The Clintons

Locked
shags
GDF Junkie
Posts: 2717
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:57 pm

The Clintons

Post by shags » Wed Aug 17, 2016 1:03 pm

Certain people don't want their Trump-bashing thread polluted with Clinton bashing, and wanted anti-Clintonites to start their own thread.
So OK. Here goes. This link will take just over an hour to get through, so you liberals be advised to wait until after the boss has left for lunch. Also, keep your blood pressure meds and dyspepsia tablets on hand.
Conservatives, enjoy until it makes you sick.

http://www.breitbart.com/clinton-cash-movie/

AAA Gundogs
Rank: Senior Hunter
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2016 6:18 pm

Re: The Clintons

Post by AAA Gundogs » Wed Aug 17, 2016 1:27 pm

shags wrote:Certain people don't want their Trump-bashing thread polluted with Clinton bashing, and wanted anti-Clintonites to start their own thread.
So OK. Here goes. This link will take just over an hour to get through, so you liberals be advised to wait until after the boss has left for lunch. Also, keep your blood pressure meds and dyspepsia tablets on hand.
Conservatives, enjoy until it makes you sick.

http://www.breitbart.com/clinton-cash-movie/
Why in the world would anybody, republican or democrat, subject themselves to an hour of discredited propoganda?

After being badgered by little Georgie Stephanopoulos, Schweizer says that he doesn't have any proof or evidence to support the claims in the book.

shags
GDF Junkie
Posts: 2717
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:57 pm

Re: The Clintons

Post by shags » Wed Aug 17, 2016 2:02 pm

I challenge you to disprove any one claim in the film. One.

Here's an easy one, disprove that Putin ( or a henchman) didn't negotiate a deal that gives Russia possession of 20% of American uranium via mines.

Curious that you are able to line up Trump and Putin as best buds through soundbites and opinions of MSNBC talking heads, but the Clintons' connections are 'propaganda'. OK then.

mnaj_springer
Rank: 5X Champion
Posts: 1271
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2014 5:10 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: The Clintons

Post by mnaj_springer » Wed Aug 17, 2016 2:08 pm

shags wrote:I challenge you to disprove any one claim in the film. One.

Here's an easy one, disprove that Putin ( or a henchman) didn't negotiate a deal that gives Russia possession of 20% of American uranium via mines.

Curious that you are able to line up Trump and Putin as best buds through soundbites and opinions of MSNBC talking heads, but the Clintons' connections are 'propaganda'. OK then.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/04/no-vet ... nium-deal/

Didn't have time to read this (still working), but maybe you have time since you posted a documentary.
“Man's mind, once stretched by a new idea, never regains its original dimensions.”
― Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr.

shags
GDF Junkie
Posts: 2717
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:57 pm

Re: The Clintons

Post by shags » Wed Aug 17, 2016 2:14 pm


MTRookie76
Rank: Just A Pup
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 12:13 pm

Re: The Clintons

Post by MTRookie76 » Wed Aug 17, 2016 2:35 pm

Factcheck.org is a liberal rag. Nothing in "Clinton Cash" has been discredited. The left wing media also claimed Juanita Brodderick had been discredited which of course is not true.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism ... orrection/

AAA Gundogs
Rank: Senior Hunter
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2016 6:18 pm

Re: The Clintons

Post by AAA Gundogs » Wed Aug 17, 2016 2:54 pm

shags wrote:I challenge you to disprove any one claim in the film. One.

Here's an easy one, disprove that Putin ( or a henchman) didn't negotiate a deal that gives Russia possession of 20% of American uranium via mines.

Curious that you are able to line up Trump and Putin as best buds through soundbites and opinions of MSNBC talking heads, but the Clintons' connections are 'propaganda'. OK then.
Prove that he did. You can't because there isn't any evidence. Had there been, the POTUS would have stopped the deal.

You do understand that the author admits he has no proof of anything and was forced to delete or drastically revise several claims in the book because evend his "connect the dots and the make a leap of faith" evidence was found to be fake, like how he claimed that the Clinton's had a large interest in the XL pipeline based upon a fake press release, right?

There is plenty to dislike about Hillary's policies. The manufactured scandals that you guys buy into (benghazi, emails, Clinton foundation, etc) makes the objective observer believe that your simply gullible or intellectually dishonest.

shags
GDF Junkie
Posts: 2717
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:57 pm

Re: The Clintons

Post by shags » Wed Aug 17, 2016 2:58 pm

Don't deflect.
Disprove if you can.
Smoke. Fire.

User avatar
DougB
Rank: Champion
Posts: 346
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 5:31 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: The Clintons

Post by DougB » Wed Aug 17, 2016 3:30 pm

Even if any of it is true, it still doesn't make the Donald a good presidential candidate. He is still unethical, immoral, narcissistic, uneducated, crude, rude, and unable to hold more than one thought in his mind at a time. He still does not understand our Constitution, does not understand the separations of powers dogma, does not understand the difference between president and ruler, and would have little to no support in congress.

And as you are making the charges against the Clintons, it falls on you as having the duty to prove your charges. Your source has said he has no proof. My charges against Trump are available on line and in most every paper in the country. All you have to do is listen to the man. You may want to see if NPR has anything about your little set of charges.
I see Springer took a few seconds to vet one charge.

http://library.ucsc.edu/help/research/e ... ur-sources
To evaluate a source consider the following:

Authority

Who published the source? Is it a university press or a large reputable publisher? Is it from a government agency? Is the source self-published? What is the purpose of the publication?
Where does the information in the source come from? Does the information appear to be valid and well-researched, or is it questionable and unsupported by evidence? Is there a list of references or works cited? What is the quality of these references?
Who is the author? What are the author's credentials (educational background, past writing, experience) in this area? Have you seen the author's name cited in other sources or bibliographies?
Is the content a first-hand account or is it being retold? Primary sources are the raw material of the research process; secondary sources are based on primary sources.
There is more, and there are other places to check.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1360916/
Fundamental to pursuing truth is to start with a question, rely on intellectually sound techniques and methods to answer it, and report the answer, whatever it may be.....

By contrast, “propaganda” starts with an answer and relies on research not to find out how things work but to prove a predetermined conclusion.........

I can't make the case that truth matters with the argument that truth will triumph over propaganda. As we all know, when the politics are propitious, there may be no need for data to get political action. In defining a policy problem, tragedy will trump research any day as a motivator.
Why own a dog? There's a danger you know,

You can't own just one, for the craving will grow.

There's no doubt they're addictive, wherein lies the danger.

