LEFT WING LOONS
See other LEFT WING LOONS Articles
Title: Chelsea Clinton's dubious 'earnings' She made big bucks in chemicals and TV, courtesy of nepotism, not skill
Source:
Washington Times
URL Source: [None]
Published: Jan 8, 2020
Author: Tammy Bruce
Post Date: 2020-01-08 09:05:57 by IbJensen
Keywords: None
Views: 28453
Comments: 162
With all the talk about Hunter Biden these days, one might get the impression that he is the only child of a politician to benefit from his parents’ position and the last name they inherited. Before Hunter Biden, the son of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, got his strange but lucrative deal to sit on the board of energy company Burisma Holdings in Ukraine to the tune of $50,000 a month, there was Chelsea Clinton, the only child of former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. She was similarly rewarded with jobs and board positions that had absolutely no relationship with that young woman’s interests, life, education or any perceived expertise. All of this has racked up to what the New York Post reported back in 2015 was an estimated net worth of $15 million for the then-34-year-old. More recently, Barron’s, the finance newspaper, revealed that Chelsea Clinton has now reaped $9 million from a corporate board position. In 2011, while her mother was still secretary of state, she was appointed to IAC/Interactive, an Internet investment company. She receives an annual $50,000 retainer and $250,000 worth of restricted IAC stock units, according to Barron’s. Ironically, and something the Clintons would be loathed to admit, they like most other American families benefitted from President Donald Trump’s leadership and correlating economic renaissance. The Hill reported, “IAC stock has risen 89%, 50% and 36% in 2017, 2018 and 2019, respectively, a far steeper rise in the broader stock market Consequently, Chelsea Clinton reported in December of last year her holdings ballooned to $8.95 million. In 2017, Chelsea Clinton was also named to travel site Expedia’s Board of Directors. Because she’s a … business genius? A travel genius? An investment prodigy? The Hill
Poster Comment: The Clintons are racketeers and murderers. The pile of dead bodies they leave behind them in their unhindered quest for illegal riches should be enough to lock the three of them away for 50 years. Incidentally, Chelsea is absolutely ghastly looking and watching her speak is like a Disney cartoon come to life. Her comments are always vacuously stupid.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-97) not displayed.
.
.
.
#98. To: Vicomte13 (#88)
Like I said I only bring that up to say why should I believe someone who is saying things that are in the Bible are not true. Then saying things that are without scriptural basis and in fact in contradiction of scripture is Gods word. So I am like why should I believe this guy when the abundence of his heart seems to be murder me and others.
Mary is not dead. Neither are the Apostles, the saints and the rest of the dead. You are very much mistaken. They are alive, elsewhere, in Gan Eden/Paradise or Gehenna/Purgatory/"Hell".
Yes I know. Since it is appointed to man once to die then comes judgement. Since judgement day hasn't come yet Mary is still dead and can't hear shit. Also For there is one God, and ONE MEDIATOR between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. 1 Timothy 2:5 Notice not Mary. No where in the Bible does it say Mary is Holy. It never says to pray to her. It never says she has Gods power to hear all prayers in every language. But since you admit you don't know and she didn't speak english. Do you think she hears your prayers?
That is true according to you and it isn't in the Bible. Jesus never said a word about it. But Paul is a liar according to what you have said in the past.
He never said Purgatory. So you add to scripture like the Catholics.
I try to turn the other cheek and not bring up your over-the-top behavior, because judging your God by the way you behave, I wouldn't want anything to do with him or his religion. It's really easy to reject virtually any human being for human weakness. We are imperfect. Lord knows I am. I don't generally skewer you personally for your graceless behavior, because I think it's wrong to do so. But if I copy you, your vitriolic behavior renders Protestantism and angry religion of poop-flinging apes with very poor reading comprehension, who make no allowance for human weakness and oblivious to their own raging unChristian fury. There. How does that feel? It doesn't even feel like a slap to you, because you are oblivious to your offensive behavior, and actually think that it's "righteous wrath". Pharisees and idolators.
He did, over and over: Gehenna is Purgatory, but it's function. "Until the last penny is paid." Until means "not forever".
IF you said only that God healed your broken neck. I wouldn't challenge you even if I didn't completely believe you. I may even believe you. In my family before i met my wife when she was a kid. Her family tells me of how her sister had a severe medical condition. Her father prayed and gave up alcohol and became a preacher because they tell me she was healed and the tumor was completely gone never to return. I didn't witness that but I believe it. But when you go around talking about rats and lizards being raised from the dead. That is a bridge to far for me.
