Hillary Clinton

Dennis_Seelbach said:

BCC said:

You are beginning to sound unhinged.

You have had 2 people who know me far
better than you do – one telling you, you are flat out wrong and
the other, without intending to, give you a reason why.

No one who is in the Trump camp would
say 'he talks out of both sides of his mouth' – or do you not know
that isn't a compliment. They would not say both he and Hillary are
FOS or that, barring some unexpected event, I would not vote for
either one, as I have said on a number of occasions . Or do you think
those are also compliments?

In the plain and simple language you
prefer. – you are FOS.

I will leave at that before you have
apoplexy.

And in that same plain and simple language, you are a LIAR. No apoplexy here, just clear vision.

Yep, have nothing but insults, no facts, and so you have finally gone around the bend.

I won't bother you any further but you should seek help.

ridski said:

Unhinged, by BCC.

ridski said:

bramzzoinks said:

Bored this morning?

If I were truly bored I'd have changed the title author and blurb on the poster, too, but I don't have my DIN Mittelschrift package here anymore. 

dave said:

DIN Mittelschrift Alt or Neu? 

You have all lost me. I did not go to the same high school as Mr. Casotto

Google would help and make you as smart as if you had gone to the top high school.

ridski said:

Unhinged, by BCC.

.

ml1 said:

ridski said:

Unhinged, by BCC.

.

Outstanding, ml1.

you can never go wrong with roosters playing baseball

PVW said:

Robert_Casotto said:

What does NATO stand for?




And what's a Treaty?




And if one party doesn't satisfy their obligations under a Treaty?




There you go.

The spending targets aren't part of the treaty. Collective defense of all members if one member is attacked is. Acting as Trump suggests would violate our obligations under the treaty. 

As you say, "There you go."

Wonderful.  Then I suppose we can summarily stop our military spend in support of the NATO Treaty as well.    There you go.  

I remember learning about NATO in high school.

Robert_Casotto said:

Wonderful.  Then I suppose we can summarily stop our military spend in support of the NATO Treaty as well.    There you go.  

You might want to document our NATO spend.  Because unless you believe that leaving NATO means that we would cut a couple of heavy divisions from the Army, I really don't think we would end up spending much less.

Robert_Casotto said:

PVW said:

Robert_Casotto said:

What does NATO stand for?




And what's a Treaty?




And if one party doesn't satisfy their obligations under a Treaty?




There you go.

The spending targets aren't part of the treaty. Collective defense of all members if one member is attacked is. Acting as Trump suggests would violate our obligations under the treaty. 

As you say, "There you go."

Wonderful.  Then I suppose we can summarily stop our military spend in support of the NATO Treaty as well.    There you go.  

Were we to do so, the other member states would remain treaty obligated to come to our defense. It's a defense treaty, not a spending one.

When someone asks if the US will honor its obligations, the correct answer is "yes," not "maybe."

PVW said:

Robert_Casotto said:

PVW said:

Robert_Casotto said:

What does NATO stand for?




And what's a Treaty?




And if one party doesn't satisfy their obligations under a Treaty?




There you go.

The spending targets aren't part of the treaty. Collective defense of all members if one member is attacked is. Acting as Trump suggests would violate our obligations under the treaty. 

As you say, "There you go."

Wonderful.  Then I suppose we can summarily stop our military spend in support of the NATO Treaty as well.    There you go.  

Were we to do so, the other member states would remain treaty obligated to come to our defense. It's a defense treaty, not a spending one.

When someone asks if the US will honor its obligations, the correct answer is "yes," not "maybe."

And how do they do that when so many have not lived up to their obligations under Article 3. Without the spending there is no defense.

The Secretary General has voiced his worries and in the past so have Bernie and Bill Gates.

This thread is about Hillary, not NATO, take it somewhere else.

Here's an example of how the press is relentless in their pursuit of unjustified criticism of Hillary. It's trivial, but it ain't. It's because of stuff like this that the prevailing wisdom about Hillary is that she's a liar.

Gail Collins recently wrote an op-ed about Hillary in which she recounted the story about Hillary saying she was a childhood fan of the Yankees, even though she grew up outside Chicago. Collins's (false) "context" was that when Hillary said this, she was lying to curry favor with NY voters in the run-up to her first Senate bid.

Many people are aware of the Yankees story. Especially in the press, where it gets brought up regularly as an example of her "problem" with the truth. Need I say that Collins's column appears on the most powerful piece of political real estate on the planet?