While living with lots, you'll grow poorer and stranger.



User avatar
DougB
Rank: Champion
Posts: 346
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 5:31 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: The Clintons

Post by DougB » Wed Aug 17, 2016 3:32 pm

shags wrote:Don't deflect.
Disprove if you can.
Smoke. Fire.
Double dog dare him. It is on you to prove the accusation.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-0 ... m-reserves

Russia owns a Canadian company that owns rights to some US uranium production capacity (not the same as owning uranium)
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-0 ... m-reserves
Still, it’s somewhat disingenuous to say this uranium is now Russia’s, to do with what it pleases, or to suggest that any amount of the uranium will end up in Iran. The current licenses – held by the US-based subsidiaries and approved by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission – do not allow exports from any U1H US facility.

The truth is, the US uranium industry as its currently built isn’t all that American. In fact, it’s mostly Canadian. Qualms over perceived threats to national security are misplaced, though not entirely dismissible. The deal further illustrates an already pronounced trend of the decline of US nuclear capabilities and influence at all stages of the nuclear fuel cycle.
So we are looking at at best a half truth. They can produce some, but can not export it, and we are using even less all the time, making their investment worth less and less.
Which leaves us with a big "so what?"
Why own a dog? There's a danger you know,

You can't own just one, for the craving will grow.

There's no doubt they're addictive, wherein lies the danger.

While living with lots, you'll grow poorer and stranger.



cjhills
GDF Junkie
Posts: 2529
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 7:37 am
Location: aitkin,mn

Re: The Clintons

Post by cjhills » Thu Aug 18, 2016 10:34 am

shags wrote:Certain people don't want their Trump-bashing thread polluted with Clinton bashing, and wanted anti-Clintonites to start their own thread.
So OK. Here goes. This link will take just over an hour to get through, so you liberals be advised to wait until after the boss has left for lunch. Also, keep your blood pressure meds and dyspepsia tablets on hand.
Conservatives, enjoy until it makes you sick.

http://www.breitbart.com/clinton-cash-movie/
You cannot be serious. You actually expect anybody to believe anything that Breitbart prints. Steve Bannon is obsessed with the Clintons and has been on a 25 year witch hunt. Why do people who like to pretend they are intelligent believe such crap.
You think nothing of spreading lies about Hillary's health or all the other crap they make up. Some of their videos are ten years old. You see nothing wrong with this kind of reporting
Now with Steve Bannon as the head of Trumps campaign we are really going to get at the "truth"?
Also every campaign needs an advisor who got fired for sexually harassing a female colleague in the work place and a trainer to make the candidate more palatable to women. Who is a insult to women from the start. Both of the last two candidates she has work for lost. so there is that. Do you think she would have the job if she weighed 145. No.
Some people on here need a enema..........................Cj

Timewise65
Rank: 2X Champion
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 11:30 am
Location: Missouri

Re: The Clintons

Post by Timewise65 » Thu Aug 18, 2016 11:41 am

Gotta love talking Clintons....they give so much! I will only stick with the gifts they give us that are plain simple historical facts....

Billy Boy - let's talk 'Blue Dress', Cigars, and Impeachment! Nuff said on that note....

Hillary - Lets talk about her Masters Thesis on George Soros...makes for an interesting read! Hillary Clinton was fired after working on the Watergate investigation “Because she was a liar…She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

Or maybe some of her verifiable lies...Yep, I gonna post them again, just in case you missed the last two posts...........!

Hillary’s Lies (short list)

1. Sniper Fire during the campaign in 2008 she claimed that she came under sniper fire at the airport in Bosnia during the 90’s. Never happened!

2. Immigrant Grandparents – She claimed “all of her Grandparents came over” as immigrants, in fact only one did!

3. Sir Edmond Hillary – She claimed to be named after Sir Edmond Hillary who gained notoriety by being the first to climb Mt. Everest. Too bad, she was 6 years old, when SHE made his climb, no one knew of him prior to his climb.

4. Marines – She claimed to have been turned down by the Marines in 1975, in fact never happened!

5. Secret Emails – She claimed her email set up was perfectly legal even though the documents she signed when she became Secretary of State, clearly outlines this was illegal. This fact was also discussed during her initial job orientation.

6. Benghazi – she told the media and the parents that the cause for the Benghazi attacks was a video on the internet. Which she knew not to be true! She sent an email to her daughter (now public) the day after Benghazi advising her that the attack was from “Terrorist”!

7. Secretary Clinton emphasized the famous Situation Room Bin Laden photo captured her reacting to the helicopter crash. In actuality, Secretary Clinton said “early spring allergic coughs”, not the helicopter crash, are responsible for her reaction in the photo.

8. In response to questions about her tenure at State, Hillary Clinton claimed that there was “a long list” of her accomplishments. Given multiple chances, Secretary Clinton has been unable to name a “marquee” or “proudest” achievement from her four years as Secretary of State.

mnaj_springer
Rank: 5X Champion
Posts: 1271
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2014 5:10 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: The Clintons

Post by mnaj_springer » Thu Aug 18, 2016 1:08 pm

Timewise65 wrote:
Hillary - Lets talk about her Masters Thesis on George Soros...makes for an interesting read! Hillary Clinton was fired after working on the Watergate investigation “Because she was a liar…She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”
You keep posting, saying she has all these lies, but that Watergate story is a lie. It's been proven. You see the irony in someone lying while calling another a liar, right?
“Man's mind, once stretched by a new idea, never regains its original dimensions.”
― Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr.

Timewise65
Rank: 2X Champion
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 11:30 am
Location: Missouri

Re: The Clintons

Post by Timewise65 » Thu Aug 18, 2016 1:52 pm

mnaj_springer wrote:
Timewise65 wrote:
Hillary - Lets talk about her Masters Thesis on George Soros...makes for an interesting read! Hillary Clinton was fired after working on the Watergate investigation “Because she was a liar…She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”
You keep posting, saying she has all these lies, but that Watergate story is a lie. It's been proven. You see the irony in someone lying while calling another a liar, right?
What I actually see is some nut case 'claiming', without a viable source (your the guy always asking for sources), that one of many documented lies from Hillary (see above), is somehow letting her or you off the hook....What about the many other well documented lies noted on this post.....????????????????????

Nice Try but no Cigar.....!
You will have to call old Billy Clinton, he probably still has that cigar (or do you have a good source saying that never happened?)

