English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I'm speaking specifically about all the garbage repeated here about the Clintons, particularly Hillary Clinton, on a regular basis. I understand not supporting her, that's your prerogative. But why is it when people bring up the following - things that have been thoroughly debunked and proven false - otherwise seemingly intelligent posters jump right on board? Do you not CARE that they are false or is it okay because as long as it smears the Clintons it's all good?

* Clinton Hit List
* Stealing white house china and silverware
* Wouldn't allow military to wear uniforms in the White House
* Black Panther story

There's more of course, but let's stick with those four for now. Want to see the proof that they are false? Just ask and I'll be happy to post the evidence.

Yet so many of these people are the ones who demand proof when people post charges against George Bush, but they don't mind accepting b.s. as the God's truth when it's about the Clintons.

2007-11-02 09:00:50 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

rz: Here ya go:
http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/2...

Duing the August 25 broadcast of Newsradio 850 KOA's The Gunny Bob Show, host "Gunny" Bob Newman claimed falsely that, as first lady, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) "passed a White House rule...that forbade the wearing of military uniforms unless it was absolutely necessary for an official function." Newman used this myth as evidence that Clinton "loathes the U.S. military" and added that Clinton is "the scum of the earth." Newman also repeated the long-discredited smear that Clinton "delegated" someone "to whack Vince Foster," the deputy White House counsel who committed suicide in Northern Virginia's Fort Marcy Park on July 20, 1993. In addition, Newman said that Clinton "scares Lenin, she's so far to the left."

2007-11-02 09:16:25 · update #1

The allegation that Clinton imposed a ban on the wearing of military uniforms in the White House was reported as early as April 1, 1993, in a Washington Post article [by subscription or purchase only] that referred to "[a] whole series of apocryphal anecdotes [that] have made the rounds and fed military disaffection." With regard to "the one about Hillary Rodham Clinton's ban on uniforms in the White House," the Post reported that it "[a]lso didn't happen." Similarly, Newsweek reported in December 2005 that "[t]here are still soldiers who swear by the myth that she banned uniforms at the White House." In its March 15, 1993, edition, U.S. News & World Report reported," Among other poisonous rumors is the tale that the Clintonites are preparing to order military personnel to wear civilian clothes, not their uniforms, whenever they enter the White House." U.S. News noted that the White House denied the story.

2007-11-02 09:16:53 · update #2

harryd:
You are precisely the sad sort I am talking about. Here ya go Einstein, thanks for proving my entire point:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/panthers.asp

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp

silverware story:

http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/papers/GT2c11.htm

2007-11-02 09:22:12 · update #3

Holbrook:
Of course it's not just Hillary. But the question IS about Hillary. I agree with you in general, whether it is about Bush, the Clintons, or the man in the friggin moon. I'm sick of the b.s. allegations that people just accept because they're too lazy to find out for themselves if it's really true, or even worse, don't even care.

Thanks.

2007-11-02 09:24:20 · update #4

cns:
Thank you. I may not agree with you about Hillary, but I can respect that you don't support her for reasons that don't depend on stupid myths.

2007-11-02 09:26:27 · update #5

Flipper:
I'd LOVE to move on and forget about this crap. But as long as there are people in here every day, and there are, who still talk about this garbage as a reason to reject her I'm going to point out they are full of crap.

2007-11-02 09:27:43 · update #6

conned:
I'm not talking about politicians lying, I'm talking about the every day poster in here who does so on a regular basis with no compunction or conscience about it, and no desire to find out the real truth before they run off at the mouth.

2007-11-02 09:30:01 · update #7

Timewounds: Don't like Media Matters? How does U.S. News & World Report grab you?

