Hillary's paychecks

[Willow]

Willow, I'll agree with your post to a point. I've stated many times that I understand people that don't agree with me, believe in their positions just as strongly as I do. Personally, I don't think people with views opposing mine are stupid.   That's reserved for those, that when presented with overwhelming information to the contrary, absolutely refuse to believe it. In fact, I've had members on this board literally say...'I don't care what the facts are, they don't mean a thing'. Then they launch into the liberal-type language. At that point, game over.

Baldo (I'm into thread hijack mode now), I do understand that you try not to think that everyone with whom you disagree is stupid.  I do also.  It's a near natural thing that takes place when we have finally made up our minds.  Perhaps I should have allowed the out of stupid or insincere.

In our cases, though, the evidence bubbles too often to the top.

Once again....arguing with a liberal is like wrestling a pig in the mud. Why bother????

Funny, I'd say the very same thing, only replacing liberal with conservative/libertarian/teabagger. Again, why bother.

I do agree with you that arguing with one who doesn't care about the facts is meaningless.  Wait a minute.  Maybe it is meaningful.  Mostly what we do when we argue in public is to show off for those who agree with us at how well we can make the opposition look foolish.

 

[Roadog]

What is this fascination they have with his school records ? Don't waste your time Bob, everybody knows Snopes is a Communistic website put out by Fidel Castro.  

I'm pretty sure that very few believe it's communistic and no one thinks that Fidel Castro had the means to put it out.  That said almost everyone realizes that Snopes is left leaning in their explanations and denials.  The article referenced played games with definitions.  School records are by definition of what they are sealed.  They used that to explain that Barrack Obama did not have his records sealed.  It would have, agreed, been more accurate for people to say that he refused to share his school records or simply chose to keep them secret.

Benghazi?  Americans gave their lives there while serving their country and specifically because someone chose to not order them rescued.  A lot of us hold the administration and the Secretary of State responsible for those deaths and some, including me, believe there is ample reason to suspect that the administration and the Secrtetary of State orchestrated the situation that resulted in those deaths.  The subsequest cover up and redirection efforts were more than dispicable.

The post was not worthy of your normal quality, Meathead.  

AND............ She then lied to the American citizens, claiming it was not a terrorist attack, after e-mailing (of the discovered deleted e-mails) her daughter and Egyptian heads of state that it WAS an terrorist attack.  BTW, this lie was uncovered as she so eloquently and beautifully sat there for 11 hours.  (That's what the left took away, that she sat for 11 hours.  A brilliant accomplishment, completely overlooking the lies that were uncovered)  Then sent out Rice to tell the world for the next 5 weeks about a video.  The administration blamed a video because Obama stated terrorism was at bay.  If they admitted it was a terrorist attack, it would be seen as failure in foreign policy with re-election around the corner.  All came out in during her wonderful 11 hour sit.  

And on top of it all, she then lied to the parents of dead soldiers.  If there was nothing else to convince me of her disgustingness, this would be more than enough.  What could be worse than lying to the parents of dead soldiers?  Nothing.  She makes me sick.

Here we go with those darned facts again.

Those who support her morals and values don't care about the facts.

 Britman,

  On the news today I over heard  Kirsten Powers (democratic strategist), say "state dept. audit: H disregarded guidelines for cybersecurity risks. This is a total none issue with Dem voters" . Also "this is the most indicting thing we have seen in this investigation ".  The facts do not matter.  They just do not care.   (dem voters) .

Ride safe
Roadog

[FLAVALK]

 Then they launch into the liberal-type language. At that point, game over.




Hmmm...is  "liberal" any more offensive than "bagger"?

Probably to you it is....

[Roadog]

 

 No not offended by 'bagger' or T-bagger.   Don't use that term 'liberal' either. Not into labels or name calling or 'classes' to put people in.  BUT , FlavValk , you sure ride a nice bike though gotta say that for sure. It is nice.  

Ride safe
Roadog

[baldo]

Then they launch into the liberal-type language. At that point, game over.




Hmmm...is  "liberal" any more offensive than "bagger"?

Probably to you it is....

First point. I used the term 'teabagger'. So let's keep things straight, shall we?

You do realize that members of the Tea Party, did in fact, hang teabags from their hats. Now that you mention it, I can't remember the last time I heard anyone mention the Tea Party. Good riddance.

[baldo]

Willow, I'll agree with your post to a point. I've stated many times that I understand people that don't agree with me, believe in their positions just as strongly as I do. Personally, I don't think people with views opposing mine are stupid.   That's reserved for those, that when presented with overwhelming information to the contrary, absolutely refuse to believe it. In fact, I've had members on this board literally say...'I don't care what the facts are, they don't mean a thing'. Then they launch into the liberal-type language. At that point, game over.