User avatar
DougB
Rank: Champion
Posts: 346
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 5:31 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: The Clintons

Post by DougB » Thu Aug 18, 2016 1:56 pm

Timewise65 wrote:Gotta love talking Clintons....they give so much! I will only stick with the gifts they give us that are plain simple historical facts....

Billy Boy - let's talk 'Blue Dress', Cigars, and Impeachment! Nuff said on that note....

Hillary - Lets talk about her Masters Thesis on George Soros...makes for an interesting read! Hillary Clinton was fired after working on the Watergate investigation “Because she was a liar…She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

Or maybe some of her verifiable lies...Yep, I gonna post them again, just in case you missed the last two posts...........!

Hillary’s Lies (short list)

1. Sniper Fire during the campaign in 2008 she claimed that she came under sniper fire at the airport in Bosnia during the 90’s. Never happened!

2. Immigrant Grandparents – She claimed “all of her Grandparents came over” as immigrants, in fact only one did!

3. Sir Edmond Hillary – She claimed to be named after Sir Edmond Hillary who gained notoriety by being the first to climb Mt. Everest. Too bad, she was 6 years old, when SHE made his climb, no one knew of him prior to his climb.

4. Marines – She claimed to have been turned down by the Marines in 1975, in fact never happened!

5. Secret Emails – She claimed her email set up was perfectly legal even though the documents she signed when she became Secretary of State, clearly outlines this was illegal. This fact was also discussed during her initial job orientation.

6. Benghazi – she told the media and the parents that the cause for the Benghazi attacks was a video on the internet. Which she knew not to be true! She sent an email to her daughter (now public) the day after Benghazi advising her that the attack was from “Terrorist”!

7. Secretary Clinton emphasized the famous Situation Room Bin Laden photo captured her reacting to the helicopter crash. In actuality, Secretary Clinton said “early spring allergic coughs”, not the helicopter crash, are responsible for her reaction in the photo.

8. In response to questions about her tenure at State, Hillary Clinton claimed that there was “a long list” of her accomplishments. Given multiple chances, Secretary Clinton has been unable to name a “marquee” or “proudest” achievement from her four years as Secretary of State.
Interesting list of unrelated, undocumented by reliable sources, and irrelevant claims. Nothing here that indicates Trump is a better choice for President.
Why own a dog? There's a danger you know,

You can't own just one, for the craving will grow.

There's no doubt they're addictive, wherein lies the danger.

While living with lots, you'll grow poorer and stranger.



setterpoint
Rank: 2X Champion
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 7:10 pm
Location: jellico tn

Re: The Clintons

Post by setterpoint » Thu Aug 18, 2016 2:09 pm

i dont know about all of this all i can say we the gun owners are in trouble if hillary gets to sellect for the supream court thats the reason im voteing trump. she may not have been put in jail . but neather was oj. the old saying wheres theres smoke theres fire and her whole life has a smoke trail

User avatar
DougB
Rank: Champion
Posts: 346
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 5:31 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: The Clintons

Post by DougB » Thu Aug 18, 2016 2:13 pm

Her masters thesis was on Saul Alinsky, the author of the seminal Underdogmatist manifesto Rules for Radicals.

In a column circulating on the internet Jerry Zeifman alleges that Hillary was fired from her job on the House Judiciary Committee in the 1970s.
Snopes:
This is false. Hillary was not fired.
The lack of evidence makes his theory hard to swallow. Zeifman's most reliable source — his diary — contains few revelations and seems little more than a chronicle of his suspicions and speculations. The book's jacket cover, which promises readers "truths even more startling than those brought out in Oliver Stone's movies 'Nixon' and 'JFK', " does not help matters. Perhaps the book's publicists forgot that "Nixon" and "JFK" were, after all, only Hollywood movies.
https://www.truthorfiction.com/clinton-watergate/
It’s true that Hillary Clinton’s ex-boss has accused her of being a “liar” and “unethical” during the House Judiciary Committee’s impeachment inquiry into Watergate, but claims that she was fired for those reasons are false.
But while Jerry Zeifman has been consistent in his criticism of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s work on the Watergate investigation, circumstances surrounding her termination are less clear. In a 1999 interview with the Scripps Howard News Service, Zeifman said he didn’t have the power to fire Clinton, or else he would have:
In 2008, Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign replied to Zeifman’s claims directly by saying, “In a column circulating on the Internet Jerry Zeifman alleges that Hillary was fired from her job on the House Judiciary Committee in the 1970s. This is false. Hillary was not fired.” That website has since been taken offline.
Try to find a source that has no dog in the fight. You will find that the internet can conflate anything. A half truth here, and another half truth somewhere else, and eventually you have people thinking Trump or Hillary can be President,
You really need to double and even triple check sources.
Why own a dog? There's a danger you know,

You can't own just one, for the craving will grow.

There's no doubt they're addictive, wherein lies the danger.

While living with lots, you'll grow poorer and stranger.



User avatar
DougB
Rank: Champion
Posts: 346
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 5:31 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: The Clintons

Post by DougB » Thu Aug 18, 2016 2:17 pm

setterpoint wrote:i dont know about all of this all i can say we the gun owners are in trouble if hillary gets to sellect for the supream court thats the reason im voteing trump. she may not have been put in jail . but neather was oj. the old saying wheres theres smoke theres fire and her whole life has a smoke trail
The President makes nominations. The senate approves or not. And even then, SCOTUS tends to do their own thing, which is to interpret the Constitution. They frequently disagree with presidents, congress, and lower courts.
Why own a dog? There's a danger you know,

You can't own just one, for the craving will grow.

There's no doubt they're addictive, wherein lies the danger.

While living with lots, you'll grow poorer and stranger.



User avatar
ezzy333
GDF Junkie
Posts: 16625
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 3:14 pm
Location: Dixon IL

Re: The Clintons

Post by ezzy333 » Thu Aug 18, 2016 2:42 pm

DougB wrote:
Timewise65 wrote:Gotta love talking Clintons....they give so much! I will only stick with the gifts they give us that are plain simple historical facts....

Billy Boy - let's talk 'Blue Dress', Cigars, and Impeachment! Nuff said on that note....

Hillary - Lets talk about her Masters Thesis on George Soros...makes for an interesting read! Hillary Clinton was fired after working on the Watergate investigation “Because she was a liar…She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

Or maybe some of her verifiable lies...Yep, I gonna post them again, just in case you missed the last two posts...........!

Hillary’s Lies (short list)

1. Sniper Fire during the campaign in 2008 she claimed that she came under sniper fire at the airport in Bosnia during the 90’s. Never happened!

