Monday, June 23, 2014

POOR BABY!

In an interview with the Guardian newspaper published last night, the Hillary Clinton actually defended herself against criticism of her wealth by saying she’s not really “truly well off.”
“They don’t see me as part of the problem,” Clinton said of Americans who are upset about income inequality, adding, “Because we pay ordinary income tax, unlike a lot of people who are truly well off, not to name names; and we've done it through dint of hard work.”
Good grief! She made an $8 million advance for putting her name on a book someone else most likely wrote!

Hillary earned more with one book than the average family makes in 160 years of constant work.

Now NOBODY begrudges her what ever she can earn. But to cry "poor mouth?" Cone On! Give me an ever-lovin'-blue-eyed break!!

For more, see HERE.

22 comments:

sue hanes said...

Joe - I am sure that she didn't write that book all by herself. Who does? But I'm also sure that she did write a lot of it herself. It has her style about it. Very few people write these books alone. I could name a few but I won't.

Xavier Onassis said...

I really don't understand your obsession with Hillary and her money. Weird.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Joe,

"Cone on"!?! You mean "come one" :oD

X.O.

Hillary is a bald-face liar, and people like you intend to put her in the White House.

The woman whines about being poor and is filthy rich. But that is typical for liberals.

Lisa said...

Yeah Joe you should only be obsessed about Hillary if her last name was Koch or Romney,not Clinton or Soros

Xavier Onassis said...

G.E.C. - I''d vote for Hillary just to watch you give yourself strokes for the next 8 years.

Remember 6 years ago? All of the doom and gloom about how Obama would destroy America, take everyone's guns away, impose Sharia Law, round up Christians in FEMA camps, suspend the Constitution and appoint himself emporor for life?


None of that happened.

America is still America, the Constitution is still the law of the land, there are no FEMA camps, everyone still has their guns and can still buy all the ammo they want, mid-tem elections will be held this year and the next Presidential election will be in 2016.

The only thing that has really changed is that our country is finally moving FORWARD again instead of being dragged back into the Dark Ages by supersticious fear-mongers who see thieves, rapists, muderers, terrorists and heretics lurking in every shadow waiting to jump out and tuurn them gay or something.

Relax. Just because America has repudiated everything you value and believe and left people like you in the dust-bin of history doesn't mean the end of America.

It just means the end of Americans like you and that is no great loss.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

X.O.

Obama did write executive orders for more gun control, and he and his administration is doing everything possible to skirt the 2nd amendment, including outlawing specific types of guns buying up all the ammunition creating a shortage (have you really tried buying ammo?) he has installed muslims in cabinet positions, sold Israel to Islam, and buddying up to Muslims all over the world, and even celebrating Islam - and only the Constitution prevents him from allowing sharia law; Christians are being discriminated against by his same-sex fake marriage fiats; and his enviro-Nazi programs are raising the costs of energy exponentially, and the ACA (aka Obamacare) has raised taxes and rates exponentially.

His promotion and sanctioning of homosexuality is indeed ruining this country.

But you and your ilk love socialism and sexual perversion, so you are living in your own little heaven. Too bad you will lose in the end.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Oh, and don't forget how Obamanation is ruining the country with his pandering to illegals, as well as aiding and abetting their overflow, including the horrendous influx of children to be anchors.

http://www.humanevents.com/2014/06/23/white-house-finally-admits-its-role-in-causing-the-child-immigrant-tsunami/

Lisa said...

Good thing the Republicans won congress otherwise Obama would have done alot more damage than he already did

Joe said...

GEC: I'm not certain what "cone on" means, but it has a hint of unintended double entendre.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Joe,

I wasn't sure if you understood what I meant - I was pointing out the typo
Now NOBODY begrudges her what ever she can earn. But to cry "poor mouth?" Cone On! Give me an ever-lovin'-blue-eyed break!!

Duckys here said...

Glenn, keeping in mind that marriage is a civil contract would you explain to the class why allowing all citizens to enter into a civil contract discriminates against Christians.

Thank you.

P.S. We're shipping you off to a formaldehyde filled FEMA camper next week.
The camp will be under sharia authority.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Ducky,

Marriage has a definition of being the union of opposite-sex people. By forcing Christians - or anyone - to sanction the pervasion of same-sex fake marriage, you are discriminating against said persons by violating their rights to not have to giver personal sanction to perversion.

Why should anyone be forced to sanction same-sex fake marriage; forced to give sanction or be punished?

Xavier Onassis said...

G.E.C. - "Marriage has a definition of being the union of opposite-sex people."

Marriage is a manmade, civil institution and we are changing that definition.

Want to ban same-sex marriage ceremonies in your church? That's fine. No one has a problem with that.