Baldo (I'm into thread hijack mode now), I do understand that you try not to think that everyone with whom you disagree is stupid.  I do also.  It's a near natural thing that takes place when we have finally made up our minds.  Perhaps I should have allowed the out of stupid or insincere.

In our cases, though, the evidence bubbles too often to the top.

Once again....arguing with a liberal is like wrestling a pig in the mud. Why bother????

Funny, I'd say the very same thing, only replacing liberal with conservative/libertarian/teabagger. Again, why bother.

I do agree with you that arguing with one who doesn't care about the facts is meaningless.  Wait a minute.  Maybe it is meaningful.  Mostly what we do when we argue in public is to show off for those who agree with us at how well we can make the opposition look foolish.

 

 

[Serk]

First point. I used the term 'teabagger'. So let's keep things straight, shall we?

So then are you going to feign innocence as to the meaning of the term "teabagging"?

[mike72903]

 I would never consider anyone stupid because of political beliefs. I came here for the technical help and advice but somehow let myself get sucked into political postings. That's on me should know better. Tried to stay away more than once but it's like picking at a scab  . I'm a political moderate, believe in personal responsibility (as far as my philosophy allows), think people should contribute to society, debt should be avoided because it makes one a virtual slave and think it's a shame what the Internet has done to public discourse.  Enthorpy at work.

[FLAVALK]

First point. I used the term 'teabagger'. So let's keep things straight, shall we?




OK then, I'll use the term  "Retarded Liberal". There, now we have that straightened out.  

[mike72903]

First point. I used the term 'teabagger'. So let's keep things straight, shall we?




OK then, I'll use the term  "Retarded Liberal". There, now we have that straightened out.  

way to raise the level there.

[baldo]

First point. I used the term 'teabagger'. So let's keep things straight, shall we?

So then are you going to feign innocence as to the meaning of the term "teabagging"?

I know which context I'm using....how about you?

[Serk]

First point. I used the term 'teabagger'. So let's keep things straight, shall we?

So then are you going to feign innocence as to the meaning of the term "teabagging"?

I know which context I'm using....how about you?

way to raise the level there.

[baldo]

First point. I used the term 'teabagger'. So let's keep things straight, shall we?




OK then, I'll use the term  "Retarded Liberal". There, now we have that straightened out.  

If that's what makes you feel clever, go right ahead. Thanks for making your wattage clear.

[G-Man]

Hillary Clinton lied to the parents of dead soldiers. 

[dinosnake]

Hillary Clinton lied to the parents of dead soldiers.  

So did the entire Republican administration of George W. Bush when they sent soldiers into Iraq to die, based upon a blatant lie of "WMD's".

And yet that isn't called "criminal", nor have any charges ever been brought up.

Funny how "symmetrical" that is  ???

[Davet261]

OK then, I'll use the term  "Retarded Liberal". There, now we have that straightened out.  
[/quote]


I hope there are no VRCC members that reads these posts that have loved ones with Down's Syndrome.

[Patrick]

Well, Clinton did lie and continues to lie. The State Dept now says she did violate the rules and that Clinton fired an employee for doing as she did.[ actually less than she did]. Rules don't apply to her or her husband.



Bush and the WMD thing has been cleared up years ago. There were WMDs and they are still being used today. [ well, maybe not today, but, are still being used]. Can you say chemical weapon. This has been talked about here [ and the news] several times, but, apparently some stuff doesn't sink in. And your beloved hillary voted for that war.

[Willow]

Hillary Clinton lied to the parents of dead soldiers.  

So did the entire Republican administration of George W. Bush when they sent soldiers into Iraq to die, based upon a blatant lie of "WMD's".

And yet that isn't called "criminal", nor have any charges ever been brought up.

Funny how "symmetrical" that is  ???

There seems to be a lot of convenient memory failure among anti-Republicans on that issue.

The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 was adopted by both houses of the U.S. congress.  Admittedly it was not as heavily supported among Democrats but it was supported.  In the House 96% of the Republicans and 39% of the Democrats voted for the authorization.  In the Senate the counts were 98% of the Republicans and 58% of the Democrats.  That 58% included Hillary Clinton of New York.

As far as the President's lying.  I don't believe he did.  An argument could be made that the information presented to him turned out to be less than entirely accurate but what he presented was precisely what U.S. intelligence agencies had reported to his office.  No one has ever put forward any real accusation that he misrepresented the information presented to him.

On the contrary, evidence abounds that Secretary of State Clinton knew precisely that what she was presenting was not true at the time she spoke to the dead men's families and when she spoke to the people of the United States of America.