2. Immigrant Grandparents – She claimed “all of her Grandparents came over” as immigrants, in fact only one did!

3. Sir Edmond Hillary – She claimed to be named after Sir Edmond Hillary who gained notoriety by being the first to climb Mt. Everest. Too bad, she was 6 years old, when SHE made his climb, no one knew of him prior to his climb.

4. Marines – She claimed to have been turned down by the Marines in 1975, in fact never happened!

5. Secret Emails – She claimed her email set up was perfectly legal even though the documents she signed when she became Secretary of State, clearly outlines this was illegal. This fact was also discussed during her initial job orientation.

6. Benghazi – she told the media and the parents that the cause for the Benghazi attacks was a video on the internet. Which she knew not to be true! She sent an email to her daughter (now public) the day after Benghazi advising her that the attack was from “Terrorist”!

7. Secretary Clinton emphasized the famous Situation Room Bin Laden photo captured her reacting to the helicopter crash. In actuality, Secretary Clinton said “early spring allergic coughs”, not the helicopter crash, are responsible for her reaction in the photo.

8. In response to questions about her tenure at State, Hillary Clinton claimed that there was “a long list” of her accomplishments. Given multiple chances, Secretary Clinton has been unable to name a “marquee” or “proudest” achievement from her four years as Secretary of State.
Interesting list of unrelated, undocumented by reliable sources, and irrelevant claims. Nothing here that indicates Trump is a better choice for President.
We all are in serious trouble when you post a list of Hillary's gaffs and the only answer is about Trump. Heaven help us from here on.
http://www.perfectpedigrees.com/4genview.php?id=144
http://www.perfectpedigrees.com/4genview.php?id=207

It's not how many breaths you have taken but how many times it has been taken away!

Has anyone noticed common sense isn't very common anymore.

mnaj_springer
Rank: 5X Champion
Posts: 1271
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2014 5:10 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: The Clintons

Post by mnaj_springer » Thu Aug 18, 2016 3:10 pm

Timewise65 wrote:
mnaj_springer wrote:
Timewise65 wrote:
Hillary - Lets talk about her Masters Thesis on George Soros...makes for an interesting read! Hillary Clinton was fired after working on the Watergate investigation “Because she was a liar…She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”
You keep posting, saying she has all these lies, but that Watergate story is a lie. It's been proven. You see the irony in someone lying while calling another a liar, right?
What I actually see is some nut case 'claiming', without a viable source (your the guy always asking for sources), that one of many documented lies from Hillary (see above), is somehow letting her or you off the hook....What about the many other well documented lies noted on this post.....????????????????????

Nice Try but no Cigar.....!
You will have to call old Billy Clinton, he probably still has that cigar (or do you have a good source saying that never happened?)
I'm not saying she's off the hook. Where did I say that? I'm saying you've clearly bought into anything anti-Hillary regards of truth or merit. Also, I did cite a source in another thread after you made the same claim.... sooooo you didn't read it I presume?
“Man's mind, once stretched by a new idea, never regains its original dimensions.”
― Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr.

Timewise65
Rank: 2X Champion
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 11:30 am
Location: Missouri

Re: The Clintons

Post by Timewise65 » Thu Aug 18, 2016 3:26 pm

mnaj_springer wrote:
I'm not saying she's off the hook. Where did I say that? I'm saying you've clearly bought into anything anti-Hillary regards of truth or merit. Also, I did cite a source in another thread after you made the same claim.... sooooo you didn't read it I presume?
[/quote][/quote]

So, I want everyone to read this............mnaj_springer FINALLY admits Hillary is a GD Liar! It only took a week or so to get him cornered on the facts!

Also, mnaj....I will remind you that I have not "bought into anything anti-Hillary", where did I say that? (turn around is fair play).....I put forward a list of undeniable lies from Hillary, you questioned 1! I need not look further....Hillary is a GD Liar and you admit it!

I hope you can grow from this experience, probably hoping for too much!

Have a good evening! :mrgreen:

mnaj_springer
Rank: 5X Champion
Posts: 1271
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2014 5:10 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: The Clintons

Post by mnaj_springer » Thu Aug 18, 2016 3:42 pm

Timewise65 wrote:
mnaj_springer wrote:
I'm not saying she's off the hook. Where did I say that? I'm saying you've clearly bought into anything anti-Hillary regards of truth or merit. Also, I did cite a source in another thread after you made the same claim.... sooooo you didn't read it I presume?
[/quote]

So, I want everyone to read this............mnaj_springer FINALLY admits Hillary is a GD Liar! It only took a week or so to get him cornered on the facts!

Also, mnaj....I will remind you that I have not "bought into anything anti-Hillary", where did I say that? (turn around is fair play).....I put forward a list of undeniable lies from Hillary, you questioned 1! I need not look further....Hillary is a GD Liar and you admit it!

I hope you can grow from this experience, probably hoping for too much!

Have a good evening! :mrgreen:[/quote]

I didn't say she's a liar either. And I didn't get cornered on the facts. I just really don't care to debate with a broken record.

As far as Hillary lying... I'm sure she has at some point. Most adults do. By most I mean nearly every adult... Why would a politician be the exception? Have you never lied? Has Trump ever lied?

Finally, I didn't question one of your points... I obliterated it with facts.
“Man's mind, once stretched by a new idea, never regains its original dimensions.”
― Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr.

User avatar
DougB
Rank: Champion
Posts: 346
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 5:31 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: The Clintons

Post by DougB » Thu Aug 18, 2016 5:21 pm

ezzy333 wrote:
DougB wrote:
Timewise65 wrote:Gotta love talking Clintons....they give so much! I will only stick with the gifts they give us that are plain simple historical facts....

Billy Boy - let's talk 'Blue Dress', Cigars, and Impeachment! Nuff said on that note....

Hillary - Lets talk about her Masters Thesis on George Soros...makes for an interesting read! Hillary Clinton was fired after working on the Watergate investigation “Because she was a liar…She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

Or maybe some of her verifiable lies...Yep, I gonna post them again, just in case you missed the last two posts...........!

Hillary’s Lies (short list)

1. Sniper Fire during the campaign in 2008 she claimed that she came under sniper fire at the airport in Bosnia during the 90’s. Never happened!

2. Immigrant Grandparents – She claimed “all of her Grandparents came over” as immigrants, in fact only one did!

3. Sir Edmond Hillary – She claimed to be named after Sir Edmond Hillary who gained notoriety by being the first to climb Mt. Everest. Too bad, she was 6 years old, when SHE made his climb, no one knew of him prior to his climb.

4. Marines – She claimed to have been turned down by the Marines in 1975, in fact never happened!

5. Secret Emails – She claimed her email set up was perfectly legal even though the documents she signed when she became Secretary of State, clearly outlines this was illegal. This fact was also discussed during her initial job orientation.

6. Benghazi – she told the media and the parents that the cause for the Benghazi attacks was a video on the internet. Which she knew not to be true! She sent an email to her daughter (now public) the day after Benghazi advising her that the attack was from “Terrorist”!

7. Secretary Clinton emphasized the famous Situation Room Bin Laden photo captured her reacting to the helicopter crash. In actuality, Secretary Clinton said “early spring allergic coughs”, not the helicopter crash, are responsible for her reaction in the photo.

8. In response to questions about her tenure at State, Hillary Clinton claimed that there was “a long list” of her accomplishments. Given multiple chances, Secretary Clinton has been unable to name a “marquee” or “proudest” achievement from her four years as Secretary of State.
Interesting list of unrelated, undocumented by reliable sources, and irrelevant claims. Nothing here that indicates Trump is a better choice for President.
We all are in serious trouble when you post a list of Hillary's gaffs and the only answer is about Trump. Heaven help us from here on.
The list was posted with the intent of making Trump look like a better candidate. It failed, because it was unrelated, undocumented, and contained irrelevant and erroneous information. I agree that Hillary is wrong for the job. Lots of reasons. Many here support Trump. I don't. The list of gaffs had errors that should have been fact checked before posting. But nothing was posted that made me think Trump was a better candidate.

I have never favored Hillary. I have posted that multiple times. I wish we had two different main candidates. We don't. I have seen several posts stating that a third party vote is a vote for Hillary. I disagree with that. A vote for Trump or a vote for Hillary is a vote for evil. Vote for either and you promote the status quo with 2 out of touch authoritarian parties.

If you are going to attack Hillary, or Trump, I prefer you use accurate facts. If you are going to support either, use accurate facts. preferably, from reliable and honest sources. When pointing out Trumps gaffs, all I get in return is "Hillary is bad". Document it accurately. I may applaud you.
I did respond to her masters thesis and her firing. You need to have some factual accuracy when accusing anybody of misdeeds. The thesis is available to download.Just ask for 'Clintons masters thesis. You don't even need the right title. (Note-she has a masters thesis) And considering all of her misdeeds and achievements and comparing them to the Donalds, she is a better candidate, would be a better president, but only because the Donald sets the bar so low.
Trump lies, Hillary lies. Proves both are liars, and not much else. I choose none of the above.
Why own a dog? There's a danger you know,

You can't own just one, for the craving will grow.

There's no doubt they're addictive, wherein lies the danger.

While living with lots, you'll grow poorer and stranger.



User avatar
ezzy333
GDF Junkie
Posts: 16625
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 3:14 pm
Location: Dixon IL

Re: The Clintons

Post by ezzy333 » Thu Aug 18, 2016 5:58 pm

DougB wrote:
ezzy333 wrote:
DougB wrote: Interesting list of unrelated, undocumented by reliable sources, and irrelevant claims. Nothing here that indicates Trump is a better choice for President.
We all are in serious trouble when you post a list of Hillary's gaffs and the only answer is about Trump. Heaven help us from here on.
The list was posted with the intent of making Trump look like a better candidate. It failed, because it was unrelated, undocumented, and contained irrelevant and erroneous information. I agree that Hillary is wrong for the job. Lots of reasons. Many here support Trump. I don't. The list of gaffs had errors that should have been fact checked before posting. But nothing was posted that made me think Trump was a better candidate.

I have never favored Hillary. I have posted that multiple times. I wish we had two different main candidates. We don't. I have seen several posts stating that a third party vote is a vote for Hillary. I disagree with that. A vote for Trump or a vote for Hillary is a vote for evil. Vote for either and you promote the status quo with 2 out of touch authoritarian parties.

If you are going to attack Hillary, or Trump, I prefer you use accurate facts. If you are going to support either, use accurate facts. preferably, from reliable and honest sources. When pointing out Trumps gaffs, all I get in return is "Hillary is bad". Document it accurately. I may applaud you.
I did respond to her masters thesis and her firing. You need to have some factual accuracy when accusing anybody of misdeeds. The thesis is available to download.Just ask for 'Clintons masters thesis. You don't even need the right title. (Note-she has a masters thesis) And considering all of her misdeeds and achievements and comparing them to the Donalds, she is a better candidate, would be a better president, but only because the Donald sets the bar so low.
Trump lies, Hillary lies. Proves both are liars, and not much else. I choose none of the above.
I don't believe that since nothing good or bad about Hillary changes his status as a candidate. Her actions are hers alone and that is why a lot of us are saying we would not vote for her under any circumstance after seeing and hearing what she does over the past years.
http://www.perfectpedigrees.com/4genview.php?id=144
http://www.perfectpedigrees.com/4genview.php?id=207

It's not how many breaths you have taken but how many times it has been taken away!

Has anyone noticed common sense isn't very common anymore.

shags
GDF Junkie
Posts: 2717
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:57 pm

Re: The Clintons

Post by shags » Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:04 pm

DougB wrote: Vote for either and you promote the status quo with 2 out of touch authoritarian parties.
And so many Old Guard Republicans are abandoning Trump, why? Because he is not a part of their system ,he is a renegade outsider. That is the basis of his appeal to many of his supporters. Hillary is the epitome of a Democrat party candidate, but I think you're incorrect in your assesment of Trump
DougB wrote: I may applaud you..
LOL! Lucky us!

setterpoint
Rank: 2X Champion
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 7:10 pm
Location: jellico tn

Re: The Clintons

Post by setterpoint » Thu Aug 18, 2016 7:35 pm

i know how the system works.. i didnt want to write a book.. if she gets to be elected she gets to select who she wants then that person has to be confirmed. we all know what views the people she selects will stand for

User avatar
DougB
Rank: Champion
Posts: 346
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 5:31 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: The Clintons

Post by DougB » Fri Aug 19, 2016 8:49 am

On the radio this morning, one of the MN state Dem party leaders was pointing out how Trump has effected the party. At this point, some congressional districts, historically GOP, are at risk of going Dem because moderate GOP types don't want Trump. You want a perfect storm, lose the Senate majority and get a Dem president. He is also able to screw up the balance of power in the state, which means we will have to slap down another round of big city politicians looking to improve our lives by restricting guns. Hillary, with a Senate majority also, passing any law she wants and appointing any SCOTUS member she wants. Thats a pleasant thought. And Trump is circling the drain as we speak, being himself without restraint or filters, demonstrating daily why you don't want him having the bomb codes.
Why own a dog? There's a danger you know,

You can't own just one, for the craving will grow.

There's no doubt they're addictive, wherein lies the danger.

While living with lots, you'll grow poorer and stranger.



User avatar
DougB
Rank: Champion
Posts: 346
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 5:31 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: The Clintons

Post by DougB » Fri Aug 19, 2016 9:06 am

I don't believe that since nothing good or bad about Hillary changes his status as a candidate. Her actions are hers alone and that is why a lot of us are saying we would not vote for her under any circumstance after seeing and hearing what she does over the past years.
I am not arguing for Hillary. I don't want her as president. That is what I have been saying. His status, all by its self. Him, his nature, his training. Him. He is not qualified. He is unfit for many reasons, ranging from personality to lack of ethics to ignorance of the job requirements to just general ignorance and lack of judgement. After seeing and hearing how he conducts business as usual over the past years, I have concluded that he is not suitable for President. Hillary has nothing to do with his qualifications. Hillary, by herself and her political beliefs alone, makes me want someone else. Same for Trump.
Many old line GOP types are anti Trump, to the point where he may just destroy the GOP. Even though he is falling farther behind every day, he wants to double down on his characteristics that make him a poor choice for president and while doing so, may bring down some other GOP types in congress, leaving the other party with clear majorities in both houses. That will suck.
Watch carefully who you vote for further down on the ticket. Congress is the power in the US.
I don't believe that since nothing good or bad about Hillary changes his status as a candidate. Her actions are hers alone and that is why a lot of us are saying we would not vote for her under any circumstance after seeing and hearing what she does over the past years.
Have you looked at Trumps history? He made money. He ripped off vendors, contractors constantly. Little guys. Have you listened to him talk? Poor language skills coupled with a lack of knowledge of the world, government, constitution. Have you researched his past? he lies, cheats, is a serial polygamist, and the only principal he has ever been true to is "get the money". In this election, he is now doing more harm to conservative chances than his winning could ever balance out. He may be the reason for a liberal majority in both houses. Then, the President could do nothing.

There are third party candidates. In this election, I would really like a "none of the above" selection.
LOL! Lucky us!
Me personal belief is that if Trump wins, we will need all the luck available to survive. His plans will bankrupt the government, his lack of judgment and lack of understanding could leave us in a series of small wars any of which could lead to major wars, his lack of tact will lead to gridlock on every thing associated with government. Good times.
Why own a dog? There's a danger you know,

You can't own just one, for the craving will grow.

There's no doubt they're addictive, wherein lies the danger.

While living with lots, you'll grow poorer and stranger.



User avatar
ezzy333
GDF Junkie
Posts: 16625
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 3:14 pm
Location: Dixon IL

Re: The Clintons

Post by ezzy333 » Fri Aug 19, 2016 9:46 am

DougB wrote:
I don't believe that since nothing good or bad about Hillary changes his status as a candidate. Her actions are hers alone and that is why a lot of us are saying we would not vote for her under any circumstance after seeing and hearing what she does over the past years.
I am not arguing for Hillary. I don't want her as president. That is what I have been saying. His status, all by its self. Him, his nature, his training. Him. He is not qualified. He is unfit for many reasons, ranging from personality to lack of ethics to ignorance of the job requirements to just general ignorance and lack of judgement. After seeing and hearing how he conducts business as usual over the past years, I have concluded that he is not suitable for President. Hillary has nothing to do with his qualifications. Hillary, by herself and her political beliefs alone, makes me want someone else. Same for Trump.
Many old line GOP types are anti Trump, to the point where he may just destroy the GOP. Even though he is falling farther behind every day, he wants to double down on his characteristics that make him a poor choice for president and while doing so, may bring down some other GOP types in congress, leaving the other party with clear majorities in both houses. That will suck.
Watch carefully who you vote for further down on the ticket. Congress is the power in the US.
I don't believe that since nothing good or bad about Hillary changes his status as a candidate. Her actions are hers alone and that is why a lot of us are saying we would not vote for her under any circumstance after seeing and hearing what she does over the past years.
Have you looked at Trumps history? He made money. He ripped off vendors, contractors constantly. Little guys. Have you listened to him talk? Poor language skills coupled with a lack of knowledge of the world, government, constitution. Have you researched his past? he lies, cheats, is a serial polygamist, and the only principal he has ever been true to is "get the money". In this election, he is now doing more harm to conservative chances than his winning could ever balance out. He may be the reason for a liberal majority in both houses. Then, the President could do nothing.

There are third party candidates. In this election, I would really like a "none of the above" selection.
LOL! Lucky us!
Me personal belief is that if Trump wins, we will need all the luck available to survive. His plans will bankrupt the government, his lack of judgment and lack of understanding could leave us in a series of small wars any of which could lead to major wars, his lack of tact will lead to gridlock on every thing associated with government. Good times.
I have looked and listened to Trump for years but I am talking about Clinton and that has nothing to do with Trump. Hillary should be in prison from what I know and it seems many others know. But you hear little of it with the media openly admitting they are doing everything possible to help her. hence, like what you are doing, you mention something about Hillary and their answer is Trump.
http://www.perfectpedigrees.com/4genview.php?id=144
http://www.perfectpedigrees.com/4genview.php?id=207

It's not how many breaths you have taken but how many times it has been taken away!

Has anyone noticed common sense isn't very common anymore.

User avatar
MNTonester
Rank: Champion
Posts: 335
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2013 1:51 pm
Location: Duluth, MN

Re: The Clintons

Post by MNTonester » Fri Aug 19, 2016 9:54 am

yes it's ALL true. but, but, but... it's our heroes and demigods, the Klintons

Timewise65
Rank: 2X Champion
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 11:30 am
Location: Missouri

Re: The Clintons

Post by Timewise65 » Fri Aug 19, 2016 10:05 am

[quote="DougB"]
"The list was posted with the intent of making Trump look like a better candidate." Actually NO.....

Dougie....don't suppose you noticed the "TOPIC" of this thread, did you? It is "THE CLINTONS"
That is why I posted about Billy Bob and Hillary.....

"I have seen several posts stating that a third party vote is a vote for Hillary. I disagree with that."
Good for you, but...

Let's expand on that brilliant observation! Stay with me on this, it involves a story problem....We have a two party system we know A or B will win. If you vote for A then you are voting against B, if you Vote for C or do not vote, you are still voting for whoever wins A or B! Simple stuff this is.....! Of course you can do whatever you want, but realize the simple math of it!

"If you are going to attack Hillary, or Trump, I prefer you use accurate facts." Funny how you only questioned a couple of the list..... :mrgreen:

As I stated both times I listed her 'short list of lies'! These are public knowledge and documented in multiple places that any idiot could verify. If it is beyond you, so be it! I have a deeper list that I believe is also accurate, but the sources are more difficult to validate to Hillary protectors....

Nuff Said...

Timewise65
Rank: 2X Champion
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 11:30 am
Location: Missouri

Re: The Clintons

Post by Timewise65 » Fri Aug 19, 2016 10:20 am

mnaj_springer wrote:


"I didn't say she's a liar either. And I didn't get cornered on the facts." Your implication was that you accepted that she lied, Regardless, again below, you in fact admit she is a liar!

"As far as Hillary lying... I'm sure she has at some point. Most adults do." Like most Democrats when 'caught' with no where else to go, rationalize your way out! ! Everybody does it!!??

"Finally, I didn't question one of your points... I obliterated it with facts.
"

Yep, mnaj.... by simply saying something is not factual is not a very strong "obliteration" and using some goofy source is also not a likely method most will believe...!

mnaj....wiggle as you may, your are caught like a bug in a rug.... :oops:

User avatar
Tooling
Rank: 3X Champion
Posts: 521
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2012 11:32 am

Re: The Clintons

Post by Tooling » Fri Aug 19, 2016 11:09 am

The insiders hate Cruz - that's a tell. (IMO)

The left literally rigged the system utilizing the DNC - that is indisputable - that's a tell.

Both parties (in large part) hate Trump w/veracity - that's a tell.


I have personal experience w/this BS..

The crap that's going down within is utterly appalling and the lengths in which entities will go in order to preserve a culture in lieu of addressing known problems is just wrong.

The current atmosphere devestates small business and destroys peoples lives..it interferes and undermines the growth of small business and leaves communities to suffer as a result.

I have 25 year olds begging me for a job!!

America is broken folks!

mnaj_springer
Rank: 5X Champion
Posts: 1271
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2014 5:10 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: The Clintons

Post by mnaj_springer » Fri Aug 19, 2016 11:12 am

Timewise65 wrote:
mnaj_springer wrote:


"I didn't say she's a liar either. And I didn't get cornered on the facts." Your implication was that you accepted that she lied, Regardless, again below, you in fact admit she is a liar!

"As far as Hillary lying... I'm sure she has at some point. Most adults do." Like most Democrats when 'caught' with no where else to go, rationalize your way out! ! Everybody does it!!??

"Finally, I didn't question one of your points... I obliterated it with facts.
"

Yep, mnaj.... by simply saying something is not factual is not a very strong "obliteration" and using some goofy source is also not a likely method most will believe...!

mnaj....wiggle as you may, your are caught like a bug in a rug.... :oops:
It's like trying to reason with a 3 year old... so I'll respond as such... Ok Timewise, now go drink your juice.
Last edited by mnaj_springer on Fri Aug 19, 2016 12:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“Man's mind, once stretched by a new idea, never regains its original dimensions.”
― Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr.

cjhills
GDF Junkie
Posts: 2529
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 7:37 am
Location: aitkin,mn

Re: The Clintons

Post by cjhills » Fri Aug 19, 2016 11:34 am

mnaj_springer wrote:
Timewise65 wrote:
mnaj_springer wrote:


"I didn't say she's a liar either. And I didn't get cornered on the facts." Your implication was that you accepted that she lied, Regardless, again below, you in fact admit she is a liar!

"As far as Hillary lying... I'm sure she has at some point. Most adults do." Like most Democrats when 'caught' with no where else to go, rationalize your way out! ! Everybody does it!!??

"Finally, I didn't question one of your points... I obliterated it with facts.
"

Yep, mnaj.... by simply saying something is not factual is not a very strong "obliteration" and using some goofy source is also not a likely method most will believe...!

mnaj....wiggle as you may, your are caught like a bug in a rug.... :oops:
It's trying to reason with a 3 year old... so I'll respond as such... Ok Timewise, now go drink your juice.
Trying to reason with a 85 year old who claims to have enough evidence to put Hillary in jail is even harder. Trumps new campaign manager has been obsessed with doing that for 25 years and he is privy to much more info than the senior mod. He has not succeded nor have the right wing lawmakers.
He head to get rid of Manafort because he is to cozy with Russia and his campaign fund is getting illegal contributions from Russia.
Do you see nothing wrong with publishing doctors reports on her health that are absolute lies. This is a new low...Cj

Timewise65
Rank: 2X Champion
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 11:30 am
Location: Missouri

Re: The Clintons

Post by Timewise65 » Fri Aug 19, 2016 12:46 pm

[quote="mnaj_springer"

It's like trying to reason with a 3 year old... so I'll respond as such... Ok Timewise, now go drink your juice.[/quote]

Another remarkably logical and analytical comment, NOT!............you know when you have a liberal cornered....they make stupid personal comments!

mnaj_springer
Rank: 5X Champion
Posts: 1271
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2014 5:10 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: The Clintons

Post by mnaj_springer » Fri Aug 19, 2016 12:58 pm

Timewise65 wrote:[quote="mnaj_springer"

It's like trying to reason with a 3 year old... so I'll respond as such... Ok Timewise, now go drink your juice.
Another remarkably logical and analytical comment, NOT!............you know when you have a liberal cornered....they make stupid personal comments![/quote]

^^^^^^ yep.
“Man's mind, once stretched by a new idea, never regains its original dimensions.”
― Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr.

User avatar
DougB
Rank: Champion
Posts: 346
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 5:31 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: The Clintons

Post by DougB » Fri Aug 19, 2016 12:59 pm

Timewise65 wrote:
DougB wrote: "The list was posted with the intent of making Trump look like a better candidate." Actually NO.....
I don't believe anybody said they wanted Clinton. By your own statement, my choice is either A or B. Why would you attack B except to make A look better?

Dougie....don't suppose you noticed the "TOPIC" of this thread, did you? It is "THE CLINTONS"
That is why I posted about Billy Bob and Hillary.....
And started out with mistaken "facts"

"I have seen several posts stating that a third party vote is a vote for Hillary. I disagree with that."
Good for you, but...

