Not much to comment on this. It speaks for itself:

Hypocrisy: DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz also had foreign investments - National Elections | Examiner.com (http://www.examiner.com/article/hypocrisy-dnc-chair-debbie-wasserman-schultz-also-had-foreign-investments)

Hypocrisy: DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz also had foreign investments

After spending days pounding on presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney for having a Swiss bank account, disclosure forms show that DNC boss Debbie Wasserman Schultz also had funds in a Swiss bank account at one time. The Weekly Standard reported Tuesday that the Florida Democrat also had investments in foreign drug companies and the state bank of India.

OMG she had 1001$-15000$ invested and it's fully disclosed. Do you think there is a difference between 20-80 million in a phony blind trust? Yes it's phony even willard said
blind trusts don't exist.

OMG she had 1001$-15000$ invested and it's fully disclosed. Do you think there is a difference between 20-80 million in a phony blind trust? Yes it's phony even willard said
blind trusts don't exist.

That logic is like being a little bit pregnant. You either are or are not.

Is she running for president?

OMG she had 1001$-15000$ invested and it's fully disclosed. Do you think there is a difference between 20-80 million in a phony blind trust? Yes it's phony even willard said
blind trusts don't exist.

well that's all the proof I need...Willard said it:coffee:

Is she running for president?

No.
Please explain why this fact alone should excuse her hypocrisy though

No.
Please explain why this fact alone should excuse her hypocrisy though

She's not running against Romney, Obama is. If she was running for president, then it would be hypocritical. Or if it's found out Obama's got a bunch of foreign investments hidden, that would be hypocritical.

Obamanation has a Swiss Bank Account :whistle:

She's not running against Romney, Obama is. If she was running for president, then it would be hypocritical. Or if it's found out Obama's got a bunch of foreign investments hidden, that would be hypocritical.

So the fact that she holds a public office, an office of power and influence, that she has a bully-pulpit to spew her hypocrisy isn't relevant? Because she’s not running for president excuses her to criticize others for things she is also engaged in?

You liberals may think you have perfected the “do as I say not as I do” mantra, but it’s important to constant point out to you that we’re not stupid. The fact that you think we are might just make you stupid.

OMG she had 1001$-15000$ invested and it's fully disclosed. Do you think there is a difference between 20-80 million in a phony blind trust? Yes it's phony even willard said
blind trusts don't exist.

So amount matters and gives you the right to criticize, even though you are doing the same thing at a smaller level? That's like saying OJ Simpson can criticize Jeffrey Dahmer for murder because OJ murdered less people.

NO, she disclosed it AUTOMATICALLY that's the difference!!

OMG she had 1001$-15000$ invested and it's fully disclosed. Do you think there is a difference between 20-80 million in a phony blind trust? Yes it's phony even willard said
blind trusts don't exist.

They aren't giving him a hard time about the amount of the account, they are giving him a hard time over the undisclosed $1700 or earnings FROM the account..


$1700?? REALLY?

He filed a 600 page financial accounting document and he forgot to list $1700 in income from UBS!!

WOW< the friggin humanity!!

OJ murdered less people.

Well, at least OJ didn't eat his victims. That is, not once she was dead.

NO, she disclosed it AUTOMATICALLY that's the difference!!

She's not calling Romney out for his lack of disclosure, she's called him out for even having foreign investments and that these investments are disturbing; questioning why he even needs a Swiss bank account. Well, she also has foreign accounts and Swiss accounts. Regardless of the amount, why does SHE need them?

lQk6Eg1tMT8

She's not calling Romney out for his lack of disclosure, she's called him out for even having foreign investments and that these investments are disturbing; questioning why he even needs a Swiss bank account. Well, she also has foreign accounts and Swiss accounts. Regardless of the amount, why does SHE need them?

lQk6Eg1tMT8
This video cannot be seen by liberals because their brain is on a "truth" ignore list...

This video cannot be seen by liberals because their brain is on a "truth" ignore list...