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/930315/archive_014806_2.htm

2007-11-02 09:50:31 · update #8

From US & World News Report:

Poisoned rumors. At the Pentagon, the stories about White House insensitivity are numerous, and, some Clinton defenders say, approach paranoia. Perhaps the most virulent is the story that Chelsea Clinton refused to enter a government car destined to drive her to school because she didn't want to ride with a uniformed officer. Knowledgeable sources say Chelsea has always ridden with Secret Service agents and the occasion has never arisen where a military escort was asked to fill in for her regular agents. Among other poisonous rumors is the tale that the Clintonites are preparing to order military personnel to wear civilian clothes, not their uniforms, whenever they enter the White House. Another rumor is that Clinton advisers have forbidden the military aide who carries "the football"—a suitcase containing nuclear launch codes—to dress in uniform. The White House denies both allegations.

2007-11-02 09:52:43 · update #9

harryd:
You are so full of crap. Hillary Clinton did not help found Snopes. Snopes is accepted by conservatives and liberals alike as an unbiased debunking site.
As to Media Matters, as I told one poster, if you don't like them how about U.S. News & World Report. They have the same information and if you can manage to find it under add'l details you are more than welcome to read it.

If you come up with any other lame excuses for continuing to believe this garbage, let me know.

2007-11-02 18:06:12 · update #10

timewounds:
And I did then find another source. The U.S. News & World Report. I was happy to do so, thanks for prompting me to find that second source. ;-)

2007-11-02 18:08:03 · update #11

The Right is Wrong:
LMAO! You are right of course. The last thing they want is facts - take harryd as an example.

Nice screen name. Simple and to the point ;-)

2007-11-03 06:13:59 · update #12

23 answers

American conservatism has grown into a cult.Everyone is out to get them and everything that's not slanted to the far right is liberally biased.
Science,truth and facts are all less important than the ideology. Everyone who distracts from the Divine path becomes an enemy and part of the evil outside world.
The few conservatives who are smart and courageous enough to make up their own mind are immediately labeled as traitors or RINO's
It's good to see more and more Americans waking up and realizing they can't take conservatism serious anymore until it rids itself of this cultist spirit

What the American right doesn't seem to understand is that at this point all this mudslinging and wild unfounded allegations against Hillary, her character and integrity are only more proof the right wing is obsessed and afraid of the Clintons; The far right fringe might be very jubilant about this slander and nonsense for everyone else this are none issue's that show the need for America to free itself from the far right dark cloud and breath again.

Hillary will win the Presidency and Americans will be better of. She'll save America from the regressive right and make the US more like the founding fathers wanted in the first place

2007-11-03 02:07:20 · answer #1 · answered by justgoodfolk 7 · 3 3

I believe the Dan somewhat analogy. Why would after years and years long previous by using and the information got here out that Saddam became attempting to bluff his way by using having lost all his mass destruction weapons for the period of Gulf One and UN inspectors time. The time for faking it became in 2003 or 04 recent. Now it extremely is a ineffective difficulty and of no cost to attempt and make up some thing that isn't even an argument. I only discover it unhappy that Democrats can no longer use fact or information so as that they make it up and want that when the airborne dirt and mud is all smeared you will no longer make sure the information. Dan somewhat knew that his tale became a pretend and the checklist experts reported so yet he ran with it and perfect off the bat hundreds of thousands of experts seeing a checklist from the early Seventies knew that it lacked the seem and a speedy retype on any workstation with Microsoft word proved it. unhappy certainly.

2016-09-28 05:14:11 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Whoa whoa!!! Easy with the facts Elway! These people don't want facts.

I'm paraphrasing but the Cons/Reps accept the authority as the truth while everyone else accepts the truth as the authority.

These same people that bash Clinton don't care if they're wrong. They subscribe to the "end justifies the means" philosophy. So nothing has to line up or make sense to them. Hence all the stupid bumper stickers and slogans that make no sense, yet are used as rally cries for these people. These people are ignorant and are the minority of this country. They are disliked everywhere they go. They do make a lot of noise, but so do lap dogs.

2007-11-02 10:24:54 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 4 2

I don't believe any of those things about her.

My decision not to vote for her is based upon her politics, pure and simple. Uhm, my decision that is. Her politics are neither pure nor simple. I called her the Chameleon Candidate in another post, and I don't think I can top that. She, like most others in both parties, tell any particular demographic whatever they want to hear and then do as they please.

I do agree with your premise, though. I hear everyone talking about how "bad" the economy is, but the numbers don't show that at all. People just believe what they want to believe, they don't bother to educate themselves. If they did, they might actually think for themselves and then where would they be?

And as for George W...if he would start acting like conservative, his numbers would go up. Am I saying the left would like him? No. I'm saying that for any politician to have such low approval ratings, there have to be plenty of people pissed off on BOTH sides. When you run for office on a conservative platform and then have these ambiguous positions, it makes you appear like a ship without a rudder.

2007-11-02 09:13:09 · answer #4 · answered by cnsdubie 6 · 4 2

Firstly, those things were at least 8 years ago or more, so move on.
Secondly, if those kinds of charges are the worst we'd have to deal with if she gets elected, then we're not too bad off.
I don't support her, but the charges made against Bush are far worse than anyone could have expected...and the fact that the Democratic Congress refuses to investigate or hold hearings tells me of THEIR contempt for our Constitution as well. The Congress and Bush administration are ALL THE SAME when it comes to shattering the Constitution to score political points.

2007-11-02 09:13:59 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3 3

I don't like Hilary for other reasons...those I could really care less...they are just kind of funny...but on the same note why do so many posters here believe:

-Bush lied people died (when it was the same Intel from Clinton)

-Bush went AWOL (Proven False)

-Bush saying, "The Constitution is just a damn piece of paper!" (I have never seen a link or a audio of this)

-Bush gave no bid contracts to Hallburton (When Clinton did the same thing..I saw it with my own eyes in Haiti, Kosovo, and Bosnia)

-Bush and Chaney were behind 9/11

And many, many more that you can see on here day in and day out...so it is not just will Hilary...if I had a nickle for everyone I of these I see on here...I would be rich...and then I can be taxed more by the Democrats...unless I do not file it...lol...have a good weekend...

And many more...but you see them

EDIT: Delphi is a good example...only people who have one brain cell think that was the case...I have figured out the reason why we went to Iraq...there were two of them...but I will save that for another time...

EDIT: I totally agree with you...it is hard to have a ggod politcal discussion when people interject crap they read off the internet or heard somewhere...I think much of this could be fixed by people picking up a book and reading, like I do...=)

2007-11-02 09:10:48 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4 4

Most of that stuff about the Clinton's are just outrageous lies perpetrated by their opponents. If it had been true, they would be locked up by now, especially since they have so many who hate them. & if people just bother to check with snopes.com they would see they've been debunked. As for the quote about Bush & the constitution, I'm afraid that one is no lie. Here's just one link of many. You can do a search on google & find many more.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2005/091205pieceofpaper.htm
.

2007-11-02 09:34:20 · answer #7 · answered by mstrywmn 7 · 2 2

These are the same people that believe Barack Obama is an Islamofacist, Al Gore claimed to invent the Internet, and that John McCain fathered an illegitimate Malaysian love child.

2007-11-02 09:09:56 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 8 2

When is the last time anyone heard of the truth surrounding a politician. I’m not even a cynic, and I know ALL politicians lie, to get what they want. Some are only less shameless about it.

2007-11-02 09:17:28 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

I once pointed this out to someone who had posted a particularly glaring right-wing lie. He sent me an e-mail, and to my surprise he didn't deny that it was a lie. He simply said, "I'm just politicking." Apparently people have becomed so accustomed to politicians' lies, they think lying is the way to campaign and/or show their support.

2007-11-02 09:36:52 · answer #10 · answered by ConcernedCitizen 7 · 2 2

fedest.com, questions and answers