Problem is, all available evidence shows that Hillary's story is true. Hillary said she was a Yankees fan back in 1994.

http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2016/07/how-we-got-here-fury-concerning-yankees.html

drummerboy said:

This thread is about Hillary, not NATO, take it somewhere else.

Here's an example of how the press is relentless in their pursuit of unjustified criticism of Hillary. It's trivial, but it ain't. It's because of stuff like this that the prevailing wisdom about Hillary is that she's a liar.


Gail Collins recently wrote an op-ed about Hillary in which she recounted the story about Hillary saying she was a childhood fan of the Yankees, even though she grew up outside Chicago. Collins's (false) "context" was that when Hillary said this, she was lying to curry favor with NY voters in the run-up to her first Senate bid.

Many people are aware of the Yankees story. Especially in the press, where it gets brought up regularly as an example of her "problem" with the truth. Need I say that Collins's column appears on the most powerful piece of political real estate on the planet?

Problem is, all available evidence shows that Hillary's story is true. Hillary said she was a Yankees fan back in 1994.

http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2016/07/how-we-got-here-fury-concerning-yankees.html

It's because of stuff like this that the prevailing wisdom about Hillary is that she's a liar.

The Intel IG called her a liar and the Director of the FBI called her a liar over, and over, and over again.

The laws of fandom bend for no one. Whether the allegiance dates to 1994 or 1954, anyone who chooses to root for the Yankees exhibits a moral, if venial, defect. I took that, not the timing, to be Gail Collins's point.

That is true.

Speaking of fandom.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/17156415/dallas-cowboys-face-stiff-fine-having-three-suspended-players

DaveSchmidt said:

The laws of fandom bend for no one. Whether the allegiance dates to 1994 or 1954, anyone who chooses to root for the Yankees exhibits a moral, if venial, defect. I took that, not the timing, to be Gail Collins's point.

How hapless and low in the standings do my Yanks have to get before we show them some kindness?   

BCC said:

drummerboy said:

This thread is about Hillary, not NATO, take it somewhere else.

Here's an example of how the press is relentless in their pursuit of unjustified criticism of Hillary. It's trivial, but it ain't. It's because of stuff like this that the prevailing wisdom about Hillary is that she's a liar.


Gail Collins recently wrote an op-ed about Hillary in which she recounted the story about Hillary saying she was a childhood fan of the Yankees, even though she grew up outside Chicago. Collins's (false) "context" was that when Hillary said this, she was lying to curry favor with NY voters in the run-up to her first Senate bid.

Many people are aware of the Yankees story. Especially in the press, where it gets brought up regularly as an example of her "problem" with the truth. Need I say that Collins's column appears on the most powerful piece of political real estate on the planet?

Problem is, all available evidence shows that Hillary's story is true. Hillary said she was a Yankees fan back in 1994.

http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2016/07/how-we-got-here-fury-concerning-yankees.html

It's because of stuff like this that the prevailing wisdom about Hillary is that she's a liar.

The Intel IG called her a liar and the Director of the FBI called her a liar over, and over, and over again.

really? and why did people think that well before the email fiasco?

eta: sigh, I'm going to be sorry for this.

And what proof did Comey offer up about Hillary's lying, lying ways?

Because she was dead broke when she left the White House with her immigrant grandparents and Sir Edmund Hillary in a Chinook helicopter under heavy sniper fire after being turned down by the Marines and blaming it all on a video.

Here's a fun chart.

An "independent fact-checking website".  

Robert Mann - 

Political life[edit]

An active Democrat,[5] Mann joined the staff of U.S. Senator Russell B. Long of Louisiana late in Long's lengthy tenure in office. He continued as press secretary (and later as state director) under Long's successor, John Breaux, another Democrat. In 1990, he was press secretary for the final reelection of U.S. Senator J. Bennett Johnston, Jr., who defeated the former Ku Klux Klansman David Duke, then a member of the Louisiana House of Representatives. In 2003, Mann was communications director for Kathleen Babineaux Blanco, the Lafayette Democrat and lieutenant governor who defeated Republican Bobby Jindal for governor of Louisiana but bowed out after one term, only to be succeeded in 2008 by Jindal.[3]
Mann continued to work in the Blanco administration until 2006, when he joined LSU, from which forum he writes and speaks extensively on political topics.  He is highly critical of the Jindal administration, having in 2013 criticized the governor's position on health care and education. He also scolds Louisiana's Republican U.S. Senator David Vitter.[8]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/staff/

GL2 said:

How hapless and low in the standings do my Yanks have to get before we show them some kindness?  "> 

Can you say Horace Clarke?

