Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Just 1 little provable fact tying Clinton to anything bad that might have happened there is too much to ask for?
The provable fact is that he was on speed dial from Epstein's estate and had been for years, that he had made multiple trips to the island, that he had flown many many times on Epstein's jets. And his history strongly suggests that he would take advantage of sexual encounters with young women given opportunity to do so. Is there proof he did take such advantage on Epstein's island? No there is not at this time. But is there reason to believe he would have taken advantage given opportunity to do so? Absolutely. He broke off contact with Epstein only after Epstein was formally arrested for sex crimes making him a strong political liability.
Yes other powerful figures like Dershowitz and Trump have also been named as friends of Epstein, but their histories do not include multiple sexual improprieties as is the case with Clinton. Therefore there is far less reason to suspect them of sexual misconduct than there is to suspect Clinton who we KNOW has a history of that, both alleged and proven.
And no, it is not too much to ask that however much a person deserves to be hung, that we hang them for a crime they actually commit.
Can you say in all honesty say that if it was a prominent Republican with a history of improper womanizing who had been named as a frequent visitor to Epstein's island, that you would be demanding proof of wrong doing before you accused him? Or that it would not matter to you if a presidential candidate had a close association with such person?
Yes. I can say that. I might have a suspicion, but that is far from the crazy accusations made here. Bottom line, it isn't about him anyway. It's about the right desperately searching for anything they can think of to smear Hillary. Do you honestly think this will work? Of course the hard core teabaggers will tie it to her, they always do, but do you see that happening to anyone who is sane?
As long as Hillary uses Bill for his fund raising ability and for other political clout, and as long as they are married which will give Bill access to the White House and the most innermost workings of government again, Bill's conduct is a issue. Or it certainly should be.
And before you try to make it an issue of "teabaggers', can you honestly say that if a Republican candidate's wife or husband was involved in sex crimes whether documented or alleged or really suspicious, that it would not matter to you? That you would not make an issue of it? That you would be looking for a way to dismiss suspicions against that spouse? That you would be trying to make it look like it did not matter to that candidate's qualifications and credibility to be POTUS?
Well, I guess that's the republican strategy, but they have long been nothing more than the little boy who cried wolf. What are they going to do, say "Yes we lied before, but it's true this time"? What am I thinking, they are crazy right wingers, of course they will say something similar to that. Yes it will be an issue for people who would never vote for her to start with, but I don't see it having much effect on anyone else.
Translation: deflection, nonsequitur, ad hominem. But I will give you props for not flat out lying that you would not be bashing a Republican in similar circumstances for all the mileage you could get out of it.
The point I am making is that NONE of us--Democrat or Republican--should be setting the bar so low for what we expect of our elected representatives. Just having a D or R after a name is NOT sufficient reason to believe he or she is qualified or well suited to be in high office.
And, the point I am making is that a person's track record and reputation is ALL we have to go on to evaluate whether a person is qualified and well suited to be in high office. All Americans should set the bar very high for those we put in power and authority over us all. Electing Hillary and, by association, Bill to high office is setting the bar very low indeed.
Sadly, you have no interest in knowing if it is true.If you "owned" the place....would you invite someone like Bill Clinton if he did not know of what was going on there?You gave up on the Clinton thing huh?
Yeah, pretty much. I realize he's a NWO Globalist Elite bastard who will not be held accountable. I fully expect the Elite-controlled American Government/Corporate Media to quickly sweep this one under the carpet. They have to protect their own. These girls lives mean nothing to them. They're mere slaves to be used & abused. Sadly, it is what it is.
Of course it's tragic for young girls to have to suffer through that, but what has that got to do with your dumb ass claim that Clinton did it?
Let it go. When you come up with something besides wild accusations, let me know.
Lets look at the evidence we know as fact:
1) The place he stayed had teen sex slaves
2) Clinton has been know to have trouble keeping it in his pants
3) Clinton refused to admit about his sexcapades, and was willing to lie to congress about it
Now, with that circumstantial evidence, only a fucking moron would not say "dam, they should look into this"....
And a person a fucking moron would refer to as a fucking moron would say "I aint see no evidence, so they are wild accusations".
Making you a fucking moron in the eyes of a fucking moron.
