80
   

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

 
 
Builder
 
  -2  
Thu 4 Aug, 2016 05:24 pm
@revelette2,
The thing with this case, is that she laid claim to the street murder of Libya's leader, which means the "rebel" forces were US mercenaries. I'm sure you've seen the video; " We came, we saw, he died..."
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Thu 4 Aug, 2016 05:25 pm
@revelette2,
Here's factcheck on the GOP's claims about Hillary Clinton.
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/gop-convention-day-2/
Most of the GOP claims are 'PANTS ON FIRE.'
Builder
 
  -1  
Fri 5 Aug, 2016 01:42 am
@cicerone imposter,
The GOP didn't laugh (on camera) about the street murder of a sovereign leader, after arming insurgent forces, who murdered him for the cameras.

The invasion was supposed to be on humanitarian grounds. Remember?
izzythepush
 
  5  
Fri 5 Aug, 2016 03:14 am
@Builder,
Builder wrote:
The invasion was supposed to be on humanitarian grounds. Remember?


What invasion? When did American forces invade Libya? I missed that.
izzythepush
 
  4  
Fri 5 Aug, 2016 03:19 am
@blatham,
Interesting how the same voices so loud about Benghazi are so quiet about Bush's criminality.

Quote:
The Plame affair (also known as the CIA leak scandal and Plamegate) was a political scandal that revolved around journalist Robert Novak's public identification of Valerie Plame as a covert Central Intelligence Agency officer in 2003.

In 2002, Plame wrote a memo to her superiors in which she expressed hesitation in recommending her husband, former diplomat Joseph C. Wilson, to the CIA for a mission to Niger to investigate claims that Iraq had arranged to purchase and import uranium from the country, but stated that he "may be in a position to assist". After President George W. Bush stated that "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" during the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Wilson published a July 2003 op-ed in The New York Times stating his doubts during the mission that any such transaction had taken place.

A week after Wilson's op-ed was published, Novak published a column which mentioned claims from "two senior administration officials" that Plame had been the one to suggest sending her husband. Novak had learned of Plame's employment, which was classified information, from State Department official Richard Armitage. David Corn and others suggested that Armitage and other officials had leaked the information as political retribution for Wilson's article.

The scandal led to a criminal investigation; no one was charged for the leak itself. Scooter Libby was convicted of lying to investigators. His prison sentence was ultimately commuted by President Bush.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair
Builder
 
  -2  
Fri 5 Aug, 2016 04:22 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
What invasion? When did American forces invade Libya? I missed that.


Yep! Never happened.
izzythepush
 
  4  
Fri 5 Aug, 2016 04:28 am
@Builder,
People would take you more seriously if you stuck to the facts instead of unsubstantiated rumour. You're starting to sound a bit like David Icke.
Builder
 
  -3  
Fri 5 Aug, 2016 04:37 am
@izzythepush,
Oh, right. I'm the second coming of the Lord now?

Libya got invaded. Their much-loved leader, was murdered. Which part of this is under any doubt for you, Izzy? The murder was televised. The country is now in the shitter, like Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Are we seeing a pattern now? Or would you like me to draw you some pictures, buddy? And if you think I'm after cred from the regular crew who haunt these halls, you're way off the mark, mate.

Here it is again, in case you missed it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmIRYvJQeHM
izzythepush
 
  5  
Fri 5 Aug, 2016 04:58 am
@Builder,
Libya was not invaded. That is a lie. You can draw an many pictures as you like, I'm told it's very therapeutic for people will mental health issues, but it won't change the facts.

Libya is in a much better place than Syria with a legitimate government recognised by the UN. It does have problems with returning Jihadis, (a lot of whom were financed by Reagan to fight the Soviet occupation,) but it's a far cry from Syria.

If, as you nonsensically claim, Gaddaffi was killed by American mercenaries one would expect them to have taken trophies, but the biggest trophy of all, his gun, is still in Libya.

Quote:
Finally, I get hold of a phone number for Mohammed Elbibi and he agrees to meet me in his home in the centre of the city.

We sit down and I show him the picture of himself with the golden gun.

"I remember," he smiles. "I was 17 years old!"

He tells me he had nothing to do with the lynching of Gaddafi. He simply found the colonel's gun lying on the ground near the place where he was caught. But, in the confusion of the moment, and seeing him with the gun, the other rebels thought it was Mohammed who had killed him. He became the accidental hero of the revolution.

"What about the gun?" I ask him. It turns out he still has it. He shows it to me - it's a 9mm Browning handgun, gold-plated and decorated with an elaborate floral pattern.

It appears to have been a gift - Mohammed believes from one of Gaddafi's sons - on the occasion of the 32nd anniversary of the revolution that brought him to power. Almost exactly 10 years later, pictures of Mohammed Elbibi brandishing that same pistol would signal the final end to the Gaddafi era.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35466077
izzythepush
 
  2  
Fri 5 Aug, 2016 05:00 am
@Builder,
Builder wrote:

Oh, right. I'm the second coming of the Lord now?


That's not how most people view David Icke.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Fri 5 Aug, 2016 05:19 am
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
Nine investigations about Benghazi puts the matter to rest.

Not really. The Democrats always obstruct in order to cover up Hillary's wrongdoing. We've yet to have an unobstructed investigation.


Blickers wrote:
As for the "silent" mother, mind your own business.

No. I will not stop opposing Islamic crimes and abuses no matter how mush the Left wants to allow such things to continue.