So, because of this ignore list, Wasserman-Schultz didn't even hear what she said.

So, because of this ignore list, Wasserman-Schultz didn't even hear what she said.
If she did, would she listen?

She's not running against Romney, Obama is. If she was running for president, then it would be hypocritical. Or if it's found out Obama's got a bunch of foreign investments hidden, that would be hypocritical.

After spending days pounding on presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney for having a Swiss bank account, disclosure forms show that DNC boss Debbie Wasserman Schultz also had funds in a Swiss bank account at one time.So she pounds on Romney for having a Swiss bank account and you don't think it's hypocritical because she's not running for president? :killingme I guess that's the way your brain works when you're a left wingnut.

So the fact that she holds a public office, an office of power and influence, that she has a bully-pulpit to spew her hypocrisy isn't relevant? Because she’s not running for president excuses her to criticize others for things she is also engaged in?

When she runs for president, it will become relevant. Why is it Romney's being asked about his overseas investments? Oh yeah, maybe because he's running for president. :shrug: When you're running for president, these types of disclosures become relevant.

To refresh your memory, Romeny and Obama are running for president. So, what's relevant is their disclosures, not those of everyone down the chain of the respective party's ladder. I certainly don't factor in anything about the DNC/RNC Chairs when it comes to scrutinizing the presidential candidates.

Obviously this is just a lame, unsuccessful attempt to divert attention away from Romney.

When she runs for president, it will become relevant. Why is it Romney's being asked about his overseas investments? Oh yeah, maybe because he's running for president. :shrug: When you're running for president, these types of disclosures become relevant.

To refresh your memory, Romeny and Obama are running for president. So, what's relevant is their disclosures, not those of everyone down the chain of the respective party's ladder. I certainly don't factor in anything about the DNC/RNC Chairs when it comes to scrutinizing the presidential candidates.

Obviously this is just a lame, unsuccessful attempt to divert attention away from Romney.

Disclosures? you mean like
Birth certificates
school records
SSN that was issued to the candidate and not some dead guy from Mass.
association with known terrorists
association with known socialists
drug use

are these also things that the candidate should dislose prior to running?

When she runs for president, it will become relevant. Why is it Romney's being asked about his overseas investments? Oh yeah, maybe because he's running for president. :shrug: When you're running for president, these types of disclosures become relevant.

To refresh your memory, Romeny and Obama are running for president. So, what's relevant is their disclosures, not those of everyone down the chain of the respective party's ladder. I certainly don't factor in anything about the DNC/RNC Chairs when it comes to scrutinizing the presidential candidates.

Obviously this is just a lame, unsuccessful attempt to divert attention away from Romney.

So the only people in our society that need to be held accountable for their business dealings are those running for president? When Wasserman runs for another term in congress, her business dealings are irrelevant? Are you telling me that when someone criticizes someone else, and that someone else aims to hold a higher position of power, that the person criticizing them are given a pass for their own even though they are equally guilty?

You ever heard the quote: “first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.”

This applies to all of us. No matter what my position, I have no right to criticize someone else for something I’m guilty of. Your claim that Wasserman gets a pass because she’s not running for president is rooted in nothing more than political bigotry.

When she runs for president, it will become relevant.

This isn't about the relevance of her investments. It's about the hypocrisy of her trying to slam Romney for doing the same things that she herself does.

It's like Anthony weiner criticizing someone for being a perv.

Do you really not see the hypocrisy?

This isn't about the relevance of her investments. It's about the hypocrisy of her trying to slam Romney for doing the same things that she herself does.

It's like Anthony weiner criticizing someone for being a perv.

Do you really not see the hypocrisy?

Well, but she's not running for president, so she can put her money wherever she wants and still criticize presidential candidates for doing it.

Of course when she one day decides to run for president… :ohwell:

OMG she had 1001$-15000$ invested and it's fully disclosed. Do you think there is a difference between 20-80 million in a phony blind trust? Yes it's phony even willard said
blind trusts don't exist.

.........................:starcat: