That's It!!! This Anti-Obama Propaganda Has Got To Stop

I have looked at the information on Obama's religion, and it is enough to convince me he is not being honest, and I have explained my reasons for anyone to read on this thread. To me, it does matter.

As far as Hillary's supposed dishonesty, I don't see it, nor have I heard any reasonable explanation as to why she is supposedly so dishonest. All I have ever heard is right wing nonsense.

No, never had a thought that Wright was visiting here. Don't care. Wright goes overboard in his criticism of the U.S., and he works to stir racial disharmony, and that is in public, I wonder how much further he goes in private. These things do mean something to me, and numerous other people.

The Rezko situation is another deal. I don't know anything about it yet, so I can only wonder. Many of the problems with Obama have been brought up on this site, and a great many of them are legitimate concerns.

reply to post by poet1b

As far as Hillary's supposed dishonesty, I don't see it, nor have I heard any reasonable explanation as to why she is supposedly so dishonest.

Herein lies your problem, friend.

She has lied from her experience, to when she helped to get Nixon impeached, to campaigning in Fla. and Mi., to the infamous sniper incident, you name it.

Google "Hillary Clinton lies", and you might get a snippet of an idea of how many lies I've come across from her. It's like asking what's wrong with GWB, there's so much, I don't know where to start.

reply to post by poet1b

As far as Hillary's supposed dishonesty, I don't see it, nor have I heard any reasonable explanation as to why she is supposedly so dishonest. All I have ever heard is right wing nonsense.

How about the sniper lie?

Considering how well Hillary knows everything she says will be thoroughly scrutinized, it is very believeable that the sniper fire improv was a case of mistaken memory, some day dream confused with reality.

I googled Hillary Clinton lies, and what you get are a bunch of blowhards on blogs heavy on accusation and empty on evidence or actual quotes. If you have anything legitimate, like an article from a NYTimes reporter conducting an interview with actual quotes, as is easily found on Obama's recital of the opening prayer of Islam, please provide such evidence.

Originally posted by poet1b
Considering how well Hillary knows everything she says will be thoroughly scrutinized, it is very believeable that the sniper fire improv was a case of mistaken memory, some day dream confused with reality.

I googled Hillary Clinton lies, and what you get are a bunch of blowhards on blogs heavy on accusation and empty on evidence or actual quotes. If you have anything legitimate, like an article from a NYTimes reporter conducting an interview with actual quotes, as is easily found on Obama's recital of the opening prayer of Islam, please provide such evidence.

So, a lie vs an appreciation for words. I can see your point. I certainly think want a candidate who is having daydreams confused with reality and wishes to obliterate Iran with her finger on the button!

reply to post by poet1b


Well, I do have to admit, I NEVER thought I would be arguing the matter of whether Hillary Clinton lies or not. You are a rare individual, my friend.

I didn't even Google 'Hillary Clinton lies', I wrote that in hopes that you would start to do some research into the matter, which apparently failed.

Now, because I don't know what you would consider a credible source, I'm going to say it again. I've come across so damned much info from journalists and bloggers alike, I don't know where to start. Do some research, and you should walk into a firestorm of Hillary Clinton's lies. She's been lying for the past 35 years. Go ahead, check out the Nixon deal.

And, OTHER than the massive amounts of info you're about to come in to regarding her lies, here's another article talking about another reason to stay away from Hillary you should check out that should get you up and researching even more:

www.rollingstone.com...

Nobody doles out taxpayer money like Hillary Clinton — or rakes in as much campaign cash from the companies she does favors for

Of course, I don't know if you'd consider the Rolling Stone a credible source.

Oh, and I really don't like her health care plan.

[edit on 5/19/2008 by bigbert81]

reply to post by bigbert81


Wow, you seem to be hopelessly confused. The quote you give does not prove Hillary is a liar. In fact, the quote you provide isn't even the truth. Obama has collected more money than Hillary. GW certainly took more money from lobbyists. You have provided a quote that can easily be proven wrong. Wow, big swoosh!!!!

The Rolling Stones is a fairly decent music rag, but not known for their political analysis. If that is the best you got, I suggest you go back to college. No, on the other hand, that seems to be the wrong route these days. Go get a job working construction or repairing cars, and develop a solid understanding of the real world.

reply to post by poet1b


Please provide a complete list of your approved sources list. Apparently you get to decide.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by bigbert81

 

Wow, you seem to be hopelessly confused. The quote you give does not prove Hillary is a liar. In fact, the quote you provide isn't even the truth. Obama has collected more money than Hillary. GW certainly took more money from lobbyists. You have provided a quote that can easily be proven wrong. Wow, big swoosh!!!!

The Rolling Stones is a fairly decent music rag, but not known for their political analysis. If that is the best you got, I suggest you go back to college. No, on the other hand, that seems to be the wrong route these days. Go get a job working construction or repairing cars, and develop a solid understanding of the real world.

Wow.

*Applause*

Amazing. I never thought I'd see someone commit so much, and have ABSOLUTELY no idea what they were talking about.

Keep up with the insults, you are WAY off base, just like several of the other posts in this thread, and then you commit to it. This is one of the most foolish posts I've read in a long time.

Read the friggin' post again. In fact, here:

And, OTHER than the massive amounts of info you're about to come in to regarding her lies, here's another article talking about another reason to stay away from Hillary you should check out that should get you up and researching even more:

Notice in my last post, I said 'another reason'. Did you miss that, or are you just eager to throw out immature insults in an effort to look cool? I'm thinking the latter, because you responded with:

The quote you give does not prove Hillary is a liar.

Quit trying to make yourself look cool, you are failing miserably. OF COURSE the excerpt I gave had nothing to do with her being a liar, I even stated that for you, but somehow, you looked right past it.

And the sad thing is, you DIDN'T EVEN LOOK AT THE ARTICLE!!! I provided an article that gives ANOTHER reason to not vote for Hillary (a good one too) that is entitled The Queen of Pork, and you don't even have enough time to click on the link to see what it's about before jumping in here throwing out ridiculous, not-thought-through insults.

Do yourself a favor and concede to me. You LOSE, drastically. If I were you after this latest post, I would be deeply embarrassed and ashamed, and I would apologize immediately.

I do not like arguing with lazy people who cannot even bother to read what I post, or click on the links I provide for them.

You're done.

[edit on 5/20/2008 by bigbert81]

reply to post by bigbert81


Maybe you should start off proving your claims that Hillary is the biggest liar. Apparently, rather than proving your previous claims, you have decided to change the issue.

Let me explain how logic and reason work.

You claim someone is a liar, and that claim is challenged.

You provided evidence, which in claiming someone is a liar should be in the form of a quote.

Then you prove that that quote was a deliberate lie.

Let's take Reagan as an example.

One time Reagan claimed that he was there when Nazi death camps were liberated.

The truth is that Reagan was in Hollywood at the time introducing war correspondents.

Then provide a link to a credible source.

www.theatlantic.com...

It is sad, really sad.

reply to post by poet1b


First of all, I'm still waiting for my apology. C'mon, don't be shy.

Second, I started this thread assuming that the people I would be debating with had already done their homework so that I wouldn't have to do it for them.

Third, I've already given an answer to you in my second to last post I wrote for you, but you've apparently missed that one as well.

Fourth, Hillary lying AND being the 'Queen of Pork' all fall under the same topic, that those are worse qualities than whether Obama is Muslim or not, which is actually the premise for this thread.

Fifth, I am just going to repeat myself in this one. I am not going to do your homework for you. If you think that Hillary is not a repetitive liar, fine, continue to live in the dark. I'm not going to continue this debate unless you actually take the time to look at some of the Google results you get, from your own searches.

Like I said, I would have assumed people partaking in this thread would have at least given me the courtesy of doing their homework before trying to debate something that they can find information against all over the internet. I've even given you examples. Here's another hint, check my thread history. You'll see that Hillary Clinton's word is worth nothing.

*Throwing you a bone*

Hillary simply cannot tell the truth. Here's her scorecard:

Admitted Lies

• Chelsea was jogging around the Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. (She was in bed watching it on TV.)
• Hillary was named after Sir Edmund Hillary. (She admitted she was wrong. He climbed Mt. Everest five years after her birth.)
• She was under sniper fire in Bosnia. (A girl presented her with flowers at the foot of the ramp.)
• She learned in The Wall Street Journal how to make a killing in the futures market. (It didn't cover the market back then.)

Whoppers She Won't Confess To

• She didn't know about the FALN pardons.
• She didn't know that her brothers were being paid to get pardons that Clinton granted.
• Taking the White House gifts was a clerical error.
• She didn't know that her staff would fire the travel office staff after she told them to do so.
• She didn't know that the Peter Paul fundraiser in Hollywood in 2000 cost $700,000 more than she reported it had.
• She opposed NAFTA at the time.
• She was instrumental in the Irish peace process.
• She urged Bill to intervene in Rwanda.
• She played a role in the '90s economic recovery.
• The billing records showed up on their own.
• She thought Bill was innocent when the Monica scandal broke.
• She was always a Yankees fan.
• She had nothing to do with the New Square Hasidic pardons (after they voted for her 1,400-12 and she attended a meeting at the White House about the pardons).
• She negotiated for the release of refugees in Macedonia (who were released the day before she got there).

With a record like that, is it any wonder that we suspect her of being less than honest and straightforward?

SRC: www.realclearpolitics.com...

Hillary's word: It's worth nothing


Tuesday, Jan. 29, 2008

COURTING VOTERS in Iowa and New Hampshire, last August Sen. Hillary Clinton signed a pledge not to "campaign or participate" in the Michigan or Florida Democratic primaries. She participated in both primaries and is campaigning in Florida. Which proves, again, that Hillary Clinton is a liar.

Clinton kept her name on the Michigan ballot when others removed theirs, she campaigned this past weekend in Florida, and she is pushing to seat Michigan and Florida delegates at the Democratic National Convention. The party stripped those states of delegates as punishment for moving up their primary dates.

"I will try to persuade my delegates to seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida," Clinton said last week, after the New Hampshire primaries and Iowa caucuses were safely over.

Clinton coldly and knowingly lied to New Hampshire and Iowa. Her promise was not a vague statement. It was a signed pledge with a clear and unequivocal meaning.

She signed it thinking that keeping the other candidates out of Michigan and Florida was to her advantage, but knowing she would break it if that proved beneficial later on. It did, and she did.

New Hampshire voters, you were played for suckers.

SRC: www.unionleader.com...

Misspoke? Really?

[edit on 5/20/2008 by bigbert81]

Hillary Locks and Loads

New York Sun Editorial
December 12, 2007


Well, it's a pleasure to welcome Mrs. Clinton to the Second Amendment side of the debate. It's a new development; back in 2000, when Mrs. Clinton was running for Senate, she backed the "Million Mom March" for gun control, and, according to CNN, told the Newspaper Association of America, "We have to do more to stand up to those who refuse to believe the reality that guns do kill and that common-sense gun measures can make a difference."

SRC: www2.nysun.com...

Hillary's Latest Flip-Flop

New York Sun Editorial
November 6, 2007

Say this for Senator Clinton's presidential campaign, it certainly is good for a chuckle now and then. The latest was her energy policy, released yesterday, proposing "funding for an ARPA-E, a new research agency modeled on the successful Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency." The part that made us chuckle was Mrs. Clinton's description of DARPA as "successful." Why, it was not long ago — July of 2003, to be precise — that Mrs. Clinton was accusing DARPA and one of its officials at the time, Iran-Contra figure Admiral John Poindexter, of planning what she called a "market in death and destruction," that was "not in keeping with our values." The idea, advanced by DARPA, was of a market that would allow bettors to wager on the likelihood of terrorist attacks or other adverse events in particular times and places.

Earlier in 2003, Mrs. Clinton and her Senate colleagues voted to scuttle a DARPA anti-terrorism database project known as "Total Information Awareness." In fact, Senator Clinton was a co-sponsor of the amendment by Senator Wyden, passed on January 23, 2003, to halt funding for DARPA's Total Information Awareness program. A press release from Mr. Wyden touted Mrs. Clinton's assistance in averting what Mr. Wyden warned would have been "the most far-reaching government surveillance plan in history," one with the potential to allow the government "to snoop on law-abiding Americans." Now Mrs. Clinton is out on the campaign trail touting DARPA as a success. We don't doubt that it is — the American military is a technological marvel. But the real wonders here aren't military technology but the contortions Mrs. Clinton is willing to go through to get herself elected president.

SRC: www2.nysun.com...

Like I said, use a credible source.

Real Clear Politics is not, in fact the poorly written article gives no sources or references to prove it's claims. It lists a small group of misstatements that are all inconsequential, from someone who has every word she speaks in public scrutinized.

The rest of you references are even worse examples of yellow journalism. You and your sources are guilty of everything you accuse the press of being towards Obama. You have been had, bamboozled, suckered, fooled.

I stick to my previous opinion that you got moderated, which is that you are possibly in Jr High School or under the age of 18.

How does the fact that Hillary is a notorious liar make Obama honest? Is your argument, Obama is slightly less of a liar than Hillary? I'm not sure I agree with it, but even if true it wouldn't mean the criticism of his lying is irrelevant propaganda would it?
Wasn't that the thread title? "The Anti-Obama Propaganda has got to stop!"
Is every criticism propaganda?

reply to post by _Del_


First, that was a side debate poet decided to engage me in.

Second, no, I don't think Obama is as dishonest as Hillary.

Third, this is a valid argument to make. I don't think anywhere on that list I made in the OP where I classify Obama's honesty as propaganda.