Flag Burning and Free Speech

I think it depends on why they burn it... or, in the case of a bunch of Quebec separatists some years ago, why they stomped on it and dragged their muddy feet over a Canadian flag and the then-Quebec premier (Jacques Parizeau) referred to the Maple Leaf as a "bit of red rag." Yeah, he sure increased English Canada's sympathy for the separatists with that remark. :rolleyes:
I can't imagine that second centuries of second-class citizenship won the English much sympathy among the Quebecois, either.

If some French-Canadians struggle to distinguish the Maple Leaf from the Butcher's Apron, it's worth asking why that is, rather than simply instructing them that they are wrong.
 
I can't imagine that second centuries of second-class citizenship won the English much sympathy among the Quebecois, either.

If some French-Canadians struggle to distinguish the Maple Leaf from the Butcher's Apron, it's worth asking why that is, rather than simply instructing them that they are wrong.
"Butcher's Apron"?

I don't demand that they love the Maple Leaf, just that they don't be disrespectful. While I don't have a Quebec flag, I also wouldn't burn one or stomp on it with muddy feet. And at the time those people did that, there was absolutely no reason to.
 
No, but they do tell donors how things are going overall and the whole "funding is drying up" is an outright lie being spread by fake news sites and their parrots. Try a different false narrative. I'm sure you can find one, given your obvious wealth of sources.

Do the donors ever tell the public when they reduce or stop giving? Did any donors decide to be less generous in recent months? Did any become more generous since she lost?
 
Do the donors ever tell the public when they reduce or stop giving? Did any donors decide to be less generous in recent months? Did any become more generous since she lost?

So since we don't have that information, we can assume whatever we want? (one side saying the foundation is fine, the other side saying the foundation is dooomed). How about a neutral source until we get more information?

http://www.snopes.com/clinton-foundation-dead-contributions-dry/
 
On a sidenote... ;) Anyone else notice how Clinton Foundation funding has dried up ever since she lost the election? If you ever needed evidence of just how corrupt the people running government are, thats it. Bribery is illegal...sometimes. But nobody's burning flags to protest her corruption.

Do you not even notice how none of the questions you are asking have anything to do with the false narrative that "funding has dried up"? Or do you have so little intellectual integrity that you notice but just don't care?
 
So since we don't have that information, we can assume whatever we want? (one side saying the foundation is fine, the other side saying the foundation is dooomed). How about a neutral source until we get more information?

http://www.snopes.com/clinton-foundation-dead-contributions-dry/

Tim said the information is not available, not me.

Do you not even notice how none of the questions you are asking have anything to do with the false narrative that "funding has dried up"? Or do you have so little intellectual integrity that you notice but just don't care?

I'm noticing you dont want to answer the questions, so much for intellectual integrity. If donors are giving less, then funding is drying up - and the only obvious reason to account for that is she lost and wont be paying off as many bribes. Now, do we have evidence big donors have cut back or eliminated support? Yes, we do... And we didn't need an end of year audit to find out.
 
Tim said the information is not available, not me.

Where is your information? I'm reading the Breitbart article right now.

brietibart said:
Indeed, mere weeks after Hillary Clinton lost the election, financial disclosure forms revealed that the Clinton Foundation’s donations had plummeted by 37 percent

That is just when the report was released. The 37% drop refers to the drop from 2014-2105 !

anywhere else on the web said:
According to The New York Post, donations to the Clinton Foundation plunged 37% in 2015 to $108 million, down from $172 million in 2014.

breitbart said:
Reports earlier this month about the foundation laying off 20-something staffers has ballooned to “about 100,” the Times reports.
From the global initiative, right, which we knew back in August they were closing it down.

I'm not a fan of Hillary, and her entire foundation may indeed may be closing down, but the evidence for that just isn't here yet. Not to say it won't be there in the future.
 
He has no interest in evidence. Breitbart just tells him what he wants to hear and he loyally parrots it on.
 
Where is your information? I'm reading the Breitbart article right now.

I read some articles from November about foreign governments cutting back or eliminating donations. Nothing about Kuwait or that other beacon of human rights Saudi Arabia, but I'm sure they're still paying "us" for weapons and protecting them from Iraq for a decade. When major donors cut back or eliminate their funding after their link to the WH is broken the implications are obvious.

Of course it didn't matter if Hillary won or lost, the "big money" will flow more to the GOP and Trump now. Thats how our corrupt system works, the 2 parties argue back and forth from their moral high ground while their politicians steal our money... And our weapons, like the republican god Ronald Reagan. He stole our weapons and sold them to Iranian terrorists and used some of the money to fund central american terrorists. And he did that shortly after Iran's likely involvement with blowing up our marines in Beirut. Can you believe that? We had an arms embargo on Iran and Reagan was selling them our weapons! And they call Snowden and Manning traitors? Sorry, I'm rambling again...

As for 2014-15, donations probably declined because Hillary left State to run and the coming election was increasing scrutiny on the foundation with accusations of pay for play. That would naturally shine a light on the major donors who'd be stuck explaining why they're supporting the foundation. If she had won the election the Clinton's were planning on addressing the problem by eliminating any conflict of interest ;);)

Regarding CGI, I dont have much faith in what Bill Clinton said. I imagine he was trying to get her elected and CGI was just another obstacle. He should have probably prefaced his prognosis with "if Hillary loses", but that wouldn't remove the obstacle too well. If they had won I doubt CGI would have cut back or ended, its an annual gathering of bigshots to talk about the planet's needs. Seems to me that 'imperative' would increase with Hillary in the WH. I dont know how important those meetings were to the foundation, but it does appear to be the first casualty in the foundation's decline.

http://www.news.com.au/finance/econ...s/news-story/219577919ed8dfbd79cf808321234eba

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/19/clin...llary-clintons-dashed-white-house-dreams.html

I'm not a fan of Hillary, and her entire foundation may indeed may be closing down, but the evidence for that just isn't here yet. Not to say it won't be there in the future.

