The Next US President

All the terrible things Hillary Clinton has done — in one big list

DOVER, N.H. (MarketWatch) — I have a confession to make: I can’t keep up.

Am I supposed to hate Hillary Rodham Clinton because she’s too left-wing, or too right-wing? Because she’s too feminist, or not feminist enough? Because she’s too clever a politician, or too clumsy?

Am I supposed to be mad that she gave speeches to rich bankers, or that she charged them too much money?


I’m up here in New Hampshire watching her talk to a group of supporters, and I realized that I have been following this woman’s career for more than half my life. No, not just my adult life: the whole shebang. She came onto the national scene when I was a young man.

And for all that time, there has been a deafening chorus of critics telling me that she’s just the most wicked, evil, Machiavellian, nefarious individual in American history. She has “the soul of an East German border guard,” in the words of that nice Grover Norquist. She’s a “bitch,” in the words of that nice Newt Gingrich. She’s a “dragon lady.” She’s “Elena Ceaușescu.” She’s “the Lady Macbeth of Little Rock.”

Long before “Benghazi” and her email server, there was “Whitewater” and “the Rose Law Firm” and “Vince Foster.” For those of us following her, we were promised scandal after scandal after scandal. And if no actual evidence ever turned up, well, that just proved how deviously clever she was.

So today I’m performing a public service on behalf of all the voters. I went back and re-read all the criticisms and attacks and best-selling “exposés” leveled at Hillary Rodham Clinton over the past quarter-century. And I’ve compiled a list of all her High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Here they are:

1. When she was first lady, she murdered White House lawyer Vince Foster and then dumped his body in a park.

2. She drove Vince Foster to commit suicide through her temper tantrums.

3. She was having an affair with Vince Foster.

4. She’s a lesbian.

5. Chelsea isn’t Bill Clinton’s child.

6. She murdered Vince Foster to cover up that she once bought a tract of undeveloped land in Arkansas and lost money.

7. She murdered Vince Foster to cover up her role in firing the White House travel department.

8. After she murdered Vince Foster, she ransacked his office in the middle of the night and stole all the documents proving her guilt.

9. When Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas, she was a partner in the state’s top law firm, and it sometimes did work involving the state government.

10. She once invested in commodities futures on the advice of a friend and made $100,000, proving she’s a crook.

11. She once invested in real estate on the advice of another friend and lost $100,000, also proving she’s a crook.

12. Unnamed and unverifiable sources have told Peggy Noonan things about the Clintons that are simply too terrible to repeat.

13. The personnel murdered at Benghazi make her the first secretary of state to lose overseas personnel to terrorism — apart from Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright, George Schultz, Dean Rusk and some others.

14. Four State Department staff were murdered at Benghazi, compared with only 119 others murdered overseas under every secretary of state combined since World War II.

15. She illegally sent classified emails from her personal server, except that apparently they weren’t classified at the time.

16. She may have cynically wriggled around the email law by “technically” complying with it.

17. She once signed a lucrative book contract when she was a private citizen.

18. Donald Trump says she “should be in jail,” and he’s a serial bankrupt casino developer in Atlantic City, so he should know.

19. Former House Majority Leader Tom Delay says his “law-enforcement sources” tell him she is “about to be indicted” — and if a man once convicted of money laundering and conspiracy doesn’t have good law-enforcement sources, who does?

20. She’s a hard-left radical who wants to break up the nuclear family.

21. She’s a conservative “mousewife” who refused to break up her own family.

22. She’s in favor of single moms.

23. She refused to be a single mom.

24. When she was first lady of Arkansas, she pandered to conservative voters by dyeing her hair.

25. Before that, she totally insulted them by refusing to.

26. She’s a frump.

27. She spends too much money on designer dresses.

28. She has “cankles.”

29. She has a grating voice.

30. She yells into the microphone.

31. She spent 18 years in Arkansas and some of the people she knew turned out to be crazy rednecks and crooks.

32. She’s in the pay of the mafia.

33. She’s in the pay of the Chinese government.

34. She’s in the pay of the Wall Street banks.

35. In order to suppress the billing records from her time at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, she cleverly packed them up and took them to the White House rather than shredding them.

36. When she handed over the documents to public officials, they couldn’t find any evidence she’d committed any crimes, so she must have doctored them.

37. Congress spent tens of millions of dollars and six years investigating her investment in the Whitewater real-estate project, and, while they didn’t actually find anything, they wouldn’t have spent all that money if there weren’t something there.

