The Clinton Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Can you name the two main parties in the British Parliament? Probably not. I don't think the international community gives one damn or another about which party the candidate belongs to, when they probably can't name the top two political parties in the U.S.. Or at least, I know people in France don't care.

Labour and Conservative and then the Lib-Dems in a distance third (Oh Charles Kennedy :( )

There is a lot of intruge on Obama because he is an idealist and is different. Its like I said earlier, the public opinion on America's politics is low, so of course right or wrong there intruiged by Obama. They know the deal with Clinton and McCain. Lotta people seem to have an issue with 2 ruling familes holding the US office for damn near 28 years (Bush under Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush) and they wanna see something different. I will say this though, I dont see the issue with Clinton in this but her potryal on some of the news programmes there is similar to her. (Oh Channel 4 and your crazy award winning Liberal news reporting :) )
 
First, I didn't know about the Bosnia incident until this came out a few days ago.

Second, I don't care what she said about some trip to Bosnia, versus what actually happened. I'm voting for President, not judging someone because they tailored a story about being under gunfire. Besides, it was when she was First Lady... and from what I understand, her experience as First Lady doesn't matter at all (or at least, that's what Obama supporters have said).

Third, I'm voting for someone based on what he or she will do in the future. When Obama says something such as 'we're going to pass bipartisan legislation' when he's not only the most liberal member in the Senate, but has no record whatsoever of working on a major bipartisan bill, he's flat out lying in voters' faces. He can't be that much of an outsider to not know how his own workplace works. He's just as guilty of being a fraud as Hillary Clinton is.

So you agree Hilary is a fraud.
 
Labour and Conservative and then the Lib-Dems in a distance third (Oh Charles Kennedy :( )

Good job. But minus one point for not mentioning the Scottish National Party :o

There is a lot of intruge on Obama because he is an idealist and is different. Its like I said earlier, the public opinion on America's politics is low, so of course right or wrong there intruiged by Obama. They know the deal with Clinton and McCain. Lotta people seem to have an issue with 2 ruling familes holding the US office for damn near 28 years (Bush under Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush) and they wanna see something different. I will say this though, I dont see the issue with Clinton in this but her potryal on some of the news programmes there is similar to her. (Oh Channel 4 and your crazy award winning Liberal news reporting :) )

Hmm. Well, in France, they seem to like all three of them. So I guess it's different wherever you go in Europe these days.
 
Good job. But minus one point for not mentioning the Scottish National Party :o

Labour and Conservative are the two main parties. Scottish Parliment is a seperative legislative body not a party.
Hmm. Well, in France, they seem to like all three of them. So I guess it's different wherever you go in Europe these days.

France dont care either way, but if any country supports idealists, its them.
 
Even Hilary? You want a fraud for President? damn son....

I would rather there not be any frauds running for President. But because there are very few frauds in U.S. government, and the only one who wasn't a fraud was a complete crackpot (Kucinich), I had to choose who I felt was less fraudulent. So I chose Clinton, because while she has undoubtedly lied about her past and accomplishments, I feel Obama has lied more about his (in)experience and has painted a picture of a world he knows he will never live in to woo millions of supporters who consider him the purveyor of change in America. Clinton has never promised the type of liberal utopia Obama has promised, and that's because anyone in this country who thinks the type of change Obama wants will be implemented over night just because he's president are delusional. Barring some kind of national disaster, Obama will be lucky if he gets a quarter of what he wants done in his first term. And I think voters will take a good hard look at that in four years, where it'll be a choice between the man who offered us change but couldn't bring it versus the new guy offering change and who might bring it.
 
Labour and Conservative are the two main parties. Scottish Parliment is a seperative legislative body not a party.

The Parliament of the UK holds political power over all of the legislative bodies in the United Kingdom. While the Scottish Parliament is separate, the British Parliament holds sovereignty over it. As a result, anyone who is a member of the SNP is a member of the UK Parliament, which ultimately has its power granted to it by the British parliament, even though the SNP is a party within the Scottish Parliament.

But this doesn't really have much to do with anything...
 
She did it at least three times too. I just saw footage of her on CNN(Larry King) doing it in December in Iowa and another time(i can't recall where though).
 
So Clinton and Obama are liars. Color me suprised.
 
I loved her "Millions of words a week" response, made me laugh.
Qualifications ; Bad at maths, Check. Easy to exaggerate, Check.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ie5X4fWtHiQ&e

Towards the end of this video, she digs a deeper hole by talking about how she remembers leaving immediately after talking to the little girl when she actually went around talking to soldiers. She shoulda just not even explained it at all and just said her memory was off on the initial claim about the sniper fire thing.
 
http://www.nypost.com/seven/0326200...ow_bunko_hill_is_under_fire_103582.htm?page=0


NOW BUNKO HILL IS UNDER FIRE
INSULTED MILITARY BLASTS HER SERIAL 'SNIPER' LIES



March 26, 2008 --

WASHINGTON - Hillary Rodham Clinton's lies about risking her life under sniper fire during a visit to Bosnia as first lady have infuriated the US military brass and troops.

"She has no sense of what a statement like that does to soldiers," fumed retired Maj. Gen. Walter Stewart, the former head of the Pennsylvania National Guard.

"She is insulting the command in its entirety," he said yesterday.

