Thomas, it's what people go on these boards to do: debate ideas coupled with data. Is that lost on you? Or are you just here to rant your very fundamentalist & narrow views?
I'm asking to be 'educated' by your Intel on Mrs.Clinton's terrible upbringing of her daughter. Educated on her ruthless strive for power. Educated on how she's been counter to American values.
I am very different from you on one major point: prove to me that something is right, and I'll believe it's right. Make unsubstantiated opinion points and turn a blind eye to counter arguments, and I'll believe you ignorant.

The spurrious-scandals-spoken-as-fact crowd chimes in again, huh? Just repeat after me: $70 million spent investigating a sitting president found.......NOTHING!!!!!
0.001% of those resources spent investigating that fake Texan from New England blueblood will get you all the scandals you crows need!

No, B-T, you were around during the eight years of the Bill and Hillary years. You know what happened. Either you agree with it, and in which case my opinion means squat, or you were sickened by it, in which case you are in the same choir as I. If you just landed on the planet or were too young to remember, then I'll recant all the wrong-doings commited by them.
As far as found nothing, uoi, agin, are twisting fact.
As far as my "intel" on Ms. Clinton or her daughter, I'll keep that to myself. You may not understand of care, but people can get in deep trouble for speaking about certain things seen or heard, and I'll not risk someone's pension just to satisfy your curiosity. Anyway, I'm not convinced you'd see the wrong in the same things I do. It seems very evident that you and I have a different look on life.

I will deal with Al Gore tomorrow.

Which do you not understand, the Christian aspect or the Republican one? I know which part Hillary doesn't understand.

No, there were no special interest groups that profited during the Clinton years. *ahem-Enron* *cough-China*
Gosh, one couldn't go on on that topic for more than, say, several dozen pages?
Not gonna get into a mudslinging campaign with you; no, na gonna(Bush '41 imataion).
As usual, you are in total denial that your hero could ever do any wrong.
Centrist!! HAHA!! I love how you try and mark me an extremist and try and call yourself a centrist! I shouldn't bring that up as you have seemed to come out of the liberal closet and dropped that obvious mislabel! My hat's off to you; if you're a flaming liberal, don't be ashamed, admit it! We already know the truth.

Saint ....no. Good President...yes.
Elected President....hell yes.
Me a Liberal....no.
Me anti-Bush...oh hell yeah.
You two shots of moonshine too many...oh hell yeah!
Anyway, I'm still waiting for how the heck China is Clinton's when the plans were stolen on Reagans watch and tested on Bush's? Or how Prescott Bush Jr. was doing deals ( that G.W. invested in, by the way) with Communist China while Tieneman Square was happening and later while they held our plane & crew captive?
Nope, the Bush's own China.
And Kenny Boy Lay, he of 100's of emails to GW Bush, he of millions funneled from his employees to Bush, he of let-me-pay-for-your-party GW, he of here-are-my-planes-to-fly-all-around-in GW.......was actually a Clinton Man!?!?!
Good Lord, he is such a good faker!

What, you're surprised that Clinton profited more from Enron than Bush? Do you not remember that it was on Clinton's watch that Enron became what it became? Speaking of Bush, did you notice how the campaign contributions bought Enron....oh yeah, it bought them no special consideration with the Bush administration.
As far as Clinton and China, do you liberals get some alternative news or something? I swear, we were both alive and cognizant (I was at least) yet you seem to miss some big events.

As far as the moonshine is concerned (untaxed likker, if you don't mind) I've had narry a drop in weeks. St. Paulie Girl, on the other hand, is in the ice box.

Certainly Enron -and you'll find many other corporations -tend to follow the pattern of betting on both horses and spreading the pork around, later they will move to the favourite.
Typically, Dem admin's will favour one sort of corporation, Rep's another -often on such lines as taxation policy, environmental policy, health policy and defence expenditure.

BT, see Clinton/McAuliffe/Global Crossing - Clinton got GC some ridiculous defense contracts that were so outrageous the had to be cancelled (GC was a nobody and beat out MCI/Worldcom/Sprint/AT&T ñ how did that happen?) And if Bush 'owns China' - well, uh, good then.