That ship sailed back in 2008.Just 1 little provable fact tying Clinton to anything bad that might have happened there is too much to ask for?
The provable fact is that he was on speed dial from Epstein's estate and had been for years, that he had made multiple trips to the island, that he had flown many many times on Epstein's jets. And his history strongly suggests that he would take advantage of sexual encounters with young women given opportunity to do so. Is there proof he did take such advantage on Epstein's island? No there is not at this time. But is there reason to believe he would have taken advantage given opportunity to do so? Absolutely. He broke off contact with Epstein only after Epstein was formally arrested for sex crimes making him a strong political liability.
Yes other powerful figures like Dershowitz and Trump have also been named as friends of Epstein, but their histories do not include multiple sexual improprieties as is the case with Clinton. Therefore there is far less reason to suspect them of sexual misconduct than there is to suspect Clinton who we KNOW has a history of that, both alleged and proven.
And no, it is not too much to ask that however much a person deserves to be hung, that we hang them for a crime they actually commit.
Can you say in all honesty say that if it was a prominent Republican with a history of improper womanizing who had been named as a frequent visitor to Epstein's island, that you would be demanding proof of wrong doing before you accused him? Or that it would not matter to you if a presidential candidate had a close association with such person?
Yes. I can say that. I might have a suspicion, but that is far from the crazy accusations made here. Bottom line, it isn't about him anyway. It's about the right desperately searching for anything they can think of to smear Hillary. Do you honestly think this will work? Of course the hard core teabaggers will tie it to her, they always do, but do you see that happening to anyone who is sane?
As long as Hillary uses Bill for his fund raising ability and for other political clout, and as long as they are married which will give Bill access to the White House and the most innermost workings of government again, Bill's conduct is a issue. Or it certainly should be.
And before you try to make it an issue of "teabaggers', can you honestly say that if a Republican candidate's wife or husband was involved in sex crimes whether documented or alleged or really suspicious, that it would not matter to you? That you would not make an issue of it? That you would be looking for a way to dismiss suspicions against that spouse? That you would be trying to make it look like it did not matter to that candidate's qualifications and credibility to be POTUS?
Well, I guess that's the republican strategy, but they have long been nothing more than the little boy who cried wolf. What are they going to do, say "Yes we lied before, but it's true this time"? What am I thinking, they are crazy right wingers, of course they will say something similar to that. Yes it will be an issue for people who would never vote for her to start with, but I don't see it having much effect on anyone else.
Translation: deflection, nonsequitur, ad hominem. But I will give you props for not flat out lying that you would not be bashing a Republican in similar circumstances for all the mileage you could get out of it.
The point I am making is that NONE of us--Democrat or Republican--should be setting the bar so low for what we expect of our elected representatives. Just having a D or R after a name is NOT sufficient reason to believe he or she is qualified or well suited to be in high office.
And, the point I am making is that a person's track record and reputation is ALL we have to go on to evaluate whether a person is qualified and well suited to be in high office. All Americans should set the bar very high for those we put in power and authority over us all. Electing Hillary and, by association, Bill to high office is setting the bar very low indeed.
Clinton invented defending sleazy behavior.lol. OK.And her Teabagged Dem rivals will respond that it is similar to the Lewinsky thing. Of course they will be more eloquent than that, but that is what they will mean.Are you really so naive as to think Lizzy or Big Joe might not mention it in the Dem debates? Do you really think if Hillary is constantly denying rumors (true or not) it won't play into the game?
I'm thinking the Clintons will have to come up with some kind of response to this, and quick. My guess is that it will be flat out denial.
Of course it will be there. As long as there are teabaggers, there will be crap like this. I expect her, if she says anything at all, to say it's just more stupid manufactured crap, similar to the birther thing. Of course she will be more eloquent when she says it, but that's what she will mean.
I don't put any politicians on a high moral scale, but I don't see something that sleazy coming from any legitimate Democrat. That's more of a republican thing.
And I bet he gives himself more credit for being honest and fair than he does those evil 'teabaggers'.
But I guess anybody who really thinks Bill Clinton or any Democrats are incapable of sleazy behavior will probably believe anything so long as it makes a Democrat look good.
and that is why you have zero credibility with anyone you debate with.And her Teabagged Dem rivals will respond that it is similar to the Lewinsky thing. Of course they will be more eloquent than that, but that is what they will mean.Are you really so naive as to think Lizzy or Big Joe might not mention it in the Dem debates? Do you really think if Hillary is constantly denying rumors (true or not) it won't play into the game?The provable fact is that he was on speed dial from Epstein's estate and had been for years, that he had made multiple trips to the island, that he had flown many many times on Epstein's jets. And his history strongly suggests that he would take advantage of sexual encounters with young women given opportunity to do so. Is there proof he did take such advantage on Epstein's island? No there is not at this time. But is there reason to believe he would have taken advantage given opportunity to do so? Absolutely. He broke off contact with Epstein only after Epstein was formally arrested for sex crimes making him a strong political liability.
Yes other powerful figures like Dershowitz and Trump have also been named as friends of Epstein, but their histories do not include multiple sexual improprieties as is the case with Clinton. Therefore there is far less reason to suspect them of sexual misconduct than there is to suspect Clinton who we KNOW has a history of that, both alleged and proven.
And no, it is not too much to ask that however much a person deserves to be hung, that we hang them for a crime they actually commit.
Can you say in all honesty say that if it was a prominent Republican with a history of improper womanizing who had been named as a frequent visitor to Epstein's island, that you would be demanding proof of wrong doing before you accused him? Or that it would not matter to you if a presidential candidate had a close association with such person?
Yes. I can say that. I might have a suspicion, but that is far from the crazy accusations made here. Bottom line, it isn't about him anyway. It's about the right desperately searching for anything they can think of to smear Hillary. Do you honestly think this will work? Of course the hard core teabaggers will tie it to her, they always do, but do you see that happening to anyone who is sane?
I'm thinking the Clintons will have to come up with some kind of response to this, and quick. My guess is that it will be flat out denial.
Of course it will be there. As long as there are teabaggers, there will be crap like this. I expect her, if she says anything at all, to say it's just more stupid manufactured crap, similar to the birther thing. Of course she will be more eloquent when she says it, but that's what she will mean.
I don't put any politicians on a high moral scale, but I don't see something that sleazy coming from any legitimate Democrat. That's more of a republican thing.
The provable fact is that he was on speed dial from Epstein's estate and had been for years, that he had made multiple trips to the island, that he had flown many many times on Epstein's jets. And his history strongly suggests that he would take advantage of sexual encounters with young women given opportunity to do so. Is there proof he did take such advantage on Epstein's island? No there is not at this time. But is there reason to believe he would have taken advantage given opportunity to do so? Absolutely. He broke off contact with Epstein only after Epstein was formally arrested for sex crimes making him a strong political liability.
Yes other powerful figures like Dershowitz and Trump have also been named as friends of Epstein, but their histories do not include multiple sexual improprieties as is the case with Clinton. Therefore there is far less reason to suspect them of sexual misconduct than there is to suspect Clinton who we KNOW has a history of that, both alleged and proven.
And no, it is not too much to ask that however much a person deserves to be hung, that we hang them for a crime they actually commit.
Can you say in all honesty say that if it was a prominent Republican with a history of improper womanizing who had been named as a frequent visitor to Epstein's island, that you would be demanding proof of wrong doing before you accused him? Or that it would not matter to you if a presidential candidate had a close association with such person?
Yes. I can say that. I might have a suspicion, but that is far from the crazy accusations made here. Bottom line, it isn't about him anyway. It's about the right desperately searching for anything they can think of to smear Hillary. Do you honestly think this will work? Of course the hard core teabaggers will tie it to her, they always do, but do you see that happening to anyone who is sane?
As long as Hillary uses Bill for his fund raising ability and for other political clout, and as long as they are married which will give Bill access to the White House and the most innermost workings of government again, Bill's conduct is a issue. Or it certainly should be.
And before you try to make it an issue of "teabaggers', can you honestly say that if a Republican candidate's wife or husband was involved in sex crimes whether documented or alleged or really suspicious, that it would not matter to you? That you would not make an issue of it? That you would be looking for a way to dismiss suspicions against that spouse? That you would be trying to make it look like it did not matter to that candidate's qualifications and credibility to be POTUS?
