Originally Posted by hodgy0_2
(Post 11886179)
well I am not going to argue it tbh
it seems a pretty trivial point they had no money, but had earning potential okay lets move on - next claim edit - this is a reference to the "dead broke claim" |
although she did say a week later "But she retracted the remarks a week later, telling the Philadelphia Daily News editorial board on March 24, 2008, that she "misspoke," correcting herself to say she had been told there was a threat of sniper fire in the area. The next day she told reporters, "So I made a mistake. That happens. It shows I'm human, which for some people is a revelation." in context Chris Huhne the former Lib Dem, lied under oath regarding a speeding ticket - I would still vote for him over Trump claim 3 ? |
Imagine forgeting that you werent actually ever shot at by snipers. Brilliant
Their is no need to compare her to anyone else. Just judge her by what she has said and done in the past. And on the first round i would liken it to someone that tells people they were dead broke and in debt when they lost their job but neglects to take into account the winning lottery ticket they bought with their last couple of quid |
Round 3
Immigrant Grandparents – When discussing immigrant stories, Clinton asserted that “all my grandparents… came over here.” It was another story Politifact said was false, as only one of her grandparents was an immigrant |
source?
|
Originally Posted by gary77
(Post 11886190)
Imagine forgeting that you werent actually ever shot at by snipers. Brilliant
Their is no need to compare her to anyone else. Just judge her by what she has said and done in the past. And on the first round i would liken it to someone that tells people they were dead broke and in debt when they lost their job but neglects to take into account the winning lottery ticket they bought with their last couple of quid |
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...tion-history-/
Just another case of her miss speaking otherwise known as lieing or talking ****e for effect |
Originally Posted by hodgy0_2
(Post 11886194)
sure, but not the devil incarnate either
|
Originally Posted by hodgy0_2
(Post 11886192)
source?
|
Originally Posted by gary77
(Post 11886196)
Not even im claiming she is that. Im only claiming she is full of ****e
can you name a politician who is not "full of sh1te" |
Round 4
Sir Edmund Hillary – Seems Clinton can’t even bring herself to tell the truth about her own name. She claimed to be named after Sir Edmund Hillary, one of the first men to climb Mt. Everest. One small problem though, the explorer didn’t climb Everest until Clinton was 6 years old. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...amed-after-si/ Its possible this is an honest mistake |
Originally Posted by hodgy0_2
(Post 11886198)
okay - as a reference point - and to serve as a sort of null hypothesis
can you name a politician who is not "full of sh1te" |
She seems to be the kind of person that will say whatever will benefit her cause . The truth doesnt matter
|
She tried to join the marines
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/f...n-the-marines/ Just more bull**** that sounded good at the time |
Benghazi – Clearly the most reprehensible lie of them all – Clinton failed to tell the truth about a terrorist attack that killed four Americans in Benghazi. She claimed for weeks, standing over the flag-draped coffins of murdered Americans, that an insensitive YouTube video had incited the violence that occurred that night. Why? Because a terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11 – which it was – would have destroyed President Obama’s re-election chances. But hey, at the end of the day it’s worth it to Clinton to tell a politically expedient lie, so long as her party can stay in power
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/20...-clinton-lies/ |
Originally Posted by gary77
(Post 11886199)
Round 4
Sir Edmund Hillary – Seems Clinton can’t even bring herself to tell the truth about her own name. She claimed to be named after Sir Edmund Hillary, one of the first men to climb Mt. Everest. One small problem though, the explorer didn’t climb Everest until Clinton was 6 years old. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...amed-after-si/ Its possible this is an honest mistake This Hilary Clinton-Edmund Hilary claim made me laugh tonight before bed time, and yesterday,when regarding a refurbished MaccyD in a nearby town, someone in real life person from around here told me this....> http://warpedwales.co.uk/2015/09/04/...esity-crisis/# ....which gave me giggles till the moment I was trying my best to fall asleep. The Coca Cola lorry in Wrexham and the Liverpudlian gym instructor articles in the same publication are equally earth shattering. :lol1: |
Originally Posted by gary77
(Post 11886199)
Round 4