My personal perspective is that the action in Iraq was beneficial.  Saddam Hussein did need to be removed.  In 2001 Muslim terrorists struck a blow on U.S. soil.  That was not planned to be a one time attack.  It was intended to bring about open warfare between the U.S. of A. and the Muslim world.  Short of that it would have been the first of many such actions.  The terrorists did not strike again on U'S. soil during the remainer of President Bush's time in office.

I do need to teach myself to stay away from these politically motivated discussions.

[baldo]

I do need to teach myself to stay away from these politically motivated discussions.

Me too.....but what's the fun in that? 

[mike72903]

I dare say that members of congress that voted for the war did so because they believed the president.  Maybe even Bush believed it.  Certainly the neo cons surrounding and controlling him weren't interested in the truth.  Haven't heard from Bush in along time. I assume he's keeping a low profile due to his embarrassment over his administrations deceit.  Also, there is no proof that more attacks were planned and saying so is heresy.  He left the Middle East a broken region with problems that will resonate for generations.

[Willow]

I dare say that members of congress that voted for the war did so because they believed the president.  Maybe even Bush believed it.  Certainly the neo cons surrounding and controlling him weren't interested in the truth.  Haven't heard from Bush in along time. I assume he's keeping a low profile due to his embarrassment over his administrations deceit.  Also, there is no proof that more attacks were planned and saying so is heresy.  He left the Middle East a broken region with problems that will resonate for generations.

Wow!  Where to start?

Certainly the neo cons surrounding and controlling him weren't interested in the truth.

I do wish I had some of your information on history that allows you to make such easy judgement without the input of what was coming in from the intelligence agencies.  I assume from your words that you believe someone or someones wanted to go to war with Iraq without regard to whatever reason there was or wasn't.  A decision to commit a nation to war is a very difficult and very serious act.  I am pleased that neither you nor I will ever have to deal with such a hard decision.

Haven't heard from Bush in along time. I assume he's keeping a low profile due to his embarrassment over his administrations deceit.

   

Normally we don't hear from ex-Presidents especially during the administration of a President from the opposing party.  It's considered the courteous and proper thing to do do step quietly into the background.  I see no reason or evidence of embarrassment and once more you have leapt greatly to an assumption of "his administration's deceit".

Also, there is no proof that more attacks were planned and saying so is heresy.

I'm believing you meant to say hearsay.  I'm pretty sure I'm not guilty of heresy.  If you truly believe that the attack on New York and Washington was the final blow planned by the terrorists then you and I really have no reason to continue conversation.

He left the Middle East a broken region with problems that will resonate for generations.

It's messed up.  I'll agree with you on that.  Whether it would have been more or less messed up today had the Hussein goverment been left in power in Iraq would be pure speculation on your part or mine.

I'm going to agree that we do and will continue to disagree.  I'll leave it at that.

[mike72903]

I dare say that members of congress that voted for the war did so because they believed the president.  Maybe even Bush believed it.  Certainly the neo cons surrounding and controlling him weren't interested in the truth.  Haven't heard from Bush in along time. I assume he's keeping a low profile due to his embarrassment over his administrations deceit.  Also, there is no proof that more attacks were planned and saying so is heresy.  He left the Middle East a broken region with problems that will resonate for generations.

Wow!  Where to start?

Certainly the neo cons surrounding and controlling him weren't interested in the truth.

I do wish I had some of your information on history that allows you to make such easy judgement without the input of what was coming in from the intelligence agencies.  I assume from your words that you believe someone or someones wanted to go to war with Iraq without regard to whatever reason there was or wasn't.  A decision to commit a nation to war is a very difficult and very serious act.  I am pleased that neither you nor I will ever have to deal with such a hard decision.

Haven't heard from Bush in along time. I assume he's keeping a low profile due to his embarrassment over his administrations deceit.

 

Normally we don't hear from ex-Presidents especially during the administration of a President from the opposing party.  It's considered the courteous and proper thing to do do step quietly into the background.  I see no reason or evidence of embarrassment and once more you have leapt greatly to an assumption of "his administration's deceit".

Also, there is no proof that more attacks were planned and saying so is heresy.

I'm believing you meant to say hearsay.  I'm pretty sure I'm not guilty of heresy.  If you truly believe that the attack on New York and Washington was the final blow planned by the terrorists then you and I really have no reason to continue conversation.

He left the Middle East a broken region with problems that will resonate for generations.

It's messed up.  I'll agree with you on that.  Whether it would have been more or less messed up today had the Hussein goverment been left in power in Iraq would be pure speculation on your part or mine.

I'm going to agree that we do and will continue to disagree.  I'll leave it at that.

yeah, I'm done.  I can counter each of your statements, except heresy, but why bother.  Time for this thread to die.