Well, I guess that's the republican strategy, but they have long been nothing more than the little boy who cried wolf. What are they going to do, say "Yes we lied before, but it's true this time"? What am I thinking, they are crazy right wingers, of course they will say something similar to that. Yes it will be an issue for people who would never vote for her to start with, but I don't see it having much effect on anyone else.
Translation: deflection, nonsequitur, ad hominem. But I will give you props for not flat out lying that you would not be bashing a Republican in similar circumstances for all the mileage you could get out of it.
The point I am making is that NONE of us--Democrat or Republican--should be setting the bar so low for what we expect of our elected representatives. Just having a D or R after a name is NOT sufficient reason to believe he or she is qualified or well suited to be in high office.
And, the point I am making is that a person's track record and reputation is ALL we have to go on to evaluate whether a person is qualified and well suited to be in high office. All Americans should set the bar very high for those we put in power and authority over us all. Electing Hillary and, by association, Bill to high office is setting the bar very low indeed.
Of course, most of what you say is absolutely right, but has nothing to do with the manufactured, unfounded accusations being hurled over this. Come back when you have some legitimate evidence, because until then, it's nothing more than more birther shit.
Clinton invented defending sleazy behavior.lol. OK.And her Teabagged Dem rivals will respond that it is similar to the Lewinsky thing. Of course they will be more eloquent than that, but that is what they will mean.Of course it will be there. As long as there are teabaggers, there will be crap like this. I expect her, if she says anything at all, to say it's just more stupid manufactured crap, similar to the birther thing. Of course she will be more eloquent when she says it, but that's what she will mean.
I don't put any politicians on a high moral scale, but I don't see something that sleazy coming from any legitimate Democrat. That's more of a republican thing.
And I bet he gives himself more credit for being honest and fair than he does those evil 'teabaggers'.
But I guess anybody who really thinks Bill Clinton or any Democrats are incapable of sleazy behavior will probably believe anything so long as it makes a Democrat look good.
But back to reality. The Clintons are fucking good, there's no denying. They have their tendrils on the pulse of America and you can bet that right now they're watching this, seeing if it festers. How much can be proved, the flight logs, who's talking, etc. They're coming up with a story of their own.
simply showing you what happens when someone opts to ignore circumstantial evidence and refer to it as "wild accusations".And you will believe it without question......just as you fell for the "lower premiums, keep your policy, keep your doctor" crap.Are you really so naive as to think Lizzy or Big Joe might not mention it in the Dem debates? Do you really think if Hillary is constantly denying rumors (true or not) it won't play into the game?The provable fact is that he was on speed dial from Epstein's estate and had been for years, that he had made multiple trips to the island, that he had flown many many times on Epstein's jets. And his history strongly suggests that he would take advantage of sexual encounters with young women given opportunity to do so. Is there proof he did take such advantage on Epstein's island? No there is not at this time. But is there reason to believe he would have taken advantage given opportunity to do so? Absolutely. He broke off contact with Epstein only after Epstein was formally arrested for sex crimes making him a strong political liability.
Yes other powerful figures like Dershowitz and Trump have also been named as friends of Epstein, but their histories do not include multiple sexual improprieties as is the case with Clinton. Therefore there is far less reason to suspect them of sexual misconduct than there is to suspect Clinton who we KNOW has a history of that, both alleged and proven.
And no, it is not too much to ask that however much a person deserves to be hung, that we hang them for a crime they actually commit.
Can you say in all honesty say that if it was a prominent Republican with a history of improper womanizing who had been named as a frequent visitor to Epstein's island, that you would be demanding proof of wrong doing before you accused him? Or that it would not matter to you if a presidential candidate had a close association with such person?
Yes. I can say that. I might have a suspicion, but that is far from the crazy accusations made here. Bottom line, it isn't about him anyway. It's about the right desperately searching for anything they can think of to smear Hillary. Do you honestly think this will work? Of course the hard core teabaggers will tie it to her, they always do, but do you see that happening to anyone who is sane?
I'm thinking the Clintons will have to come up with some kind of response to this, and quick. My guess is that it will be flat out denial.