Sir Edmund Hillary – Seems Clinton can’t even bring herself to tell the truth about her own name. She claimed to be named after Sir Edmund Hillary, one of the first men to climb Mt. Everest. One small problem though, the explorer didn’t climb Everest until Clinton was 6 years old. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...amed-after-si/ Its possible this is an honest mistake part of some peoples skill, especially famous and powerful people is making other people seem important and relevant during these brief encounters again I would not really class this as anything more than tittle tattle and to support my null hypothesis - if you barred every person on the planet from being a politician for inconsistencies in their personal narrative then on one would ever qualify |
Originally Posted by gary77
(Post 11886206)
She tried to join the marines
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/f...n-the-marines/ Just more bull**** that sounded good at the time okay, these are sort of getting pointless to debunk - a story 40 years ago!!! about joining the marines - really!! and actually it is looking like what it is - the republican attack dog machine has been relentlessly obsessing over the Clintons for the last 30 years they have been subject to more official republican investigations (that ultimately go nowhere) than almost any other US politician sections of the rabid right media in the US have been pouring over every single public, semi private and private speech & conversation she has made over the last 40 years and they get this!!! really you begin to think that if they have to make a big play of this 40 year old tale, they don't really have much do they? at best still tittle tattle and if it is truly a bar to being a politician, it would most likely exclude every single person on the planet's suitability to holding a public office and crucially, so far, all seem to have been in a personal capacity |
Originally Posted by gary77
(Post 11886208)
Benghazi – Clearly the most reprehensible lie of them all – Clinton failed to tell the truth about a terrorist attack that killed four Americans in Benghazi. She claimed for weeks, standing over the flag-draped coffins of murdered Americans, that an insensitive YouTube video had incited the violence that occurred that night. Why? Because a terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11 – which it was – would have destroyed President Obama’s re-election chances. But hey, at the end of the day it’s worth it to Clinton to tell a politically expedient lie, so long as her party can stay in power
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/20...-clinton-lies/ |
|
Originally Posted by hodgy0_2
(Post 11886239)
yes, this is much more serious - so lets deal with this one before we go any further
The claim in your linked article is that Clinton / Obama / the state department / pentagon knew that the attacks on the Benghazi diplomatic mission were most likely caused by terrorism – and thus to an extent pre-planned And not what the administration where saying in the immediate aftermath – which was that it was a spontaneous reaction to a youtube video OK – I needed to state the above in clear language because sometimes the claim is that she knew of the attack, she sacrificed the American diplomats who died, she prevented them from protecting themselves, she was directly responsible for Jedwards success in the X-factor Ok so you get the picture, people throw all sort of accusations at Hillary– some rubbish, some true, and see what sticks So firstly let’s remind ourselves that this whole episode deals with national security – unfortunately all governments in all countries of all persuasions, probably for all sorts of good reasons treat stories like this (national security) differently not least because details always seem to be sketchy in the immediate aftermath of events like these – and it is not really surprising to any rational person why this would be so But yes she looks top have spun it, by initially saying it’s cause was a video – instead of linking it explicitly to terrorism Wow – politician’s spin stories, politician’s try and manipulate the media, presumably an amazing revelation to you Gary, but not to me I am afraid And I simply don’t see Hillary Clinton as the devil incarnate that you seem to - she seems to act like most self-aggrandising politicians do She does seem over secretive, evasive in answering questions and in my personal opinion a bit slippery (but I actually don’t real know anything about her other than what I read in the press – so I am happy to be proved wrong – in my life I have formed opinions of people only to be shown I was wrong when I actually got to know them) So all the above – versus Donald “grab them by the pussy” Trump |
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Clinton-Cas...s=clinton+cash
I've just read this, utterly terrifying if she gets in |
Originally Posted by hodgy0_2
(Post 11886266)
Right – so let’s be absolutely clear here