Blickers wrote:
Are you criticizing the Khans for exhibiting behavior that conservative Christians routinely exhibit? How attitudes change when the conservative word is put out to put the social media "hit" on people-criticizing them for behavior that conservatives do themselves. Such hypocrisy on the Right.

Xians don't tend to engage in things like honor killing, stoning people to death for switching religion, terrorism, shooting little girls for trying to learn how to read, etc.

Rarely a Xian will murder an abortion doctor, but this is far from common.

But to answer your question, no. I'm not the one criticizing the behavior of the loudmouth Muslim family. Mr. Trump was the one doing that.

What I am doing is:
a) correcting Democratic mischaracterizations of what Mr. Trump said, and
b) taking note of Democratic hypocrisy, as Hillary has made unconscionable attacks against the mother of a slain diplomat, and for the Left to throw a fit over Mr. Trump's mild comments while simultaneously having no problems with Hillary's horrid comments is breathtaking hypocrisy.
Builder
 
  -3  
Fri 5 Aug, 2016 05:20 am
@izzythepush,
So Clinton was talking about her cat, I suppose?

You're about as convincing as Blinkers on this topic.

oralloy
 
  -2  
Fri 5 Aug, 2016 05:21 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:
Sheesh. More Benghazi? After how many investigations? Nine, is it?
This isn't about Benghazi at all. We do see that, most of us, don't we? No more than Whitewater was really about Whitewater

Liberals will say anything to justify wrongdoing by other liberals.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Fri 5 Aug, 2016 05:22 am
@revelette2,
revelette2 wrote:
I agree completely, enough with Benghazi.

If liberals do not want to be criticized for their wrongdoing, perhaps they should not engage in wrongdoing.


revelette2 wrote:
How many diplomats were attacked on Bush's watch and we democrats didn't go on about it forever and a day.

There was no Republican wrongdoing involved, and no attempt to cover anything up.


revelette2 wrote:
Republicans bring up distractions because seemingly they have nothing else.

The reason this came back up is because Hillary made an unconscionable public attack against the mother of a slain diplomat. And now the Democrats are throwing a big tantrum because Mr. Trump mildly defended himself from an unreasonable attack from the father of a slain soldier.

Hypocrisy that breathtaking is bound to be pointed out in political discussions.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  3  
Fri 5 Aug, 2016 05:36 am
@Builder,
And you're a conspiracy nut who only helps support the right wing. There's plenty of legitimate reasons to criticise America's ME adventurism. Yet when absurd conspiracy nonsense is trotted out, like the twin towers collapsing because of a controlled explosion, you damage the legitimate criticism, and allow it to be parcelled up with nutjob conspiracy theories.

People could be forgiven for thinking you're a Trump supporter because of all the succour you've given him. I think the reason is far more straightforward you're an attention seeking delusional muppet. Just don't expect anyone not suffering from delusions and unwarranted feelings of grandiosity to take you seriously.
blatham
 
  3  
Fri 5 Aug, 2016 05:37 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
Interesting how the same voices so loud about Benghazi are so quiet about Bush's criminality.

I had noticed that, yes.

izzythepush
 
  5  
Fri 5 Aug, 2016 05:39 am
@blatham,
I honestly believe that if Trump sacrificed a baby to Satan the religious right would still support him. "He may be a baby sacrificing Satanist, but he's not a Muslim and he's white."!
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  3  
Fri 5 Aug, 2016 05:45 am
@Builder,
BULLSHIT.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  4  
Fri 5 Aug, 2016 05:52 am
I'm going to make an argument again.

Getting into and continuing arguments with some of the folks here on Benghazi or Libya or the corruption of the Obama Justice Department or whatever isn't merely a waste of time (usually), it's actually worse than that. David Ignatius has an important post up today on this...
Quote:
Basically, the studies show that attempts to refute false information often backfire and lead people to hold on to their misperceptions even more strongly.
http://wapo.st/2aNxDBx

This is so. Cognitive science has done a lot of research on this and the findings are robust. A very good resource here is Drew Westen's "The Political Brain" (you can get a used copy for under $3 via Amazon - I'm not selling mine as Drew signed it in New York). It is, I confess, a depressing finding but it is consistent in the research. This is a human propensity though there is variation individual to individual. But for the most part, when we set to this sort of arguing, we only lead that other person into holding even more firmly to the belief. Not to mention we continue to help keep the silliness alive by discussing it, as Ignatius notes.

0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  -2  
Fri 5 Aug, 2016 06:11 am
@Blickers,
When will you come to the realization that Clinton is a LIAR. She lied to these families, she lied about her e-mails, her husband is a liar. It is in her genes to lie. Her whole political life is based on lies and fraud.
She likely will win and become the Puppet in Chief with her strings pulled by those who propped her up to be in this position. She certainly, based upon her poor performance as Senator and Sec of State, does not deserve the position.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

The Pro Hillary Thread - Discussion by snood
get this woman out of my view/politics - Discussion by ossobuco
Hillary Clinton hospitalized - Discussion by jcboy
Has Hillary's Time Come? - Discussion by Phoenix32890
I WANT HILLARY TO RUN IN 2012 - Discussion by farmerman
Hillary's The Secretary Of State..It's Official - Discussion by Bi-Polar Bear
Hillary the "JOKESTER"?? - Discussion by woiyo
Hillary Rebuked by Iraqi Leader - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 01/17/2025 at 07:36:15