or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Why Hillary will be the next POTUS
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why Hillary will be the next POTUS - Page 8

post #106 of 3283

Lighthouse's objection to a Hilary 4 hundo haircut is that he (she?) views it as hypocritical for a leftist to spend so lavishly on a haircut. LH prefers the Rand Paul style of cutting his own hair with a weedwhacker. 

post #107 of 3283
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

Why is a $400 haircut a scandal? I thought you were a free market kind of guy.
Quote:
WASHINGTON, May 20— It may have been the most expensive haircut in history.

Two of Los Angeles International Airport's four runways were shut down for nearly an hour on Tuesday, some incoming flights were delayed and Air Force One sat on the tarmac with engines running -- all so that President Clinton's Beverly Hills hairstylist, Chistophe, could come aboard and give Mr. Clinton a high-price trim before he took off for Washington.

Questions about Mr. Clinton's runway razor cut dominated the White House news briefing today, with the communications director, George Stephanopoulos, scrambling to explain why the populist President tied up one of the country's busiest airports to have his hair trimmed. Everybody Does It

Federal Aviation Administration spokesmen were quoted by The Associated Press as saying that while Air Force One sat on the runway on an indefinite haircut hold, two of the airport's four runways were shut down and some commuter flights scheduled to land were forced to circle instead. The White House insisted, though, that the Secret Service had not sought any special hold on air traffic while the President was getting his locks shorn.

"Everybody has to get their hair cut," Mr. Stephanopoulos said. "I think the President normally gets his hair cut sometime during the week. It happens at different places. As you know, he has a very busy schedule, and he just tries to work it in when he can. That was when we were able to work it in."

And who paid for this haircut?

"The President and his family have a personal services contract with Cristophe to cover things like this," Mr. Stephanopoulos said. "They pay for it. It's for the whole family."

In light of Mr. Clinton's haircut by a stylist to Hollywood stars, Mr. Stephanopoulos was asked whether his boss was still the President of the common man.

"Absolutely," he answered. "And if you look at his economic package, it's a package that's designed to turn this around and to really get some real benefits to middle-class Americans. And that's what's important."

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/21/us/haircut-grounded-clinton-while-the-price-took-off.html
post #108 of 3283
Quote:
Originally Posted by ethanm View Post

Lighthouse's objection to a Hilary 4 hundo haircut is that he (she?) views it as hypocritical for a leftist to spend so lavishly on a haircut. LH prefers the Rand Paul style of cutting his own hair with a weedwhacker. 


It is hypocritical if you are bloviating on about income inequality as your signature issue.

As for my hair, I have it cut short to accomodate my painstakingly tailored periwig.
post #109 of 3283

Oh, it was Bill. I am against this then. 

post #110 of 3283
Quote:
Originally Posted by ethanm View Post

Oh, it was Bill. I am against this then. 

There is no Bill, no Hillary. It and Chelsea form the Clinton.

Resistance is futile.
post #111 of 3283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post

There is no Bill, no Hillary. It and Chelsea form the Clinton.

Resistance is futile.


This doesn't make any sense, yet I love it.
post #112 of 3283

Celebrity Deathmatch Royal Rumble: Clintons vs. Kennedys. 

 

Who wins? 

post #113 of 3283
I had a suspicon that this is what he was about, but it was a lot more than $400. I also object to this. However, the whole John Edwards/any rich lefty spending a lot on a haircut is such a stupid thing to talk about. It distracts from issues that matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ethanm View Post

Celebrity Deathmatch Royal Rumble: Clintons vs. Kennedys. 

Who wins? 

Tough call. They should do that for the first match when they relaunch though.

I think the Kennedys win. They have a longer history - although do they have any experience in destroying the living dead: it may be needed against the Hills.
post #114 of 3283
Even given the media bias, I'm surprised the Clintons' naked profiteering hasn't attracted more criticism. Can you imagine if the spouse of a GOP candidate was being paid tens of millions every year for "speeches"?
post #115 of 3283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Even given the media bias, I'm surprised the Clintons' naked profiteering hasn't attracted more criticism. Can you imagine if the spouse of a GOP candidate was being paid tens of millions every year for "speeches"?


Even I, who believe the media have less credibility than the National Enquirer or Kim Kardashian, am a bit surprised.

Like a prostitute who has given up on pretending.

The MSM, black stockings torn, smeared lipstick, bruised arms . . .

waiting at the back door for another trick to peek out and snap his fingers.
post #116 of 3283
Her opponents will bring that up later, but I doubt most people will care. Probably. because many of the people who would vote for her would do the exact same thing.
post #117 of 3283
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Even given the media bias, I'm surprised the Clintons' naked profiteering hasn't attracted more criticism. Can you imagine if the spouse of a GOP candidate was being paid tens of millions every year for "speeches"?

The media gives folks what it wants to hear. Non-FNC people don't want to hear their next POTUS is the type of person Hillary obviously is.
post #118 of 3283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Even given the media bias, I'm surprised the Clintons' naked profiteering hasn't attracted more criticism. Can you imagine if the spouse of a GOP candidate was being paid tens of millions every year for "speeches"?

http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187
Quote:
These were not the only relationships bridging leaders of the two nations. In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia contributed at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, the philanthropic enterprise she has overseen with her husband, former president Bill Clinton. Just two months before the deal was finalized, Boeing -- the defense contractor that manufactures one of the fighter jets the Saudis were especially keen to acquire, the F-15 -- contributed $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to a company press release.

The Saudi deal was one of dozens of arms sales approved by Hillary Clinton’s State Department that placed weapons in the hands of governments that had also donated money to the Clinton family philanthropic empire, an International Business Times investigation has found.

Under Clinton's leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data. That figure -- derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) -- represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.

The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation, resulting in a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. These extra sales were part of a broad increase in American military exports that accompanied Obama’s arrival in the White House.

American defense contractors also donated to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state and in some cases made personal payments to Bill Clinton for speaking engagements. Such firms and their subsidiaries were listed as contractors in $163 billion worth of Pentagon-negotiated deals that were authorized by the Clinton State Department between 2009 and 2012.

It's a shame Hillary is going to get the nod from Democrats and any Republican nominated will be far too much of an ideologue for me to ever vote for.
post #119 of 3283
The "foundation" is a separate issue entirely. The speaking fees amount to something like $130,000,000 or more -- one hundred and thirty million -- since Clinton left office. And most of that money has come from foreigners. It's disgusting and ought to be criminal since everyone knows it's an attempt to buy influence for when his wife is president.
post #120 of 3283

So is this the right awakening to the problems with money in politics? That's cute. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Why Hillary will be the next POTUS