You and your ilk are the sorts who like to call people who are wrong about something "liars". I don't. Paul was not right about a great many things in his life. He was a fanatic and a murderer before he converted, then he was a fanatic for what he believed, and that's fine, but it caused him to state some things in ways that diverge from what Jesus said. Also, Paul, the Pharisee, was incredibly impressed, still, with the who Jewish apparatus, and continued to exalt it (and to insert features of it into Christianity), where Jesus did not do so. But this is not a discussion we can have. We cannot simultaneously discuss text from an academic viewpoint and fling poop at each other. That doesn't work. If you're going to fling poop, and I'm flinging it back you personally, for once, we're not going to bring in Scripture in a serious discussion.
Good conversation. My behavior is over the top sometimes. Sometimes I like to get reactions out of people by saying stuff. I should do better. But that doesn't excuse any of your denying Scripture and adding to it. Vic I just like the truth and I consider the Bible to be true. So when you go around saying Mary is alive and such nonsense. *It contradicts scriputure and I wonder why someone who says the believe in God is willing to say the Bible is full of truth and also lies. What you call God must be cruel not giving us a clear truth. Having to add to the word and subtract and change babylonian tradition about the queen of the earth into Mary of the Bible in order to convert people back then.
nope
Uh. You have quoted zero scripture. You have made excuses why scripture doesn't mean what it says. You make stuff up like purgatory and praying to Mary. Ok you didn't make it up personally but you believe the crap in contradiction to Gods word found in the Bible and only the Bible.
Factually wrong. Jesus came back to convert Saul to become the Apostle Paul on the road to Damascus. Paul went on to defeat Peter, the alleged first Roman pontiff, in a major theological battle over the conversion of Gentiles at the council of Jerusalem.
Those books were all rejected when the first canon was estabished. The first canon has never been challenged. It was only at the council of Trent that Roman Catholics decreed that those 9 additional books were official scripture. Despite this, even Rome does not elevate those extra 9 false books to the same status as that held by the books of the original NT canon. Because they know better. And so they are termed the Apocrypha.
Excised by the Council of Hippo and confirmed subsequently in the ancient NT canon. By the Roman Catholic church. It was only in 1546 at the Council of Trent that these dodgy books were again added to the Rome's official canon, though never granted equal status by Rome with the books of the original ancient canon.
Uh-huh. Paul, who was the only human converted by Jesus after his ascent to heaven, is considered by Count Vicula to be inferior in authority to Jesus' baby-mama, Mary who the Count claims has converted millions. Notice how the Count never gives Jesus even the slightest credit for converting any of those souls. It's all for the glory of the Queen of Heaven, Mary. Yet scripture never mentions her as having any spiritual authority whatsoever and Jesus merely assigned disciples to help care for her after His own death. Funny how that works.
You have shed light on what Vic posted. He didn't put those books in context like you did. I always enjoy your posts. Well almost always.
Nothing is 'simple' when it comes to religion! You're a big boy and you should know that.
Liberals are like Slinkys. They're good for nothing, but somehow they bring a smile to your face as you shove them down the stairs.
They had a dispute. He appears to have persuaded Peter of something. The text hardly gives a trial transcript.
She always came in the name of her son, and always called people to follow her son, and they did. You calumniate a messenger of God with your nonsense.
It was only in 1546 at the Council of Trent that these dodgy books were again added to the Rome's official canon, though never granted equal status by Rome with the books of the original ancient canon. Utterly false. Go back to school. Those books have been part of the Catholic Canon, East and West, since the first complete Bibles of the 300s. Local synods disagreed about this and that. The Orthodox and the Catholics both have proceeded forth with these books. Jerome protested some of them but he translated them nevertheless, because the Pope was firm on the matter.
Lie all you want. They were affirmed only by the Council of Trent and they were never included in the canon approved by the Council of Hippo. Stuff that in a dead mouse and smoke it. So what happened to your announced plan from two days ago to run away and pout for a while? You didn't carry through on your little threat.
A lot of Gentiles converted when they found out they didn't have to give up their foreskins like a Jew would have. Or follow Jewish dietary laws, etc. Probably those Christians with foreskins numbered in the millions over the centuries. We know what the dispute was. And Paul prevailed over Peter before the Council, very clearly. Which does throw into question how Peter could be the first Roman pontiff if Paul, who had never even met Jesus during his lifetime, could and did beat Peter like a rug, theologically speaking. And Paul was by far the greater missionary as well. Peter seems to have accomplished very little, perhaps the reason why Rome chose to depict him as their purported first pope. Peter himself never wrote epistles that indicated he knew anything about holding such a status or commission of leadership.