Of course it will be there. As long as there are teabaggers, there will be crap like this. I expect her, if she says anything at all, to say it's just more stupid manufactured crap, similar to the birther thing. Of course she will be more eloquent when she says it, but that's what she will mean.
You people are so enamored by your idols, they can say anything they want to you and you will believe it....no matter HOW insane it sounds.
I mean...."we will insure 40 million more people and your premiums wont go up and it will be deficit neutral and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying.
And you believed it....
I mean.....really?
So you have no facts about your Clinton claims, so you want to jump to healthcare now?
and that is why you have zero credibility with anyone you debate with.And her Teabagged Dem rivals will respond that it is similar to the Lewinsky thing. Of course they will be more eloquent than that, but that is what they will mean.Are you really so naive as to think Lizzy or Big Joe might not mention it in the Dem debates? Do you really think if Hillary is constantly denying rumors (true or not) it won't play into the game?Yes. I can say that. I might have a suspicion, but that is far from the crazy accusations made here. Bottom line, it isn't about him anyway. It's about the right desperately searching for anything they can think of to smear Hillary. Do you honestly think this will work? Of course the hard core teabaggers will tie it to her, they always do, but do you see that happening to anyone who is sane?
I'm thinking the Clintons will have to come up with some kind of response to this, and quick. My guess is that it will be flat out denial.
Of course it will be there. As long as there are teabaggers, there will be crap like this. I expect her, if she says anything at all, to say it's just more stupid manufactured crap, similar to the birther thing. Of course she will be more eloquent when she says it, but that's what she will mean.
I don't put any politicians on a high moral scale, but I don't see something that sleazy coming from any legitimate Democrat. That's more of a republican thing.
You are one of those "R is bad and D is good" folks.
Which means you are no better than sheep.
Only from those that are either guilty or trying to mislead.Clinton invented defending sleazy behavior.lol. OK.And her Teabagged Dem rivals will respond that it is similar to the Lewinsky thing. Of course they will be more eloquent than that, but that is what they will mean.
I don't put any politicians on a high moral scale, but I don't see something that sleazy coming from any legitimate Democrat. That's more of a republican thing.
And I bet he gives himself more credit for being honest and fair than he does those evil 'teabaggers'.
But I guess anybody who really thinks Bill Clinton or any Democrats are incapable of sleazy behavior will probably believe anything so long as it makes a Democrat look good.
But back to reality. The Clintons are fucking good, there's no denying. They have their tendrils on the pulse of America and you can bet that right now they're watching this, seeing if it festers. How much can be proved, the flight logs, who's talking, etc. They're coming up with a story of their own.
Is that any different than you would expect from anyone?
Funny thing...I see it on both sides equally. Human nature is human nature. A party affiliation changes nothing. My first thought with Romney when Reid lied about the tax thing was..."I want to see that he paid taxes"....My first thought with Grimm was "get that guy out of congress"..and that is why you have zero credibility with anyone you debate with.And her Teabagged Dem rivals will respond that it is similar to the Lewinsky thing. Of course they will be more eloquent than that, but that is what they will mean.Are you really so naive as to think Lizzy or Big Joe might not mention it in the Dem debates? Do you really think if Hillary is constantly denying rumors (true or not) it won't play into the game?
I'm thinking the Clintons will have to come up with some kind of response to this, and quick. My guess is that it will be flat out denial.
Of course it will be there. As long as there are teabaggers, there will be crap like this. I expect her, if she says anything at all, to say it's just more stupid manufactured crap, similar to the birther thing. Of course she will be more eloquent when she says it, but that's what she will mean.
I don't put any politicians on a high moral scale, but I don't see something that sleazy coming from any legitimate Democrat. That's more of a republican thing.
You are one of those "R is bad and D is good" folks.
Which means you are no better than sheep.
I never said there wasn't sleaze on both sides, just that it's not as widespread and blatant on the left.
Clinton invented defending sleazy behavior.lol. OK.And her Teabagged Dem rivals will respond that it is similar to the Lewinsky thing. Of course they will be more eloquent than that, but that is what they will mean.Of course it will be there. As long as there are teabaggers, there will be crap like this. I expect her, if she says anything at all, to say it's just more stupid manufactured crap, similar to the birther thing. Of course she will be more eloquent when she says it, but that's what she will mean.