My hunch has been that you and, say, hankzona were more or less born into your condition. That's a little different.

drummerboy said:

BCC said:

drummerboy said:

This thread is about Hillary, not NATO, take it somewhere else.

Here's an example of how the press is relentless in their pursuit of unjustified criticism of Hillary. It's trivial, but it ain't. It's because of stuff like this that the prevailing wisdom about Hillary is that she's a liar.


Gail Collins recently wrote an op-ed about Hillary in which she recounted the story about Hillary saying she was a childhood fan of the Yankees, even though she grew up outside Chicago. Collins's (false) "context" was that when Hillary said this, she was lying to curry favor with NY voters in the run-up to her first Senate bid.

Many people are aware of the Yankees story. Especially in the press, where it gets brought up regularly as an example of her "problem" with the truth. Need I say that Collins's column appears on the most powerful piece of political real estate on the planet?

Problem is, all available evidence shows that Hillary's story is true. Hillary said she was a Yankees fan back in 1994.

http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2016/07/how-we-got-here-fury-concerning-yankees.html

It's because of stuff like this that the prevailing wisdom about Hillary is that she's a liar.

The Intel IG called her a liar and the Director of the FBI called her a liar over, and over, and over again.

really? and why did people think that well before the email fiasco?




eta: sigh, I'm going to be sorry for this.

And what proof did Comey offer up about Hillary's lying, lying ways?

You have a droll sense of humor, ignoring the fact that the FBI had just finished a year long investigation of Hillary.

You should be sorry, coming up with such a ridiculous response. How can anyone take you seriously when you post such drivel when you can't come up with an answer.

dave23 said:

Here's a fun chart.

I don't think there is anyone posting here who denies Trump is a world class liar. 

Is this chart meant to absolve Hillary from lying for more than a year about her e-mails and all the baggage that goes with that, and do you also want to know what proof Comey came up with?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/james-comey-testimony/2016/07/clinton-untrue-statements-fbi-comey-225216

BCC said:

dave23 said:

Here's a fun chart.

Is this chart meant to absolve Hillary from lying for more than a year about her e-mails and all the baggage that goes with that, and do you also want to know what proof Comey came up with?

I haven't the slightest idea how reached that conclusion.

The fact of the matter is they all lie both overtly and by misleading both on purpose and by normal circumstances  that turn out to be lying after the fact due to compromise.

It's part of the political process.   The important thing is what gets done, not what gets said   

hoops said:

The fact of the matter is they all lie both overtly and by misleading both on purpose and by normal circumstances  that turn out to be lying after the fact due to compromise.

It's part of the political process.   The important thing is what gets done, not what gets said   

I sort of like my politicians to tell me the truth.  We can deal from there

unlike you, I don't believe Comey brought us some sacred writ from a holy mountain. His press conference was a horribly poor decision. Unprecedented, in fact.  He was allowed to present his own personal opinion as if it were fact and without cross examination.

Anyway, tell me the major lie that you think Comey caught her in.

BCC said:

drummerboy said:

BCC said:

drummerboy said:

This thread is about Hillary, not NATO, take it somewhere else.

Here's an example of how the press is relentless in their pursuit of unjustified criticism of Hillary. It's trivial, but it ain't. It's because of stuff like this that the prevailing wisdom about Hillary is that she's a liar.


Gail Collins recently wrote an op-ed about Hillary in which she recounted the story about Hillary saying she was a childhood fan of the Yankees, even though she grew up outside Chicago. Collins's (false) "context" was that when Hillary said this, she was lying to curry favor with NY voters in the run-up to her first Senate bid.

Many people are aware of the Yankees story. Especially in the press, where it gets brought up regularly as an example of her "problem" with the truth. Need I say that Collins's column appears on the most powerful piece of political real estate on the planet?

Problem is, all available evidence shows that Hillary's story is true. Hillary said she was a Yankees fan back in 1994.

http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2016/07/how-we-got-here-fury-concerning-yankees.html

It's because of stuff like this that the prevailing wisdom about Hillary is that she's a liar.

The Intel IG called her a liar and the Director of the FBI called her a liar over, and over, and over again.

really? and why did people think that well before the email fiasco?




eta: sigh, I'm going to be sorry for this.

And what proof did Comey offer up about Hillary's lying, lying ways?

You have a droll sense of humor, ignoring the fact that the FBI had just finished a year long investigation of Hillary.

You should be sorry, coming up with such a ridiculous response. How can anyone take you seriously when you post such drivel when you can't come up with an answer.