You'd worship her as the Queen of Heaven (and the Immaculate Queen of the Universe, as the sedevecantists do) if the Romans had just nailed one of her bloody tampons to a cross. Were it possible, the Mariolatrists would replace Jesus altogether. Certainly, they make little mention of Him at any time. It's all "Mary, Mary, quite contrary (to scripture)" with you lot.
These books (the Apocrypha), though valuable documents, were never in the Hebrew canon of Scripture. The Hebrews excluded the Apocrypha because these books contain errors.
Paul prevailed over Peter because Peter was in error. Peter was causing a division in the church because of his fear of displeasing the Judaizers. Paul rebuked Peter and corrected the whole lot of them...that we are saved by grace not by works of the Law. The conflict was short lived. By Acts 15:7 Peter affirms the gospel message. BTW Peter was never a stinking Pope...there is no such office listed in the Bible.
I think Paul had a very aggressive personality. That trait does come through in his writings and these other descriptions we have of him. He must have had a very powerful and charismatic effect on people. Anyway, that's how I read him from what the bible describes.
Yeah, all the apostles were a pretty rough bunch. Saul before he was Paul participated in stonings, you know, killing people with rocks. Peter, a fisherman, used a sword to hack an ear off a dude. James and John were known locally as the "Sons of Thunder" Even so, God tenderized them...and made them useful.
The Hebrews excluded those books at Jamnia, 90 years into the Christian era. They also insist that Isaiah does not speak of the son of a virgin, but the son of a young woman. If one wishes to hitch one's star to the Jews, in for a penny, in for a pound. Stop eating shrimp and bacon, and cut off the end of your dick.
That's novel. Keep it up, please. Keep heaping derision on Mary.
I want to urge you to keep saying evil things, to get so full of yourself and such a head of steam on you keep right on down that self-righteous road of yours, spewing nonsense and contempt at holy things.
You are suggesting that the Apocrypha was part of the Hebrew canon up until Jamnia, and then tossed out. That isn't the case at all.
Every time you elevate Mary, you diminish Jesus Himself. Can Jesus do anything without his baby-mama? Anything at all? Catholics elevate Mary to the point that she replaces the Father/Son/Spirit entirely in their minds. You know it's true.
The disputed books were not included in the original NT canon for sound reasons. The Maccabees were just a history of a series of recent wars for Jewish independence from Rome. A few others were dubious rehashes of Daniel. And so on. They were considered carefully and rejected as inferior at Hippo. The account of the Maccabees is interesting and sets the stage historically for the appearance of Christ and the rebellion that ended with the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem in 70AD. But they had no greater spiritual merit than the history written by Josephus a little later after he went Benedict Arnold and threw in with the Roman conquerors. A history book is not a spiritual book. Such was the judgment of the council of Hippo and subsequent ratifications of Hippo's NT canon.
I know that’s completely untrue, pure falsehood produced by the distempered Protestant mind.
You ought to Google the Council of Hippo to see those books you say were rejected in fact confirmed by that council, which was, by the way, a regional synod, not an ecumenical Council. Please do continue to spout falsehood.
The account of the Maccabees... Errors in the Apocrypha...Money as an offering for the sins of the dead: From https://carm.org/catholic/errors-apocrypha Vic can buy you a stairway to heaven TC...but I have a feeling it is gonna cost way more than twelve thousand drachms of silver to save your sin blighted soul ;)
Vic isn't a follower of Christ. He is a follower of the Pope. If Vic always prays in Marys name God don't even hear his prayers. Vic is deceived and trying to deceive with his doctrine of demons. He is to educated to have common sense. In other words brainwashed.
She is dead and you even admitted that you don't even know if she hears your prayers. She is a dead sinner that practiced repentance. Here is another verse that shows you are not to worship sinners. Even Mary mother of Jesus. 27 And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. 28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.
No purgatory fool. It isn't in the Bible and this proves it scripturally. You are scriptureally challenged that is why you never quote it like Jesus did. You just worship some stupid Pope who covers up fore pedophiles. 26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
Comments (138 - 162) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestBy comparison, I recognize and freely admit that my bloodyminded militaristic urge to kill my enemies certainly stems from my upbringing, military training, and long military service. I recognize that it is not in accordance with Jesus, and that it is a struggle between my personality, and the expressed will of my God. It is something that I struggle with.