I don't put any politicians on a high moral scale, but I don't see something that sleazy coming from any legitimate Democrat. That's more of a republican thing.
And I bet he gives himself more credit for being honest and fair than he does those evil 'teabaggers'.
But I guess anybody who really thinks Bill Clinton or any Democrats are incapable of sleazy behavior will probably believe anything so long as it makes a Democrat look good.
But back to reality. The Clintons are fucking good, there's no denying. They have their tendrils on the pulse of America and you can bet that right now they're watching this, seeing if it festers. How much can be proved, the flight logs, who's talking, etc. They're coming up with a story of their own.
Yes. I can say that. I might have a suspicion, but that is far from the crazy accusations made here. Bottom line, it isn't about him anyway. It's about the right desperately searching for anything they can think of to smear Hillary. Do you honestly think this will work? Of course the hard core teabaggers will tie it to her, they always do, but do you see that happening to anyone who is sane?
As long as Hillary uses Bill for his fund raising ability and for other political clout, and as long as they are married which will give Bill access to the White House and the most innermost workings of government again, Bill's conduct is a issue. Or it certainly should be.
And before you try to make it an issue of "teabaggers', can you honestly say that if a Republican candidate's wife or husband was involved in sex crimes whether documented or alleged or really suspicious, that it would not matter to you? That you would not make an issue of it? That you would be looking for a way to dismiss suspicions against that spouse? That you would be trying to make it look like it did not matter to that candidate's qualifications and credibility to be POTUS?
Well, I guess that's the republican strategy, but they have long been nothing more than the little boy who cried wolf. What are they going to do, say "Yes we lied before, but it's true this time"? What am I thinking, they are crazy right wingers, of course they will say something similar to that. Yes it will be an issue for people who would never vote for her to start with, but I don't see it having much effect on anyone else.
Translation: deflection, nonsequitur, ad hominem. But I will give you props for not flat out lying that you would not be bashing a Republican in similar circumstances for all the mileage you could get out of it.
The point I am making is that NONE of us--Democrat or Republican--should be setting the bar so low for what we expect of our elected representatives. Just having a D or R after a name is NOT sufficient reason to believe he or she is qualified or well suited to be in high office.
And, the point I am making is that a person's track record and reputation is ALL we have to go on to evaluate whether a person is qualified and well suited to be in high office. All Americans should set the bar very high for those we put in power and authority over us all. Electing Hillary and, by association, Bill to high office is setting the bar very low indeed.
Of course, most of what you say is absolutely right, but has nothing to do with the manufactured, unfounded accusations being hurled over this. Come back when you have some legitimate evidence, because until then, it's nothing more than more birther shit.
The point is that the suspicions are not 'unfounded' as I have taken some time and made some effort to explain. But those who will justify ANYTHING done by a Democrat of course will not be impressed no matter how much 'evidence' is put out there.
How about I copy and save this post of yours to have at the ready the next time you decide to make a comment about a Republican who has been accused of something but for which there is no 'proof'. Will you demand as much from yourself in being objective and dismissing unfounded allegations as you seem to require of those of us who don't share your ideology?
in bold.....sound familiar?Clinton invented defending sleazy behavior.lol. OK.And her Teabagged Dem rivals will respond that it is similar to the Lewinsky thing. Of course they will be more eloquent than that, but that is what they will mean.
I don't put any politicians on a high moral scale, but I don't see something that sleazy coming from any legitimate Democrat. That's more of a republican thing.
And I bet he gives himself more credit for being honest and fair than he does those evil 'teabaggers'.
But I guess anybody who really thinks Bill Clinton or any Democrats are incapable of sleazy behavior will probably believe anything so long as it makes a Democrat look good.
But back to reality. The Clintons are fucking good, there's no denying. They have their tendrils on the pulse of America and you can bet that right now they're watching this, seeing if it festers. How much can be proved, the flight logs, who's talking, etc. They're coming up with a story of their own.
Oh for sure. Bill Clinton especially is a master politician plus he has a real asset in that he is generally mostly likable. And he does have some significant accomplishments on his resume along with the more sleazy, even criminal, element and less commendable efforts.