The claim in your linked article is that Clinton / Obama / the state department / pentagon knew that the attacks on the Benghazi diplomatic mission were most likely caused by terrorism – and thus to an extent pre-planned And not what the administration where saying in the immediate aftermath – which was that it was a spontaneous reaction to a youtube video OK – I needed to state the above in clear language because sometimes the claim is that she knew of the attack, she sacrificed the American diplomats who died, she prevented them from protecting themselves, she was directly responsible for Jedwards success in the X-factor Ok so you get the picture, people throw all sort of accusations at Hillary– some rubbish, some true, and see what sticks So firstly let’s remind ourselves that this whole episode deals with national security – unfortunately all governments in all countries of all persuasions, probably for all sorts of good reasons treat stories like this (national security) differently not least because details always seem to be sketchy in the immediate aftermath of events like these – and it is not really surprising to any rational person why this would be so But yes she looks top have spun it, by initially saying it’s cause was a video – instead of linking it explicitly to terrorism Wow – politician’s spin stories, politician’s try and manipulate the media, presumably an amazing revelation to you Gary, but not to me I am afraid And I simply don’t see Hillary Clinton as the devil incarnate that you seem to - she seems to act like most self-aggrandising politicians do She does seem over secretive, evasive in answering questions and in my personal opinion a bit slippery (but I actually don’t real know anything about her other than what I read in the press – so I am happy to be proved wrong – in my life I have formed opinions of people only to be shown I was wrong when I actually got to know them) So all the above – versus Donald “grab them by the pussy” Trump I agree . But you presumed wrongly that it is an amazing revelation to me that politician’s spin stories, politician’s try and manipulate the media. I dont see her as the devil incarnate just as yet another politician that is over secretive, evasive in answering questions and a bit slippery |
Why do countries give millions of dollars to the clinton foundation ?
|
Originally Posted by Bonehead
(Post 11886268)
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Clinton-Cas...s=clinton+cash
I've just read this, utterly terrifying if she gets in |
Debate was good. No shake-hands; neither pre nor post. Trump seemed quite p7ssed off at the end.
Hillary's suit was nice and she didn't look ill last night. Bill didn't creep up to his blindly faithful wife to pat her back- like he did; after the second debate. Perhaps after the second debate, upset Hillary told him to stay away from her, for she didn't half take some serious flack from Trump in that debate; for Bill's bad actions. But I'm sure they shared a bottle of wine back home later, and then slept sound in their separate bedrooms as usual. All's well if it ends well. |
Originally Posted by hodgy0_2
(Post 11886266)
She does seem over secretive, evasive in answering questions and in my personal opinion a bit slippery (but I actually don’t real know anything about her other than what I read in the press – so I am happy to be proved wrong – in my life I have formed opinions of people only to be shown I was wrong when I actually got to know them) All that's polished and glitters isn't necessarily gold. Yes, all politicians lie, conceal and do wrong things, we know that. We also know that some are worse than others at all these things. So all the above – versus Donald “grab them by the pussy” Trump The problem with him is that his highly scandalous and common (but very, very wealthy) being in combination with his brainless skull (although good cage rattling skills) make him an accidental and an unfit candidate for the U.S. presidency. The problem with Clinton is that her scandalous, immoral (ref: trying to cover her dodgy husband's dark deeds by hook or crook) being, along with her 'visible' concealment and bull$hit make her not exactly a 'nation's sweetheart' candidate for the U.S. presidency. Ok, she scores on her office experience, which equips her with knowledge of how things run (Trump doesn't have the faintest idea), and that's what makes her fitter than Trump for the post. Looking at their track record, I wouldn't vote for either of them; provided I were American. I would have boycotted the election. Whole thing is rigged. :D |
My view as an American -
There are two choices: 1. A corrupt liar who is knowledgeable on the issues and well spoken. 2. An insane megalomaniac who shows no desire to learn even basic facts and who can't form a complete sentence. I voted today and chose option #1. |
With either of those 2 muppets set to be in charge, America will be in a worser state than the uk
|
Originally Posted by Matty81
(Post 11887913)
With either of those 2 muppets set to be in charge, America will be in a worser state than the uk
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:20 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands