That sort of slop probably works a lot better in a newspaper comment thread than on the Dope.
Wow, that’s all you’ve got? That’s all there is that ties the Clintons to this ‘scandal’?
If that’s all there is, my friend, then let’s keep on dancing,
let’s break out the booze and have a ball…
And do you honestly not understand the difference between somebody who has been accused of committing rape and somebody who knows somebody that that has been accused of committing rape?
See post #13.
And I hope your next thread based on a Daily Mail “news” story works out better.
It’s the dirty story of a dirty man
And his clinging wife doesn’t understand
His son is working for the Daily Mail
It’s a steady job but he wants to be a paperback writer
Paperback writer
Paperback writer
Uh-huh. Since apparently “Democrat” means “Clinton fan” now, you know what, you’re right! I don’t want to be in a party which not only welcomes them but adores them. The Clintons are terrible people in general, and they have used up their fifteen minutes.
Oh, lordy.
I’m still waiting for you (or anyone else) to explain exactly why we should be disgusted with the Clintons on account of ‘this’, especially when I pointed out in post #66 that neither you nor anyone else has explained what ‘this’ is.
Waymore’s best shot was “Clinton took trips to Epsteins home, where a lot of the crimes took place, between 2002 & 2005, a period when he was committing these crimes.” Got anything better? Put up or shut up.
And in general, I’m not the world’s biggest Hillary fan (anyone who says “Henry Kissinger is a friend of mine” anywhere near this late date can count on my not being in their fan club), but can we go after her (or Bill) over real rather than imaginary stuff?
Assuming you’re not channeling Colbert here, now I have to object. The Clintons are um, different, and they lie really easily, but one reason the public tolerates them is that we’re familiar with the extent of their immorality and they aren’t likely to exceed it. As a political couple, they have real accomplishments and have arguably been less dishonest than the last two Presidents. Bush lied us into war, Obama lied us out of our health insurance. What’s Hillary going to lie us into, a balanced budget? Eight years of peace and prosperity?
“Out of”?? Between mid-2013 and the end of 2014, the percentage of American adults without health insurance dropped from 18% to 12.9%. Fewer people are uninsured now than before the crash.
Reminds me of this classic.
Obama said we could keep our insurance if we liked it. We can’t, actually, if it doesn’t comply with regulations which his administration wrote, using pretty vast discretion. The law authorized them to pretty much allow anyone to keep their insurance. They intentionally chose to make sure people lost their insurance. It was a promise the President never intended to keep.
He lied.
Oh, whatever, like market conditions don’t end up changing insurance offers anyway.
That’s understood. However, many lost their plans or had to upgrade them due to regulations. That wasn’t the deal he made with us.
And yet another thread becomes an Adaher rant about Obama.
More like, “adaher makes a comment about Obama(and GWB) as a comparison to Clinton and posters have to defend Obama’s honor even though it’s not the subject of this thread”.
Most of us can keep our insurance.
Whether he lied or made a mistake, the important thing is that you ensure to make a political point about the honor of a president who won’t be running for office again.
No, it is in fact just another reminder that at least 85% of your posts contain a claim that is simply factually wrong. There are plenty of posters here I disagree with on their opinions, but it is remarkable to make so many factual errors in debates.
What’s the difference?