Let's expand on that brilliant observation! Stay with me on this, it involves a story problem....We have a two party system we know A or B will win. If you vote for A then you are voting against B, if you Vote for C or do not vote, you are still voting for whoever wins A or B! Simple stuff this is.....! Of course you can do whatever you want, but realize the simple math of it!
Libertarian, Green, Socialist parties will have names on the ballot.. I have seen a third party candidate become a state governor. It's not impossible. You , on the other hand, have just admitted to be willing to accept an evil and unqualified person as leader of the free world. That is worrisome and speaks poorly about you.

"If you are going to attack Hillary, or Trump, I prefer you use accurate facts." Funny how you only questioned a couple of the list..... :mrgreen:

Did you notice that I agreed with you that Hillary isn't a good choice for President. My reasons are different than yours. You started out with a thesis title that was wrong, and referred to charges that were proven false. Easy enough to correct,easy enough to check before publishing, but volume has become more important than accuracy, and vehemence is most important.

As I stated both times I listed her 'short list of lies'! These are public knowledge and documented in multiple places that any idiot could verify. [
[/i]If it is beyond you, so be it![/b] b]
And again, the name calling, yet you don't cite a reliable source. You are making the statement. It's your duty to prove it. Unless that is beyond you.

I have a deeper list that I believe is also accurate, but the sources are more difficult to validate to Hillary protectors....
You are accusing her of the same behavior Trump constantly exhibits. Looses some effectiveness when you realize that

Nuff Said...
Why would I expend energy verifying "facts" I consider irrelevant . She probably picks her nose in private, curses when angry, and is not an old white guy all the time. I have already decided I don't want her. I make a statement or present facts, with a source identified , and get responses based on emotions or web sites that copy paste every rumor ever heard. Or name calling. Poor form.

I started by looking at what characteristics I wanted in a president. Following your guidelines where I have to vote for A or B, Trump fails to make the grade by a greater margin than Hillary. His lack of ethics and willingness to hurt the little guy, and his lack of experience in anything approaching democratic government, coupled with his short temper, thin skin, and ability to anger all groups (so far, includes worlds largest religion, POWs, Gold Star parents, military leaders, and both houses and all parties in congress) makes me see him as just plain dangerous.
Granted, my list includes more than gun control or angry old white guy.
Last edited by DougB on Fri Aug 19, 2016 1:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Why own a dog? There's a danger you know,

You can't own just one, for the craving will grow.

There's no doubt they're addictive, wherein lies the danger.

While living with lots, you'll grow poorer and stranger.



User avatar
DougB
Rank: Champion
Posts: 346
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 5:31 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: The Clintons

Post by DougB » Fri Aug 19, 2016 1:04 pm

Timewise65 wrote:[quote="mnaj_springer"

It's like trying to reason with a 3 year old... so I'll respond as such... Ok Timewise, now go drink your juice.
Another remarkably logical and analytical comment, NOT!............you know when you have a liberal cornered....they make stupid personal comments![/quote]

You said that with a straight face. Wow.

You assume the people who disagree with you are liberals. Not really proven. You assume Springer felt cornered. I am pretty sure you are wrong. Most of the comments have not been personal, but factual comments, backed with valid and reliable sources. The responses have tended to be emotional, not proven valid, and sources have been not reliable.
IMHO.
Why own a dog? There's a danger you know,

You can't own just one, for the craving will grow.

There's no doubt they're addictive, wherein lies the danger.

While living with lots, you'll grow poorer and stranger.



User avatar
DougB
Rank: Champion
Posts: 346
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 5:31 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: The Clintons

Post by DougB » Fri Aug 19, 2016 1:26 pm

Something to think about. Another big word term "Cognitive Dissonance"
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/8/9/ ... epublicans
Every day we hear of more high-profile Republicans declaring they cannot vote for Donald Trump, and in some cases announcing they will vote for Hillary Clinton, very much against their long-held beliefs. I'm guessing that for every Republican whose decision to do this hits the news there must be thousands of everyday R voters making the same choice. Polls, in fact, have shown a significant movement of college-educated women to Hillary, many of whom are undoubtedly Republicans.

If cognitive dissonance works the way we think it does, at least some of those new Hillary voters will alter their beliefs, if not about Democrats, at least about Hillary herself. But I think the opportunity we have right now goes well beyond a small shift in Hillary's favorability numbers, however. In an interesting jujitsu move, the 25-year-long campaign of defaming Hillary Clinton might add extra momentum to the shift that basic human psychology will naturally be pushing these reluctant voters toward.
The important thing is not to concentrate solely on how disastrous a president he'd be -- he's taking care of that message just fine all by himself-- but on aspects of Hillary's candidacy that might be appealing: debt-free college, infrastructure projects and the jobs they'd produce, relief with child care costs, etc. You could also point out the very high opinion her former colleagues in the Senate and diplomats world-wide hold of her. Help them ease that tension in their minds and make them feel good about who they vote for this year.

If these forces act upon enough Republicans we might even see a new voting cohort, the Clinton Republicans. After all, if the Rs were able to capitalize on the turmoil of the 60s and 70s to produce Reagan Democrats, why can't we capitalize on the current danger and gridlock to get Clinton Republicans?

http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelb ... p-n2119810
When the legendary boxing promoter Bob Arum was challenged about the veracity of one of his past statements, he famously replied, “Yesterday I was lying, today I am telling the truth.”

This leads to the obvious question, “But Mr. Arum, what will you tell us tomorrow?”

There is something about Arum’s line that reminds me of Donald Trump, except that: 1) Arum was not running for the office of the President of the United States; and 2) Trump could say the same thing that Arum did but it appears that many of his followers would say, “You see! He’s not a politician. He tells the truth.”

But be assured that, despite four Trump bankruptcies (which surely affected many people, even if Trump was not personally affected) and the failures of Trump Airlines, Trump Vodka, Trump Mortgage, Trump: The Game, The China Connection, Trump Casinos, Trump Steaks, Trump Magazine, and GoTrump.com, Donald Trump will get the job done.....

What makes this all the more disturbing, not to mention downright scary, is that a substantial percentage of his supporters profess to be evangelical Christians, and it still appears that there is almost nothing he could say or do that would dampen their support for him.

“After all,” they lamely repeat, “we’re not electing a pastor, we’re electing a president.”

And, if I might borrow a quote, “Yesterday he was lying, today he’s telling the truth.”
Why own a dog? There's a danger you know,

You can't own just one, for the craving will grow.

There's no doubt they're addictive, wherein lies the danger.

While living with lots, you'll grow poorer and stranger.



Locked