Discussion in 'Conspiracy Debates' started by Truth-Bringer, Aug 11, 2007.
And that is all you can come up with? Pathetic.
Gennifer Flowers? Financed by Republican groups, she is a proven liar and money grubber.
hahaha...I love you Popeye
Lots of liars running around....
ROTFL... http://www.americanpolitics.com - clearly an ultra liberal site.
Note in this piece it's all a bunch of out right hatred and opinion. No facts to back up any of their assertions - no sources, no cites. I love their points on the audio tapes. She was offered money for them. So what????????????? You've got the President caught in a clear lie on those tapes - which your article doesn't even bother to mention. It just ignores that unpleasant fact and continues to bash Flowers. In fact, it can't refute ANY of the details she exposed about Bill Clinton. It doesn't dare try, given Clinton's history...
Yes, it's shocking that a liberal website that supports Democrats and a liberal author that supports Democrats would attack Gennifer Flowers and defend Bill Clinton.
That's all you're worth.
Now get up off your knees and take Clinton's dogma out of your mouth.
Popeye wants his turn.
This coming a from a person who:
- posts material that is primarily subjective, hearsay, outright opinion and fallacious cause and effect relationships
- utterly ignores evidence to the contrary, the fact that her star performers are themselves caught up in lies
- posts material from a conspiracy theory website and from other sources who clearly hate Clinton and are being paid to come forth (of course it can't possibly be biased )
- claims she doesn't hate Clinton yet is contradicted by her own postings
- claims she doesn't believe in the Clinton body count yet refers to "Arkanside"
- and has the unmitigated gall to criticize Popeye's source
This is hysterical! I'll say this - girl, you have balls, even if all you know how to do is play with them.
Certainly, I have posted numerous opinoins - but I have also posted facts. Again, this is another appeal to ridicule.
I can go through that list on Gennifer Flowers and show that they are all mischaracterizations or exagerations, just as I did with the one point above. It is a hit piece - and it was written by die hard Clinton supporters - who conveniently fail to mention the verified audio tapes of their lover Clinton lying his a$$ off.
And gee, do you think she might have taken some money since her connections in Arkansas would have been totally severed by Bill Clinton? Gee, do you think she might have been blacklisted for future jobs, since she had relied on Clinton for employment in the past?
My sources also indict numerous Republicans.... And that's a huge problem for you, since the source above has only good things to say about Democrats or liberals. THAT is clear bias.
I've explained my position on this, and yet you still feel the need to try and mischaracterize it. You really need to get a life.
ROTFL. You're really stretching here. No, I don't believe the entire Clinton body count is accurate. But that doesn't mean I can't use a term that they use also. The term was created prior to the Clinton body count.
LOL. STFU. His source did a complete hit piece and is a biased piece of @#$%. It is a source that loves all things Democrat and hates all things Republican. Again, the sources I have presented have made allegations against both Democrats and Republican.
No, what's funny is that you still have Clinton's dogma in your mouth. You really need to take it out of your mouth.
Sometimes you mix them up.
This is the statement which pretty much ruins your credibility here. You claim this is all mischarecterzations or exagerations and that is was a "hit piece" written by "die hard Clinton supporters" yet - when presented with similar pieces concerning Clinton you refuse to acknowledge it might be biased or a hit piece or a witchhunt. And all of this - plus your frequent bringing up of Clinton in other debates makes your statement "I don't hate Clinton" a real joke.
You are stretching it pretty thin here.
And here you make a logical fallacy. Like with Flowers - just because one person lied about something (Clinton) doesn't mean the other person (Flowers) is telling the truth. Here - just because your source indicts Republicans doesn't mean it isn't biased. The world isn't made up of only Democrats and Republicans or Conservatives and Liberals. You are creating false dichotomies. For example a source that is Liberatarion in outlook could well have a clear bias against both Republicans and Democrats - and it isn't any less of a bias.
I find it amusing. Your statement "I don't hate Clinton" is specifically and frequently contradicted by your other postings. You spend an inordinate amount of energy posting about his evils (far more then the evils of Bush & Co. whom you also claim to despise). And yet your position is being mischaracterized?
I don't think so. I say she protesteth too much.
Was it? A quick google of "Arkancide" placed it alongside "Clinton body count" in many articles and referenced many aspects of the "body count". Nice lie. Try again.
You have quite the potty mouth when people don't agree with you. Again - there are more sides then simply Democrats and Republicans. Simply because a source references both doesn't mean it is unbiased you silly cow Nor does it mean it's wrong.
There you go again. You really need some new lines.
Wow. And here I thought all this time that he just turned to stone and died because he looked at Chelsea! Boy was I wrong.
The Clinton Chronicles
This originally came out at the beginning of Clinton's first term in the White House. It goes through the details of his criminal history in Arkansas. It demonstrates in detail how they buried all the evidence and subverted the law.
The Clinton lovers will of course rush in to defend their master, but just watch this documentary and make up your own mind. Gullible Clinton lovers would have everyone believe that all these people are lying and "Honest Bill" is telling nothing but the truth.
Separate names with a comma.