#99. To: A K A Stone (#90)
But it is also true that Mary is dead.
#100. To: Vicomte13 (#97)
I don't know. And neither do you.
#101. To: Vicomte13 (#99)
Purgatory
#102. To: Vicomte13 (#96)
I listen very carefully to Christ's words IN the portions of the book that contain them
#103. To: A K A Stone (#98)
Like I said I only bring that up to say why should I believe someone who is saying things that are in the Bible are not true.
#104. To: A K A Stone (#102)
He never said Purgatory. So you add to scripture like the Catholics.
#105. To: Vicomte13 (#88)
Also, the fact that God has touched me with miracles and I am unashamed to speak about them seems to drive you nuts.
#106. To: A K A Stone (#101)
But Paul is a liar according to what you have said in the past.
#107. To: Vicomte13 (#103)
#108. To: Vicomte13 (#106)
but it caused him to state some things in ways that diverge from what Jesus said.
#109. To: Vicomte13 (#106)
But this is not a discussion we can have. We cannot simultaneously discuss text from an academic viewpoint and fling poop at each other. That doesn't work. If you're going to fling poop, and I'm flinging it back you personally, for once, we're not going to bring in Scripture in a serious discussion.
#110. To: Vicomte13 (#60)
Paul doesn't have the final word. God sent Mary repeatedly to earth - the only person he has seny back since Jesus ascended.
#111. To: Vicomte13 (#83)
My book has 9 additional books in it that you people cut out of it fifteen hundred years after the fact, because they conflict with the theology that you want to believe.
#112. To: Vicomte13, A K A Stone (#93)
The book of Sirach, the book of Wisdom, the book of Judith, the book of Tobit, the books of 1 Maccabbees and 2 Maccabbees, about half of the book of Daniel - all present in the oldest complete Bible, all excised by Martin Luther and his ilk.
#113. To: A K A Stone (#101)
That is true according to you and it isn't in the Bible. Jesus never said a word about it. But Paul is a liar according to what you have said in the past.
#114. To: Tooconservative (#113)
#115. To: A K A Stone (#89)
The saints are the christains. It is as simple as that
#116. To: Tooconservative (#110)
Paul went on to defeat Peter, the alleged first Roman pontiff, in a major theological battle over the conversion of Gentiles at the council of Jerusalem.
#117. To: Tooconservative (#113)
It's all for the glory of the Queen of Heaven, Mary.
#118. To: Tooconservative (#112)
Excised by the Council of Hippo and confirmed subsequently in the ancient NT canon. By the Roman Catholic church.
#119. To: Vicomte13, A K A Stone (#118)
Utterly false. Go back to school. Those books have been part of the Catholic Canon, East and West, since the first complete Bibles of the 300s. Local synods disagreed about this and that.
#120. To: Vicomte13, A K A Stone (#116)
They had a dispute. He appears to have persuaded Peter of something. The text hardly gives a trial transcript.
#121. To: Vicomte13, A K A Stone (#117)
She always came in the name of her son, and always called people to follow her son, and they did.
#122. To: Vicomte13 (#118)
Those books have been part of the Catholic Canon, East and West, since the first complete Bibles of the 300s.
#123. To: Tooconservative (#120)
And Paul prevailed over Peter before the Council, very clearly.
After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."
#124. To: watchman (#123)
#125. To: Tooconservative (#124)
I think Paul had a very aggressive personality.
#126. To: watchman (#122)
#127. To: Tooconservative (#121)
You'd worship her as the Queen of Heaven (and the Immaculate Queen of the Universe, as the sedevecantists do) if the Romans had just nailed one of her bloody tampons to a cross.
#128. To: Tooconservative (#119)
o what happened to your announced plan from two days ago to run away and pout for a while? You didn't carry through on your little threat.
#129. To: Vicomte13 (#126)
(Edited)
The Hebrews excluded those books at Jamnia, 90 years into the Christian era.
#130. To: Vicomte13 (#127)
Keep heaping derision on Mary.
#131. To: watchman, Vicomte13 (#129)
You are suggesting that the Apocrypha was part of the Hebrew canon up until Jamnia, and then tossed out. That isn't the case at all.
#132. To: Tooconservative (#130)
#133. To: Tooconservative (#131)
#134. To: Tooconservative, Vicomte13 (#131)
The disputed books were not included in the original NT canon for sound reasons.
2 Maccabbees 12:43, "And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection."
#135. To: watchman (#134)
#136. To: Vicomte13 (#99)
Mary is not dead.
#137. To: Vicomte13 (#126)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]