Clinton came under fire after saying she "misspoke" about what happened during the trip and claimed it was the first time she erred in describing her visit - an assertion Barack Obama's campaign quickly disproved by finding at least three prior occasions over the last few months where she's claimed there was sniper fire.

Stewart, who was assigned to the Army's European headquarters at the time of Clinton's visit in 1996, called her statements "really astonishing."

"Believe me, heads would have rolled all over" if the military put the then-first lady at "unacceptable risk," added Stewart, who is supporting Barack Obama.

Air Force Lt. Gen. Buster Glosson, a John McCain supporter who ran the air attack in the first Gulf War, said, "It bothers me any time anyone running for the highest office in the land fabricates a story.

"That should bother any American, whether you're military or nonmilitary."

Another source, a former Army analyst who was stationed abroad when dignitaries visited, said, "You know, we have soldiers overseas now who are getting shot at by real bullets from real enemies who really want to kill them.

"Getting shot at by snipers is not something you forget - or make light of," he added.

"If getting shot at by sniper fire qualifies you to be president, then there are thousands of guys in the military right now who are way more qualified than Hillary Clinton to be our next president."

Clinton insisted yesterday she "misspoke" for the first time in a dozen years when describing the trip in a recent speech.

But Obama's camp immediately sent out three additional instances where Clinton made claims of dangers faced during her Bosnia visit that have been contradicted by videos of a tranquil arrival ceremony for her goodwill mission.

Clinton yesterday tried to backpedal.

"The military took great care of us," she told Pittsburgh's KDKA radio station.

"I have written about it in my book and talked about it on many other occasions and last week, you know, for the first time in 12 or so years, I misspoke."

Maj. Gen. William Nash, the commander of US troops in Bosnia, told The Washington Post he was unaware of any security threat to Clinton during her eight-hour stay in Tuzla.

During an Iraq speech last Monday, Clinton's version of the trip sounded more like a Sylvester Stallone thriller: "I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead, we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."

In December, campaigning in Dubuque, Iowa, Clinton said, "We landed in one of those corkscrew landings and ran out because they said there might be sniper fire. I don't remember anybody offering me tea on the tarmac when that was happening."

Video taken by CBS News on the trip reveals a quaint greeting ceremony with a local schoolgirl who read a poem to Clinton, along with a group of other children.

"It goes without saying that they don't arrange a ceremony with little girls, with bouquets and poems and stuff, if there's a serious risk of taking sniper fire said, ex-Sgt. Peter Cachion, who served in Bosnia.

Comedian Sinbad, who was also on the trip, told The Washington Post his biggest worry was where he was going to get his next meal.
 
What I want to know is how this makes her experience claims irrelevant. Regardless if she was under fire or if a tank didn't blow up next to her as she ran into an armored vehicle, um, SHE STILL WENT TO BOSNIA!
 
What I want to know is how this makes her experience claims irrelevant. Regardless if she was under fire or if a tank didn't blow up next to her as she ran into an armored vehicle, um, SHE STILL WENT TO BOSNIA!

Her claims are irrelevant because she falsifies them. Basically, in my opinion, any word that comes out of her mouth is irrelevant because it's likely not true.

And going to Bosnia doesn't mean you are qualified to lead this great nation. I'll bet lots of people have been to Bosnia. Hell, some actually live there! Does that qualify them for the big chair in the Oval Office? Methinks not.
 
Her claims are irrelevant because she falsifies them. Basically, in my opinion, any word that comes out of her mouth is irrelevant because it's likely not true.

And going to Bosnia doesn't mean you are qualified to lead this great nation. I'll bet lots of people have been to Bosnia. Hell, some actually live there! Does that qualify them for the big chair in the Oval Office? Methinks not.

Wow, that's ridiculous logic. Yes, because she went to Bosnia for vacation and the surfing on the beaches of Bosnia is so world renowned that she had to go there for Spring Break. Break out the suntan lotion Chelsea, we're going to Bosnia!
 
Wow, that's ridiculous logic. Yes, because she went to Bosnia for vacation and the surfing on the beaches of Bosnia is so world renowned that she had to go there for Spring Break. Break out the suntan lotion Chelsea, we're going to Bosnia!

How the hell does going to Bosnia qualify you for the highest office in the land? And you accuse ME of "ridiculous logic"?
 
How the hell does going to Bosnia qualify you for the highest office in the land? And you accuse ME of "ridiculous logic"?

Because like my previous post mocking you said, she didn't go there for some time off. You think all she did there was shake hands and have sing a longs with Sheryl Crow? Come on Tron, you need a new processor if you can't figure things out on your own.
 
Because like my previous post mocking you said, she didn't go there for some time off. You think all she did there was shake hands and have sing a longs with Sheryl Crow? Come on Tron, you need a new processor if you can't figure things out on your own.

Can you tell me exactly what she accomplished on her trip to Bosnia?
 
Can you tell me exactly what she accomplished on her trip to Bosnia?

Can you tell me what she didn't accomplish?

Lets say she didn't get **** done. People were still fighting, going hungry, forced out of their homes etc. Again, she was there to try to help people, not for vacation, not for fun, you don't go to Bosnia in 1996 for kicks and giggles. She was there, trying to help people, be it our soldiers on the ground or the people of Bosnia. It was a relief effort trip. I guess sitting there and doing nothing would be better right? Since apparently, Obama can get away with that.:o
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"