trump presidential campaign - first it drew out the despicable c*nts and the a**holes. And now it makes them squirm. Educational and entertaining at the same time.

Getting back to medical transparency,  this man, http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politi...anger.html said this women  http://www.caremountmedical.com/director.../show/lisa-  told him confidential stuff in violation of law about Clinton. Really? Ms Award Winning Dr. Bright Pretty Upandcoming, tells Dr. Red Faced Fat Fart Lying Nobody confidential shit about Clinton in violation of law?   The very idea is absurd.

(August 29, 2016 at 3:55 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: What's hilarious is you guys stick to your biases despite damning evidence written by Hillary who also lied in front of congress about it/tried to hide it.

I actually dislike Hillary and most likely won't vote for her.

But I dislike her for non-bullshit reasons.

What's really funny is how you interpret disagreement as "bias". My only bias is towards facts. The fact is, military campaigns aren't led by the State Department. It is nowhere in the military chain of command.