Hillary, on the other hand, cannot point to a single really noteworthy accomplishment in all her tenure as a congressional aid, as a member of the Rose Law Firm, as First Lady of Arkansas, as First Lady of the USA, as Senator of New York, or as Secretary of State. And except for her early congressional job, every single one of her jobs has been a result of her being married to Bill. She has zero other qualifications or accomplishments to show to merit any of all that but she has a whole bunch of untruths, failed efforts, and questionable associations and activities that are documented in the public record.
And even now, she has to have Bill in order to have any chance at all, which is why her supporters will do their damndest to bury the most recent unsavory revelations and relegate them to the 'past history so we can't talk about it now' category.
And she is the Democratic Party front runner for 2016. Talk about setting the bar low.
simply showing you what happens when someone opts to ignore circumstantial evidence and refer to it as "wild accusations".And you will believe it without question......just as you fell for the "lower premiums, keep your policy, keep your doctor" crap.Are you really so naive as to think Lizzy or Big Joe might not mention it in the Dem debates? Do you really think if Hillary is constantly denying rumors (true or not) it won't play into the game?Yes. I can say that. I might have a suspicion, but that is far from the crazy accusations made here. Bottom line, it isn't about him anyway. It's about the right desperately searching for anything they can think of to smear Hillary. Do you honestly think this will work? Of course the hard core teabaggers will tie it to her, they always do, but do you see that happening to anyone who is sane?
I'm thinking the Clintons will have to come up with some kind of response to this, and quick. My guess is that it will be flat out denial.
Of course it will be there. As long as there are teabaggers, there will be crap like this. I expect her, if she says anything at all, to say it's just more stupid manufactured crap, similar to the birther thing. Of course she will be more eloquent when she says it, but that's what she will mean.
You people are so enamored by your idols, they can say anything they want to you and you will believe it....no matter HOW insane it sounds.
I mean...."we will insure 40 million more people and your premiums wont go up and it will be deficit neutral and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying.
And you believed it....
I mean.....really?
So you have no facts about your Clinton claims, so you want to jump to healthcare now?
When it comes to politicians, NEVER ignore circumstantial evidence....for that is all we have to work with.
Of course, you were likely the first to say that the Furgeson officer was in the wrong, the Boston police acted stupidly, Tawana Brawley was raped by the Sheriff of her hometown, the Duke lacrosee players were guilty of gang rape, and Romney did not pay taxes for 10 years.
Like I said, you have zero credibility with those you debate with.
Clinton invented defending sleazy behavior.lol. OK.And her Teabagged Dem rivals will respond that it is similar to the Lewinsky thing. Of course they will be more eloquent than that, but that is what they will mean.Of course it will be there. As long as there are teabaggers, there will be crap like this. I expect her, if she says anything at all, to say it's just more stupid manufactured crap, similar to the birther thing. Of course she will be more eloquent when she says it, but that's what she will mean.
I don't put any politicians on a high moral scale, but I don't see something that sleazy coming from any legitimate Democrat. That's more of a republican thing.
And I bet he gives himself more credit for being honest and fair than he does those evil 'teabaggers'.
But I guess anybody who really thinks Bill Clinton or any Democrats are incapable of sleazy behavior will probably believe anything so long as it makes a Democrat look good.
But back to reality. The Clintons are fucking good, there's no denying. They have their tendrils on the pulse of America and you can bet that right now they're watching this, seeing if it festers. How much can be proved, the flight logs, who's talking, etc. They're coming up with a story of their own.
Nope. But let's not pretend that they are different than anyone. Especially anyone who had hopes of being president before all this went down.Clinton invented defending sleazy behavior.lol. OK.And her Teabagged Dem rivals will respond that it is similar to the Lewinsky thing. Of course they will be more eloquent than that, but that is what they will mean.
I don't put any politicians on a high moral scale, but I don't see something that sleazy coming from any legitimate Democrat. That's more of a republican thing.
And I bet he gives himself more credit for being honest and fair than he does those evil 'teabaggers'.
But I guess anybody who really thinks Bill Clinton or any Democrats are incapable of sleazy behavior will probably believe anything so long as it makes a Democrat look good.
But back to reality. The Clintons are fucking good, there's no denying. They have their tendrils on the pulse of America and you can bet that right now they're watching this, seeing if it festers. How much can be proved, the flight logs, who's talking, etc. They're coming up with a story of their own.