Bureaucracies and charities rarely disappear, they find new causes. But they got plenty of money to kick around for a while, hell, they could survive off the investments and Bill and Hillary will be free to make their speeches for oodles of money. Well, their stock just went down so maybe Chelsea will have to run for the Senate.

He has no interest in evidence. Breitbart just tells him what he wants to hear and he loyally parrots it on.

He has no interest in evidence. Clinton just tells him what he wants to hear and he loyally parrots it on.

You dont see any irony there? Apparently you've read Breitbart, not me, and you're the one repeating what both Breitbart and the Clinton Foundation told you.

The OP criticizes right wing political correctness, you ignored that to call me a constantly deceitful right wing sycophant because I added a criticism of the corruption in Washington attached to the Clintons. I dont even visit those sites and they didn't invent the 'narrative'. A drop in donations from power brokers following an election loss 'invented' the narrative. If you're gonna use (alleged) false statements to accuse others of lying, you'd do well to avoid filling your arguments with them.
 
Last edited:
The OP criticizes right wing political correctness, you ignored that to call me a constantly deceitful right wing sycophant because I added a criticism of the corruption in Washington attached to the Clintons. I dont even visit those sites and they didn't invent the 'narrative'. A drop in donations from power brokers following an election loss 'invented' the narrative. If you're gonna use (alleged) false statements to accuse others of lying, you'd do well to avoid filling your arguments with them.

You misunderstood why I called you that.
 
You wouldn't be posting if I hadn't mentioned the Clintons in the OP. You called me a liar because I read the same news stories available to the people you've been trolling at Breitbart... Apparently you never bothered to find out if they were lying either, you just throw the accusation around. I mean, seriously, who reads an OP criticizing right wingers for political correctness only to conclude the author is a right wing sycophant?
 
I called you on the false narrative that you threw in as a "side note." I didn't conclude that you are a right wing sycophant from "reading an OP." You have had 10,000 opportunities to identify yourself, and used them.
 
Regarding CGI, I dont have much faith in what Bill Clinton said. I imagine he was trying to get her elected and CGI was just another obstacle. He should have probably prefaced his prognosis with "if Hillary loses", but that wouldn't remove the obstacle too well. If they had won I doubt CGI would have cut back or ended, its an annual gathering of bigshots to talk about the planet's needs. Seems to me that 'imperative' would increase with Hillary in the WH. I dont know how important those meetings were to the foundation, but it does appear to be the first casualty in the foundation's decline.

I don't know what to say.

In September* he says they will close down CGI because of all the allegations of corruption affecting the other branches of their foundation, then when he closes it down like he said he would, people say that is proof of the corruption. :confused:

*Staff was informed in August, everyone else was informed in a speech in September. In case there is any confusion when August/September is mentioned.

How would he explain keeping it open if she won and he had previously said he was closing it down specifically to address the issue of possible conflict of interests. When he said in September he was closing it down, it was widely believed Hillary was going to win the election, am I right?

Did you know CGI has not completely shut down yet (despite she lost).

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/06/the-clinton-global-initiative-isnt-really-dead/

I'm quite aware there are 'crooks' on both sides. And it would not surprise me in the least if Trump is as corrupt as the rest of them.
 
@tim

The narrative isn't false and you ignored an OP critical of the right wing and called me a right wing sycophant. Thats incredible... Well, among other things.
 
And it would not surprise me in the least if Trump is as corrupt as the rest of them.

It would surprise the hell out of me if Dingbat Donny were only as corrupt as the rest of them. I think he is probably far more corrupt than any other president or presidential candidate, ever. But we will likely never know since the House Judiciary Committee is about to rule on whether investigating Trump is necessary, and they were specifically chosen to be safe from consequences when they rule that there is no need.
 
@tim

The narrative isn't false and you ignored an OP critical of the right wing and called me a right wing sycophant. Thats incredible... Well, among other things.

Just because I didn't comment on your anecdote doesn't mean I ignored it. I just didn't have anything in particular to say about it...and still don't. The appended false narrative, on the other hand, needed to be called out for what it was. Frankly, since it had absolutely nothing to do with the anecdote it was appended to I still haven't figured out why you stuck it on there in the first place.
 
I don't know what to say.

In September* he says they will close down CGI because of all the allegations of corruption affecting the other branches of their foundation, then when he closes it down like he said he would, people say that is proof of the corruption. :confused:

That isn't proof of the corruption. I said, and your post agrees with me, CGI was an obstacle to Hillary's campaign. So Bill found a way to remove it by announcing its pending demise. If Hillary had won I dont believe CGI would be closing.

*Staff was informed in August, everyone else was informed in a speech in September. In case there is any confusion when August/September is mentioned.

If CGI hurts the campaign, announcing its termination after the election wont help.

How would he explain keeping it open if she won and he had previously said he was closing it down specifically to address the issue of possible conflict of interests. When he said in September he was closing it down, it was widely believed Hillary was going to win the election, am I right?

By ostensibly removing the conflict of interest
 
Just because I didn't comment on your anecdote doesn't mean I ignored it. I just didn't have anything in particular to say about it...and still don't. The appended false narrative, on the other hand, needed to be called out for what it was. Frankly, since it had absolutely nothing to do with the anecdote it was appended to I still haven't figured out why you stuck it on there in the first place.

You had to ignore it...how else would you call someone a right wing sycophant after they had just criticized the right wing?
 
Back
Top Bottom