You oppose gay marriage? Don't marry a gay person. Problem solved.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

X.O.

Marriage has a definition for thousands of years. No one has the right to redefine what marriage is. And it was not man-made, by the way. God instituted marriage, but you deny God exists, which makes you, according to the Bible, a "fool."

Nevertheless, if two queers want to call themselves "married," more power to them. My problem is when they demand that everyone recognize it as such or be punished. That violates my rights. No one has the right to FORCE anyone else to sanction their behavior.

If a person doesn't want to participate in a same-sex fake marriage by photography, baking, music, etc, they should not be forced to do so or suffer punishment.

There is no tolerance with you people on the LEFT.

Xavier Onassis said...

G.E.C. - "Marriage has a definition for thousands of years. No one has the right to redefine what marriage is."

Nonsense.

"The debate about marriage equality often centers, however discretely, on an appeal to the Bible," the authors wrote. "Unfortunately, such appeals often reflect a lack of biblical literacy on the part of those who use that complex collection of texts as an authority to enact modern social policy."

The Bible's definition of marriage can be confusing and contradictory, noted the scholars. They stated in their column that a primary example of this is the religious book's stance on polygamy, a practice that was embraced by prominent biblical figures Abraham and David. Furthermore, Avalos, Cargill and Atkinson point out that various Bible passages mention not only traditional monogamy, but also self-induced castration and celibacy, as well as the practice of wedding rape victims to their rapists.

In an interview with The Huffington Post, Iowa University Professor Robert R. Cargill said the column was the brainchild of his colleague Hector Avalos, who suggested local scholars put together an "educated response" to the often-touted claim that the Bible defines marriage as solely between one man and one woman. "[T]hat's not the only thing the Bible says," Cargill told HuffPost.

Xavier Onassis said...

G.E.C. - Your religious beliefs, no matter how intolerant they may be, do not give you the right to dicriminate against people.

Our legal system requires that all people be treated equally.

Period.

You don't have a God-giiven right to be an intolerant bigot.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

X.O.

The Huffington Post; now there is a theologically astute paper - NOT.

From a religious point, the Bible specifically states that marriage is between opposite sex people. Even polygamy is a man with more than one woman and not other men. Scripturally speaking homosexual behavior itself is an abomination to God, so there would be no such thing as the union of same-sex people approved of by God.

You'd better stick to your secular reasons, because your ignorance of Scripture comes out every time you mention the Bible.

Outside of Scripture, history shows only opposite-sex unions as being marriage, except in really, really rare cases where some pervert "married" same-sex and was recognized as being a perversion by everyone, including historians.

Same-sex unions are a recent perversion of marriage so as to force societal acceptance and sanction of homosexuality. And if you don't accept and sanction it, you will be punished. THAT is the major problem us sane people have with homosexual fake marriage.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

X.O.

So only leftists like you, and homosexual perverts, have the right to bigoted and intolerant?

If you don't want to sanction what I do, I tolerate it and say "have a nice day." If I don't want to sanction homosexuals, I can be fined, sued, forced to attend re-education classes, loose my job, and be subjected to violence.

Yeah, and we are called "intolerant" and "bigoted." How Owellian.

Duckys here said...

Glenn, are you trying to tell us that the institution of marriage, like any other human institution is static?

And let me remind you that this institution has existed in many cultures quite independent of the Christian religion.

The Christian Bible states the world was created in six twenty four hour days. Should we allow that ignorance to supplant contemporary cosmology?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Ducky,

Yes, the institution of marriage has been static - always between opposite-sex couples except for rare perversions which were seen as perversions. ALWAYS throughout history in every part of the world, no one ever considered two queers “married.” That’s because every culture throughout history has recognized that males do not biologically fit with other males, nor females with other females, and that you need one of each to procreate.

And, according to the Judeo-Christian faiths, all cultures know that God instituted marriage, even if they don’t recognize him as God.

The Bible says six 24-hr days, and that’s what it took. Modern cosmology cannot prove otherwise. They have only speculations, assumptions and assertions based. IF God can create at all, why can he not do it in six days, so as to set an example for us. Where do you think the idea of a 7-day week came from?

Duckys here said...

Glenn, should contemporary physics, astronomy, biology, physiology, archeology, anthropology, botany, chemistry and others I'm sure I missed be forced to conform to your religious texts?

I'm just curious.

Should we surrender all the advances we've made in those fields in order to conform to the Old Testament?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Ducky,

None of those fields contradict the Bible with their actual findings. It is speculations made by some of the adherents which are problematic.

No Christian is anti-science. But not all that is called science truly is.

The problem is people like you who accept speculations, assumptions and assertions in areas which are based on evolutionism, and consider them factual.