Many People truly HATE Hilary Clinton

ledvedderman

onelongsong wrote:

have you got a link to prove that?

I'm looking, and while I'm at it, do you have a link to prove that we did attack Afghanistan on 9/11.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/10/07/ret.attack.bush/index.html

4 weeks after 9/11...my mistake

onelongsong

ledvedderman wrote:

I'm looking, and while I'm at it, do you have a link to prove that we did attack Afghanistan on 9/11.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/10/07/ret.attack.bush/index.html

4 weeks after 9/11...my mistake

that link doesn't give a date. you usually don't tell someone you're going to hit them before you hit them.
i could be wrong. i'm only going by what a nephew told me who supposedly was there.

ledvedderman

Bush announces opening of attacks
October 7, 2001 Posted: 4:43 PM EDT (2043 GMT)

then again look at the video on the right, it once again says October 7

Danny Boy

onelongsong wrote:

clinton gave the biologicals to saddam. it was all over the news during the anthrax scare after 9/11 when scientists were trying to discover if the anthrax found was from the strain given to saddam. remember??? http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={524F0261-37CB-40C1-8291-014E1940EC27}

It isn't as if bin Laden didn't need the money. As journalist Richard Miniter pointed out in his book Losing Bin Laden, "the most compelling reason for bin Laden to work with Iraq was money." Al Qaeda officials have repeatedly whined, while under interrogation, that cash was always a problem. Saddam, on the other hand, had over $11 billion to play with, from skimming billions off the lucrative UN "Oil-for-Food" scam operation

This visit went well - very well. Saddam's intelligence service in essence cut a check directly to Zawahiri, for $300,000. American officials learned of this payout by "a senior member" of Iraqi intelligence. An administration official later told Stephen Hayes that the payout is so credible as to be undisputed: "It's a lock," the official said. U.S. News and World Report broke the story, and to date no one has ever come forward to question the reality of this payment. But what did the good terrorist doctor do with Saddam's cash?

allowing them to grow strong was the same as being in business with them.

Front Page Magazine is a conservative organization that staunchly supports war in the Middle East. If Saddam had been supplying Al Qaeda with that kind of dough, it would have been crammed down our throats by the Bush Administration as a rationale for invading Iraq. You should find more credible sources.

macgyver06

onelongsong wrote:

9/11 was in the works in the 90's. gore was suppose to be elected b/c he wouldn't have done anything about it. going through with it on bush's watch was a crap shoot.
bush did what clinton should have after the first WTC attack. we had planes bombing afganistan within hours of the 9/11 attacks. bush knew who was going to attack; just not when or where. congress would never have agreed to a premtive strike. so to please the american people; we waited until we were attacked first. if you want to blame someone; look in the mirror.

STAGGERINGLY MISINFORMED

soulsinging

onelongsong wrote:

have you got a link to prove that?

have you got a link to prove 9/11 was a sure bet if gore was elected but only a crapshoot when bush took office?

soulsinging

onelongsong wrote:

in the 90's i had a bumper sticker that said:
I DON'T LIKE THE PRESIDENT OR HER HUSBAND.

but you are right. she hasn't done anything. just like her husband. and the guy who spent 8 years second in command is now off his wagon. he picked an important cause and turned it into something people don't believe. just because he's a nutter. he started spewing wrong information so the public turned a deaf ear to him. the cowboy was the only logical choice. then he ran against a traitor so again; the cowboy was the only choice. with the democraatic choices we have this election; another cowboy will be our only logical choice again.

a traitor? how was john kerry a traitor? shitty candidate and a terrible potential-president, sure. but traitor?

soulsinging

onelongsong wrote:

that link doesn't give a date. you usually don't tell someone you're going to hit them before you hit them.
i could be wrong. i'm only going by what a nephew told me who supposedly was there.

ah, of course. your nephew who was there. like your dad whose gold was robbed. like your son with the meth problem. and the friend framed and sent to prison. your life is just one huge soap opera isn't it? never a single reputable and unbiased public source of information. it's always hearsay. "i know a guy who knew this other guy and they told him *insert bullshit here*"

ledvedderman

soulsinging wrote:

a traitor? how was john kerry a traitor? shitty candidate and a terrible potential-president, sure. but traitor?

amen

blackredyellow

onelongsong wrote:

the mass graves found in iraq and kuait where saddam used biologicals. he was given more than anthrax.

right... the ones from the uprising during Bush Sr.'s term? Seriously, what mass graves were found from thousands of deaths that happened during or after clinton's presidency with biological weapons?

onelongsong wrote:

that link doesn't give a date. you usually don't tell someone you're going to hit them before you hit them.
i could be wrong. i'm only going by what a nephew told me who supposedly was there.

