• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Crooked hillary

was she under oath?

Full Definition of perjury
: the voluntary violation of an oath or vow either by swearing to what is untrue or by omission to do what has been promised under oath : false swearing
 
Hillary lies, no doubt about it. I'll hold my nose and vote for her.

But please don't pretend that she isn't held to a higher standard than pretty much any candidate before her. Ever read about the Mormon network of access and favoritism that Romney took full advantage of as Utah governor? Bush's lies about Iraq prior to '04? Bush family ties to Saudis and other ME actors for decades?

No no, by all means, clinch your sphincters over Hillary's dealing with Bono etc while SOS. Its worth it
 
Republicans hate the Clinton's more than others because the Clintons beat them at their own game.
 
WakeandBake said:
Hillary lies, no doubt about it. I'll hold my nose and vote for her.

But please don't pretend that she isn't held to a higher standard than pretty much any candidate before her. Ever read about the Mormon network of access and favoritism that Romney took full advantage of as Utah governor? Bush's lies about Iraq prior to '04? Bush family ties to Saudis and other ME actors for decades?

No no, by all means, clinch your sphincters over Hillary's dealing with Bono etc while SOS. Its worth it
Click to expand...

You sound like somebody from the UNC athletic department.
 
Why would there be anything other than that answer? That's seemingly the conservative, excuse me, libertarian fallback for everything these days
 
sailordeac said:
You sound like somebody from the UNC athletic department.
Click to expand...

That's funny and I expected that, but Im just calling a spade a spade.

Instead of coming up with viable and useful solutions to problems - and developing a candidate to execute those solutions - her opponents have spend most of their time, money, and energy on investigating Hillary. It is not only killing their party, but America as a whole is worse off because of it. Look at their shitty platform, and shitty stable of candidates. Good gracious
 
PhDeac said:
Interesting "nothing to see here" take from Vox. Any response to this from knowell or sailor beyond "oh there's the liberal media again?"
http://www.vox.com/2016/8/24/12618446/ap-clinton-foundation-meeting
Click to expand...

If that works for you Ph, if that article licks the Clintons clean for you, then go with it. That's just you.

Neither the AP article or the Vox article by itself proves anything. In the context of the Clintons' history and circumstances, giving them the benefit of the doubt is just plain foolish. People who donate big money to politicians, do it to buy influence. Wealthy people didn't get wealthy, nor will they stay wealthy, by throwing huge sums of money at politicians without getting results. You yourself have admitted in the past just how sleezy the Clintons are. Sorry to see that you appear to be changing your mind.
 
sailordeac said:
If that works for you Ph, if that article licks the Clintons clean for you, then go with it. That's just you.

Neither the AP article or the Vox article by itself proves anything. In the context of the Clintons' history and circumstances, giving them the benefit of the doubt is just plain foolish. People who donate big money to politicians, do it to buy influence. Wealthy people didn't get wealthy, nor will they stay wealthy, by throwing huge sums of money at politicians without getting results. You yourself have admitted in the past just how sleezy the Clintons are. Sorry to see that you appear to be changing your mind.
Click to expand...

Damn. Even when I directly tell you you're going to say "oh there's the liberal media again" you don't provide a substantive response. You didn't even try. Respond to the article. Just respond.
 
PhDeac said:
Damn. Even when I directly tell you you're going to say "oh there's the liberal media again" you don't provide a substantive response. You didn't even try. Respond to the article. Just respond.
Click to expand...

who do you think you are, some sort of commander in chief? I'll say what I want to say, if you don't like it, that's your problem

do you think the article proves that the Clintons are clean?
 
WakeandBake said:
That's funny and I expected that, but Im just calling a spade a spade.

Instead of coming up with viable and useful solutions to problems - and developing a candidate to execute those solutions - her opponents have spend most of their time, money, and energy on investigating Hillary. It is not only killing their party, but America as a whole is worse off because of it. Look at their shitty platform, and shitty stable of candidates. Good gracious
Click to expand...

Pretty well said.
 
LOL. How do you "prove" anybody is clean? I think the article rebuts the misleading numbers by the AP and the outrage from conservatives. I haven't heard from conservatives exactly who a global charity should take donations from and who the State Department should be meeting.
 
I think we are long past the point of Sailor having anything useful to post. He is suffering from full-fledged Clinton Derangement Syndrome. Let him post his little articles and misunderstand what an ad hominem attack is (while using them himself) and just go about your day.
 
PhDeac said:
LOL. How do you "prove" anybody is clean? I think the article rebuts the misleading numbers by the AP and the outrage from conservatives. I haven't heard from conservatives exactly who a global charity should take donations from and who the State Department should be meeting.
Click to expand...

Rebuts? How? So, Clinton met with a couple of nice people, so what? There were lots of big time donors she apparently met with. I didn't see any rebuttal about them, nor were all of them Mother Teresa. And Soros' donations do buy influence; we have seen other evidence about that. The Vox article objects to concentrating on private donors. Why? Private donors can't be trying to influence the SOS? Why not? In fact, the SOS probably does not meet with anyone who is not trying to influence her. Those who donate get a pretty good chance to exert influence, others not so much. It's called influence peddling. And the Clintons have become pretty rich doing just that. There is nothing particularly difficult to understand here. The Hillshills' "nobody in here but us chickens" routine reminds everybody of UNC's defense of it's systematic cheating.
 
sailordeac said:
who do you think you are, some sort of commander in chief? I'll say what I want to say, if you don't like it, that's your problem

do you think the article proves that the Clintons are clean?
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. It does however prove that the tens of millions of dollars and countless man hours her opponents have appropriated to catching her being crooked haven't amounted to very much, and certainly haven't amounted to the mythological monster they have painted her as. Is she that good at getting away with criminal and/or unethical behavior? I mean some of her opponents have her murdering people to keep them quiet.
 
sailor, who should the Secretary of State meet with?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top