38. By cleverly hiding all evidence of her crimes in the Whitewater affair, she caused Congress to waste all that taxpayers’ money.

39. When she ran for senator of New York, she was still a fan of the Chicago Cubs.

40. She once said the Clintons were thinking of adopting a child, and they didn’t follow through.

41. She was photographed holding her hand near her mouth during the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

42. She’s got brain damage.

43. She’s old.

44. She’s really ambitious and calculating, unlike all the other people running for president.

45. She secretly supported Palestinian terrorists, Puerto Rican terrorists and Guatemalan terrorists.

46. She secretly supported a group that wants to give Maine back to the Indians.

47. She’s a secret follower of “radical prophet” Saul Alinsky.

48. She did her law degree at Yale, and it’s a well-known “socialist finishing school.”

49. When she was young, she did things to build up her résumé rather than just for their own good.

50. When Bill was president, she “allowed” him to keep people waiting.

51. She’s married to a sex addict.

52. She’s an enemy of traditional marriage.

53. She didn’t divorce her husband.

54. His philandering is her fault because she is too strong, and too weak, and too frumpy, and too fat, and too cold.

55. She’s hostile to women who fool around with her husband.

56. A divorced taxi driver in Florida told me that if Hillary is elected president, “women will take over everything.”

57. She insulted Tammy Wynette.

58. When they left the White House, she and Bill bought a big house in New York that they couldn’t afford.

59. She sometimes calls her staff during dinner, even when they’re out at a restaurant.

60. She claimed there was a “vast right-wing conspiracy” against her husband, and it turned out there was nothing but a bunch of tycoons financing private investigators, and some fake think tanks and books and news sites and stuff.

61. When she got married, she didn’t “stay at home and bake cookies.”

62. She supported the Iraq war because she’s a secret foreign-policy conservative.

63. She’s a secret foreign-policy radical with a plan to impose worldwide “radical social experimentation” through the World Bank.

64. She is secretly plotting to let children sue their parents for making them take out the garbage.

65. She looked bored during the Benghazi hearings.

66. Oh, yeah — and she totally has a ******.

It’s clear: Hillary must be stopped. Hearings now!


http://www.marketwatch.com/story/al...y-clinton-has-done-in-one-big-list-2016-02-04

:LOL:


She gets my vote :)
 
Ignorantio elenchi (Fallacy of irrelevant conclusion). It was never stated nor implied that typing in a bigger font makes a statement more true.

A and B are debating about the law.
A: Does the law allow me to do that?​
B: The law should allow you to do that because this and that.​

B missed the point. The question was not if the law should allow, but if it does or not.

Ignorantio elenchi! thats my all-time favourite Harry Potter spell.

I shall leave you to your phallusies; you seem quite keen on them. make sure you dont choke.


Hillary for President!
 
18. Donald Trump says she “should be in jail,” and he’s a serial bankrupt casino developer in Atlantic City, so he should know.

Love it :LOL:
 
To A to itsp. You both should take a look at these.

British Dietetic Association (BDA)
  1. 5:2 diet
  2. Dukan diet
  3. Paleo diet
  4. New Atkins diet
  5. Alkaline diet
  6. Cambridge diet
  7. South Beach diet
  8. Slimming World diet
  9. Slim-Fast diet
  10. LighterLife diet
  11. WeightWatchers diet
  12. Rosemary Conley diet

It looks like it is time to post this again.

Evasion techniques in Ethics
  1. Ignoring the question - This is done the most often here by A, P & F
  2. Acknowledging the question without answering it
  3. Questioning the question by:
    1. requesting clarification
    2. reflecting the question back to the questioner, for example saying "you tell me" - F just recently did this by asking me questions without first answering any.
  4. Attacking the question by saying:
    1. "the question fails to address the important issue"
    2. "the question is hypothetical or speculative"
    3. "the question is based on a false premise"
    4. "the question is factually inaccurate"
    5. "the question includes a misquotation"
    6. "the question includes a quotation taken out of context"
    7. "the question is objectionable" - Stating that a question is morally objectionable is illogical.
    8. "the question is based on a false alternative"
  5. Attacking the questioner - This is done the most by A. See Ad hominem. :p
  6. Declining to answer by:
    1. refusing on grounds of inability
    2. being unwilling to answer
    3. saying "I can't speak for someone else"
    4. deferring answer, saying "it is not possible to answer the question for the time being"
    5. pleading ignorance
    6. placing the responsibility to answer on someone else
[/QUOTE]
 
to a to itsp. You both should take a look at these.