You are so full of shit... you spew made up "facts" to support your arguments, but when you are called on them being bullshit, you either ignore it and then repeat the same crap in later threads, or you brush it off as something you heard or something someone told you.


We all get it... you hate the Clintons and everything they do... that's fine, but why make stuff up to support your feelings?

brain of c

i love her.

searchlightsoul

onelongsong wrote:

the mass graves found in iraq and kuait where saddam used biologicals. he was given more than anthrax.

you'll have to ask bill. he certainly didn't do much else other than talk so it musta been a full time job for him.

Yeah Bill sure was evil. Except......wait a second. Look footage of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand just prior to the first Gulf war. Strange.

my2hands

LikeAnOcean wrote:

There was a good reason Bill had had interns sucking him off..

maybe the post of the week...

chopitdown

Abuskedti wrote:

She is not worse than the other politicians. She is at worst just another politician.

I can only conclude she is hated because she is a powerful woman.

nah, that reason is too easy and too cliche. She could be hated b/c of her attitude, her demeanor, her policies, her polarizing ideas...the fact that she's a woman has nothing to do with why a majority of people dislike her strongly. But it's much easier to say that she is disliked b/c she's a woman...that doesn't mean it's close to being right.

Yoyoyo

I hate Hillary with a passion, but Bill is a pretty cool guy. I don't know why he stays married to that upity bitch, she's ugly and imagine she's a boring ride. Bill deserves props for this, most normal men would have commited acts of violence, but I guess he regresses a bit after bangin the help. Do I hate her because she is a powerful woman? Hell ya.

Heineken Helen

Danny Boy wrote:

I do... I trust Obama. One of the reasons so many from both sides of the political aisle like Obama can be attributed to trust in his character. For the last 16 years I haven't had any trust in the leader of my country and I will not vote for HRC as she is calculative and politically motivated.

but you WORK for Obama

Heineken Helen

onelongsong wrote:

that link doesn't give a date. you usually don't tell someone you're going to hit them before you hit them.
i could be wrong. i'm only going by what a nephew told me who supposedly was there.

He lied... it definitely WASN'T hours... I was in Turkey when 9/11 happened and was there for a further week afterwards... I was home at LEAST a week and probably more when Afghanistan was bombed cos we were watching sky news religiously waiting for it to happen.

Abuskedti

chopitdown wrote:

nah, that reason is too easy and too cliche. She could be hated b/c of her attitude, her demeanor, her policies, her polarizing ideas...the fact that she's a woman has nothing to do with why a majority of people dislike her strongly. But it's much easier to say that she is disliked b/c she's a woman...that doesn't mean it's close to being right.

I don't know, don't be so quick to label cliche..

talking about attitude, demeanor, policies, polarizing ideas...

well George W Bush comes to mind.. I'd say he is more over the top in these areas than anyone... though there are armies of people that consider him unworthy of his position... There isn't that "hate"...

What exactly is the difference?

my2hands

Abuskedti wrote:

well George W Bush comes to mind.. though there are armies of people that consider him unworthy of his position... There isn't that "hate"...

i disagree with that... there is definitely a hate...

No_ones_rival

onelongsong wrote:

count me in! i hate her because she doesn't give a straight answer to anything. she'll take 2 positions at the same time; depending on who she's talking to. when cornered; she attacks the other candidates. of her own bloody party yet. what about the stuff she stole from the whitehouse when she left? will she "return it if elected?" her big hillarycare project fizzled in the 90's when she realized it couldn't be done. instead of a straight answer; she'll give you a laugh and call for party unity.

if you'd like more reasons; let me know.

That is exactly why I will not vote for her... under any circumstance. Also when Hillarycare fizzled it was because she was bought off by the insurance industry.