Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-05-2007, 12:05 PM
 
12,669 posts, read 20,454,952 times
Reputation: 3050

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeepejeep View Post
I enjoy how when asked something "uncomfortable" about Clinton, her followers immediately try to deflect attention to Bush or Cheney or ANYONE else instead of answering the question. She's corrupt from start to finish. I'm so anxious to see how the "Chinese connection" contributions are going to pan out. Clinton is finished, I think.
No Kidding! Well they make no apologies for their connections with China.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-05-2007, 12:41 PM
 
Location: Tennessee
37,803 posts, read 41,036,241 times
Reputation: 62204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evlevo View Post
Posts like yours (which I think are a reasonably good measure for a large chunk of right-wingers) show that many folks have already made up their mind that she has done something wrong. If a search of every piece of paper turns up nothing, then it has to be because she destroyed or hid it, right?

Just like all the white-water, cattle-futures, travel-gate, etc investigations found nothing, she still was guilty because she managed to hide the TRUTH...

Kinda like Saddam had WMD but he just managed to hide it (so well in fact that 4 years later we don't even have any leads)?


Welcome to modern politics... you can never win with some folks
Are Barack Obama and John Edwards right-wingers? How can a person claim she's experienced without any proof? We only know one thing she publicly handled and that didn't go well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2007, 12:44 PM
 
Location: Tennessee
37,803 posts, read 41,036,241 times
Reputation: 62204
Quote:
Originally Posted by bily4 View Post
Who cares. The current nutjob is about to start World War III and people want to bring back WhiteWater and the stain on the dress. Nice sense of priorities.

And as others have mentioned, it's not like the current Pres. had not withheld documentation from the American people and Congress consistently since he took office. Part of his MO. The other part is bungling multisyllable words and laughing in speeches at inopportune moments when discussing torture and terrorism.
Let's not go off topic. I don't care what her role was in Bill Clinton's affairs. I'm only interested in her "White House experience" claim as a candidate. What is it and was it good?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2007, 01:53 PM
 
12,669 posts, read 20,454,952 times
Reputation: 3050
[quote=Evlevo;1909723]I would suspect that the concern on the Clinton's part is not what they actually did, but rather what the right-wing will fabricate based on a sliver of truth.

Just remember how far the right wing stretched the truth on the swift-boat stuff

I can see the logic with not wanting to give a bunch of truth-shifters a lot of ammo for false claims.... But who knows, there is always the possibility that it is true[/QUOTE ]

The swift-boat veterans spoke the truth....
Here is a video I think tells the story on the Dem's and WMD thing and who was for it who is now claiming they were never for it.

http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv (broken link)

Enjoy the video!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2007, 02:14 PM
 
Location: SanAnFortWAbiHoustoDalCentral, Texas
791 posts, read 2,223,689 times
Reputation: 195
[quote=Miborn;1919059]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evlevo View Post
Here is a video I think tells the story on the Dem's and WMD thing and who was for it who is now claiming they were never for it.

http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv (broken link)

Enjoy the video!
Let me ask, to be sure I understand this.... Up to and at the invasion of Iraq, these political operatives were confirming the info, the intel, supposedly supplied by our 'stupendous' CIA, regardiing WMD's? So, these political operatives aided and abetted the President up to and including that invasion? And afterwards, they turned their collective backs on the country and denied their alledged complicity?

And these are people who want to be the leader of our country?

Forget the Hilary documents. For that matter, forget the Clintons.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2007, 05:18 AM
 
Location: ,ARIZONA
206 posts, read 615,694 times
Reputation: 127
Angry bush family

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miborn View Post
What did Bush lie about?
They won't release the documents because they are incriminating.
Clintons are dishonest, here is a thesaurus definition for dishonest:

bluffing, cheating, corrupt, crafty, crooked, cunning, deceitful, deceiving, deceptive, designing, disreputable, double-crossing, double-dealing, elusive, false, fraudulent, guileful, hoodwinking*, knavish, mendacious, misleading, perfidious, roguish, shady, shifty, sinister, slippery*, sneaking, sneaky, swindling, traitorous, treacherous, tricky, two-faced*, two-timing*, unctuous, underhanded, unfair, unprincipled, unscrupulous, untrustworthy, villainous, wily

How many can you connect to the Clintons?

all the things you say about the CLINTIONS the BUSH family are no better did we all foget how BUSH GOT INTO OFFICE lies, lies and more lies
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2007, 05:33 AM
 
2,970 posts, read 2,260,792 times
Reputation: 658
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeepejeep View Post
But she's the one who's trying to make her time as first lady part of her "experience" to be president.
Exactly. If she had not been married to a former president she would never be running for president, would not be a senator, and would be a political nobody. And the marriage is obviously one of convenience.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2007, 07:05 AM
 
1,266 posts, read 2,509,374 times
Reputation: 441
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeepejeep View Post
I think it's #2 also. Maybe some #1 thrown in. She's completely unqualified to be in the senatorial position she's in now much less president.
Ditto! Hopefully people will start seeing that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top