british dietetic association (bda)
  1. 5:2 diet
  2. dukan diet
  3. paleo diet
  4. new atkins diet
  5. alkaline diet
  6. cambridge diet
  7. south beach diet
  8. slimming world diet
  9. slim-fast diet
  10. lighterlife diet
  11. weightwatchers diet
  12. rosemary conley diet

it looks like it is time to post this again.

evasion techniques in ethics
  1. ignoring the question - this is done the most often here by a, p & f
  2. acknowledging the question without answering it
  3. questioning the question by:
    1. requesting clarification
    2. reflecting the question back to the questioner, for example saying "you tell me" - f just recently did this by asking me questions without first answering any.
  4. attacking the question by saying:
    1. "the question fails to address the important issue"
    2. "the question is hypothetical or speculative"
    3. "the question is based on a false premise"
    4. "the question is factually inaccurate"
    5. "the question includes a misquotation"
    6. "the question includes a quotation taken out of context"
    7. "the question is objectionable" - stating that a question is morally objectionable is illogical.
    8. "the question is based on a false alternative"
  5. attacking the questioner - this is done the most by a. See ad hominem. :p
  6. declining to answer by:
    1. refusing on grounds of inability
    2. being unwilling to answer
    3. saying "i can't speak for someone else"
    4. deferring answer, saying "it is not possible to answer the question for the time being"
    5. pleading ignorance
    6. placing the responsibility to answer on someone else
[/quote]
images
 
Ignorantio elenchi! thats my all-time favourite Harry Potter spell.

I shall leave you to your phallusies; you seem quite keen on them. make sure you dont choke.

Hillary for President!

At least I know where your mind is at. Those who make sexual jokes are usually the most prudish. Harry Potter, Hillary and phallus(i)es. You must be a hard-core misandrist. :innocent:
 
Hillary really needs to counteract Chump's antics with some of her own !
Can't she burn her bra or something ?

:clap:
 
A vote winner might be the idea of collective responsibility to pay for acts of terrorism. So the next outrage is paid for by that group not by the over burdened taxpayers.
Coming to think of it The Fifth Amendment should be scrapped. Why help the criminals ?
 
Last edited:
i know who wont win

I will bet 500 bucks will not win and if he does get the gop vote he will ultimately cost them the next presidency. Just look at history, guys like trump unite the center (independents), left, and far left. There is no way the gop can defeat this unification. Just my two cents.
 
I will bet 500 bucks will not win and if he does get the gop vote he will ultimately cost them the next presidency. Just look at history, guys like trump unite the center (independents), left, and far left. There is no way the gop can defeat this unification. Just my two cents.

You are not making any sense. You do realize that Trump is far right. Then you say that they GOP cannot beat his unification. :LOL::LOL::LOL:

What unification. Hillary and Bernie are more divided and polling neck and neck. If they were truly unified, then there would be a clear front-runner for the democrats. There is not any unification on either side. The difference is that Trump has been a distraction, acting as a lightning rod for all the faults of the GOP, allowing the other Republican candidates to come out smelling like roses.

You have your candidates and parties mixed up.
 
well

You are not making any sense. You do realize that Trump is far right. Then you say that they GOP cannot beat his unification. :LOL::LOL::LOL:

What unification. Hillary and Bernie are more divided and polling neck and neck. If they were truly unified, then there would be a clear front-runner for the democrats. There is not any unification on either side. The difference is that Trump has been a distraction, acting as a lightning rod for all the faults of the GOP, allowing the other Republican candidates to come out smelling like roses.

You have your candidates and parties mixed up.


Sorry I don't have time to give you a lecture on late 18th & 19th century politics but I do remember McKinley won the vote against Bryan because he put a lot of effort on getting the immigrant vote even though the party advised him not to use this tactic and focus on the base. I don't mean unite in terms of the suits, I meant in terms of voters. During those periods there were huge rallies against Jews and Catholics, the racial separation issue was also big but in the end, those who have no opinions, those who have average liberal opinions and those who have strong liberal opinions just don't like guys like trump. You can say that the bankers did help Mckenley which is definitely true but how many arab CEO'S have we seen condemning Trump. He is creating an alliance that was never suppose to take place. If you took senior us history you will know this is just hype, unfortunately the US mass has been mentally desensitized by media so they will never really know. They essentially have two pundits that are either against your views or for your views.....and you're not suppose to get out that box.
 
Sorry I don't have time to give you a lecture on late 18th & 19th century politics but I do remember McKinley won the vote against Bryan because he put a lot of effort on getting the immigrant vote even though the party advised him not to use this tactic and focus on the base. I don't mean unite in terms of the suits, I meant in terms of voters. During those periods there were huge rallies against Jews and Catholics, the racial separation issue was also big but in the end, those who have no opinions, those who have average liberal opinions and those who have strong liberal opinions just don't like guys like trump. You can say that the bankers did help Mckenley which is definitely true but how many arab CEO'S have we seen condemning Trump. He is creating an alliance that was never suppose to take place. If you took senior us history you will know this is just hype, unfortunately the US mass has been mentally desensitized by media so they will never really know. They essentially have two pundits that are either against your views or for your views.....and you're not suppose to get out that box.

That is a fallacy of an irrelevant conclusion. Staying on topic.

The ignoratio elenchi is most effective in political contexts where oral arguments are being given. Many listeners in such a context are easily distracted. Often this fallacy can be effective as a persuasive technique when coupled with the ad populum fallacy. The emotional situation in crowd can often be distracting and sometimes leads to overlooking the logical import of what is said. Ask yourself if the premisses were false, would that fact imply that the conclusion is false also? It it would not, then the premisses can be considered irrelevant to the conclusion.

Where to begin. While you're pointless history lesson is not untrue it is completely irrelevant. You beat around the bush for a long time until coming to one simple point that is quite obvious. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to state that liberals don't like conservatives, who are usually Republicans.

Your statement about McKinley is awful and is an appeal to emotion fallacy concerning immigration. Just because you may think that it is morally wrong to keep people from entering the country does not mean that the belief is unjustified or illogical. It is pulling on people's heart strings instead of using facts to win an argument. In fact, even if it were morally wrong to stop immigration it would still be irrelevant to the argument.

Example
As all clear-thinking residents of our fine state have already realized, the Governor's plan for financing public education is nothing but the bloody-fanged wolf of socialism cleverly disguised in the harmless sheep's clothing of concern for children.
Therefore, the Governor's plan is bad public policy.

The problem here is that although the flowery language of the premise might arouse strong feelings in many members of its intended audience, the widespread occurrence of those feelings has nothing to do with the truth of the conclusion.
 
That is a fallacy of an irrelevant conclusion. Staying on topic.

The ignoratio elenchi is most effective in political contexts where oral arguments are being given. Many listeners in such a context are easily distracted. Often this fallacy can be effective as a persuasive technique when coupled with the ad populum fallacy. The emotional situation in crowd can often be distracting and sometimes leads to overlooking the logical import of what is said. Ask yourself if the premisses were false, would that fact imply that the conclusion is false also? It it would not, then the premisses can be considered irrelevant to the conclusion.

Where to begin. While you're pointless history lesson is not untrue it is completely irrelevant. You beat around the bush for a long time until coming to one simple point that is quite obvious. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to state that liberals don't like conservatives, who are usually Republicans.

Your statement about McKinley is awful and is an appeal to emotion fallacy concerning immigration. Just because you may think that it is morally wrong to keep people from entering the country does not mean that the belief is unjustified or illogical. It is pulling on people's heart strings instead of using facts to win an argument. In fact, even if it were morally wrong to stop immigration it would still be irrelevant to the argument.

Example
As all clear-thinking residents of our fine state have already realized, the Governor's plan for financing public education is nothing but the bloody-fanged wolf of socialism cleverly disguised in the harmless sheep's clothing of concern for children.
Therefore, the Governor's plan is bad public policy.

The problem here is that although the flowery language of the premise might arouse strong feelings in many members of its intended audience, the widespread occurrence of those feelings has nothing to do with the truth of the conclusion.

I go with option B.
Thanks (y)

What point are you exactly trying to make with option A? Perhaps I missed somefink???
 
I go with option B.
Thanks (y)

What point are you exactly trying to make with option A? Perhaps I missed somefink???

In the words of @Atilla, ROFL. :LOL:

You certainly did miss something, you usually miss most things. A or B. :LOL:
This is not a dichotomy.
 
In the words of @Atilla, ROFL. :LOL:

You certainly did miss something, you usually miss most things. A or B. :LOL:
This is not a dichotomy.


Oh dear, I never miss taking my medication and I am always so good at taking them at the correct time but I seem to have missed one of your 1000 and 1 points? I'm soooo soooorrryyyy...

I notice you really like the sound of your own keyboard, don't you? :)
 
Top