Is that any different than you would expect from anyone?
Clinton invented defending sleazy behavior.lol. OK.And her Teabagged Dem rivals will respond that it is similar to the Lewinsky thing. Of course they will be more eloquent than that, but that is what they will mean.
I don't put any politicians on a high moral scale, but I don't see something that sleazy coming from any legitimate Democrat. That's more of a republican thing.
And I bet he gives himself more credit for being honest and fair than he does those evil 'teabaggers'.
But I guess anybody who really thinks Bill Clinton or any Democrats are incapable of sleazy behavior will probably believe anything so long as it makes a Democrat look good.
But back to reality. The Clintons are fucking good, there's no denying. They have their tendrils on the pulse of America and you can bet that right now they're watching this, seeing if it festers. How much can be proved, the flight logs, who's talking, etc. They're coming up with a story of their own.
Oh for sure. Bill Clinton especially is a master politician plus he has a real asset in that he is generally mostly likable. And he does have some significant accomplishments on his resume along with the more sleazy, even criminal, element and less commendable efforts.
Hillary, on the other hand, cannot point to a single really noteworthy accomplishment in all her tenure as a congressional aid, as a member of the Rose Law Firm, as First Lady of Arkansas, as First Lady of the USA, as Senator of New York, or as Secretary of State. And except for her early congressional job, every single one of her jobs has been a result of her being married to Bill. She has zero other qualifications or accomplishments to show to merit any of all that but she has a whole bunch of untruths, failed efforts, and questionable associations and activities that are documented in the public record.
And even now, she has to have Bill in order to have any chance at all, which is why her supporters will do their damndest to bury the most recent unsavory revelations and relegate them to the 'past history so we can't talk about it now' category.
And she is the Democratic Party front runner for 2016. Talk about setting the bar low.
your posts. Nothing else is needed.simply showing you what happens when someone opts to ignore circumstantial evidence and refer to it as "wild accusations".And you will believe it without question......just as you fell for the "lower premiums, keep your policy, keep your doctor" crap.Are you really so naive as to think Lizzy or Big Joe might not mention it in the Dem debates? Do you really think if Hillary is constantly denying rumors (true or not) it won't play into the game?
I'm thinking the Clintons will have to come up with some kind of response to this, and quick. My guess is that it will be flat out denial.
Of course it will be there. As long as there are teabaggers, there will be crap like this. I expect her, if she says anything at all, to say it's just more stupid manufactured crap, similar to the birther thing. Of course she will be more eloquent when she says it, but that's what she will mean.
You people are so enamored by your idols, they can say anything they want to you and you will believe it....no matter HOW insane it sounds.
I mean...."we will insure 40 million more people and your premiums wont go up and it will be deficit neutral and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying.
And you believed it....
I mean.....really?
So you have no facts about your Clinton claims, so you want to jump to healthcare now?
When it comes to politicians, NEVER ignore circumstantial evidence....for that is all we have to work with.
Of course, you were likely the first to say that the Furgeson officer was in the wrong, the Boston police acted stupidly, Tawana Brawley was raped by the Sheriff of her hometown, the Duke lacrosee players were guilty of gang rape, and Romney did not pay taxes for 10 years.
Like I said, you have zero credibility with those you debate with.
You got something to back up your accusations against me, or is that just some more of your gut thinking?
Nope. But let's not pretend that they are different than anyone. Especially anyone who had hopes of being president before all this went down.Clinton invented defending sleazy behavior.lol. OK.I don't put any politicians on a high moral scale, but I don't see something that sleazy coming from any legitimate Democrat. That's more of a republican thing.
And I bet he gives himself more credit for being honest and fair than he does those evil 'teabaggers'.
But I guess anybody who really thinks Bill Clinton or any Democrats are incapable of sleazy behavior will probably believe anything so long as it makes a Democrat look good.
But back to reality. The Clintons are fucking good, there's no denying. They have their tendrils on the pulse of America and you can bet that right now they're watching this, seeing if it festers. How much can be proved, the flight logs, who's talking, etc. They're coming up with a story of their own.
Is that any different than you would expect from anyone?
