Hillary as Secretary Of State? Change?

[Ausmerican]

Not true. As the many facts I've cited on this thread show. And this has not been investigated many times. It's been ignored. By people like you who always seem to show up on threads to defend the Clintons from any allegation of misconduct beyond a bj in the Oval Office.

Now be fair. Every thread you are involved in turns into this same Clinton is EEEEvul snorefest so it isn't a matter of turning up in these threads. It is a matter of you turning these threads.
And it apparently HAS been investigated many times, by both the sane and silly, or where are you pulling all your "facts" from?

And doesn't the "show up to defend the Clintons" thing get old for you? Fact check: I did not even live in the United States before mid 98. Therefore I was not even here for most of the Clinton years. I have no dog in this fight.

Do not make personal attacks

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

Maybe you and Cicero could get together and debate whether Kennedy or Clinton was the worst POTUS ever.

That fact that I can prove Williams, Fiske, Starr and many others in the Clinton administration lied about the facts?

Yes, much like troofers can "prove" that there was no plane that hit the Pentagon. And JFK conspiracy nuts can "prove" that there had to be a second shooter. Conjecture is not proof. I do not think that word means what you think it means. So what was the difference again?

Well maybe you folks "here" need yours eyes opened if you hope to maintain any credibility where skepticism is concerned.

Mr Pot, have you met Mr Kettle?

 

[GreyICE]

Well, there are the obvious culprits, like the Liberal Media Elite^tm.

Secret Service are obviously in on it as well. I think we can count the FBI as a given at this point. Then a large number of Democratic senators, that almost goes without saying.

The real questions are what was Al-Jazeera, Mossad, and the NKVD's role in this? We know that they all played an important part, but how much did they know and when did they know it? Open question here.

 

[boloboffin]

I think Obama lied about all this change nonsense. All he has done is given us a Clinton restoration. But I wouldn't want Obama to have to make big foreign policy decisions with out holding Hillary Clintons hand because he doesn't have enough experience. All Obama is good for is giving speeches. There was no substance behind his candidacy.

There is one difference in this "Clinton restoration." All of these people work for Obama now.

Okay, Ken Starr and Snopes are in on the conspiracy to keep this silent, as well as every member of every investigative team and every judge that found there was no criminal activity. Who else? We need to start a list.

The military guy who authorized the Citgo station to be built south of the plane's flight pattern. Oh, wait, wrong meticulously-hashed-out reworking of a historical event. My bad.

 

[BeAChooser]

Okay, Ken Starr and Snopes are in on the conspiracy to keep this silent

No, I think Snopes is just lazy in the research it often does ... and perhaps their motivation for doing research is a bit influenced by their politics. As for Ken Starr, I can't help but notice that you still haven't addressed the specific problems I identified with his work. Are you ever going to get around to doing that, Tricky?

 

[BeAChooser]

What's unfortunate is there are shreds of damning facts about Hillary that are buried by the morass of CT nonsense you've posted.

You haven't demonstrated that anything I posted is CT nonsense. To do that you actually have to address the specific facts I noted. Either challenge me on them or show what I claimed is false. Are you EVER going to get around to doing that?

 

[Lonewulf]

You haven't demonstrated that anything I posted is CT nonsense. To do that you actually have to address the specific facts I noted. Either challenge me on them or show what I claimed is false. Are you EVER going to get around to doing that?

As you're on a skeptic's forum, perhaps you should teach yourself a bit about the burden of proof. Notably, it's up to you to demonstrate that your claims are true.

 

[BeAChooser]

I'm pretty sure that others in this thread have done a good enough job of demolishing what you've said.

ROTFLOL! You want to know how many times I've heard that statement during discussions about the Clintons? Let just say this ... you aren't along in waving you hands and then claiming "I'm sure others did a good job of demolishing your claims." Your remark only proves you can't and that you haven't even read the thread.

By the way, I'm an independent voter.

Yes, I keep hearing that. It's almost like all democrats nowadays consider themselves independents. Is democrat a bad word?

I'm all for rule of law.

Yeah. Sure you are. Your statements on this thread are very convincing evidence of that.

I'm only "so sensitive" because of the way you used that word.

"that word"? ROTFLOL!

I mean, I'm willing to bet that most likely you're a Caucasian male.

Being a democrat might be important in this discussion. But why is my ethnicity important (and I'm not saying what it is one way or another)?

Well, enjoy your life, you Caucasian male. I just added a hint of insult to it.

You did? I guess I missed that. Do you have something against Caucasian males? (Note that I say that with a twinkle in my eye. I'm not trying to extend another derail and expect no response.)

By the way, generalizing to the degree you've been doing

Generalizing? I'm the ONLY ONE on this thread posting specifics facts. It's the naysayers who are tossing out the vague generality, lonewulf.

and the prejudice you've shown

Can you specifically identify where it is that I've shown prejudice? Because I don't think that term applies to me. Here are some definitions:

1) An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts. Well, clearly that doesn't apply because I've supplied post after post showing that my opinions and judgement are based on specific verifiable knowledge and examination of the facts. It seems to me that it is your side in this discussion that has been forming opinion without considering the facts.

2) a baseless and usually negative attitude toward members of a group. But as one can see from reading the above thread (which apparently you didn't), my attitude towards democrats are hardly baseless. By the way, I also have some negative attitudes about republicans but that's for another thread.

demonstrates that political bigotry

ROTFLOL! Let's see. A bigot is usually defined as "one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." So you think I'm a bigot where democrats are concerned? But I have plenty of liberal and democrat friends. I'm quite tolerant with respect to them. We have dinner at each other's houses regularly. We just steer clear of issues and facts that ... well ... make THEM uncomfortable. I think if one were going to claim I'm intolerant, it's only with regards to those who trash the rule of law and Constitution for political gain. And I don't see that as a bad thing. And that intolerance led me to getting thrown off Free Republic. So it isn't just democrats who I criticize.

humorous

Well I'm certainly being entertained by this thread and the PREDICTABLE response of the naysayers.

There are over 72 million registered Democratic voters.

Yes, and surprisingly about half of them voted for Hillary despite all that is known about her and her husbands actions the last several decades. What surprises me even more (hence this thread) is that Obama supporters would approve of putting a Clinton in a key position in Obama's administration knowing all we learned about the Clintons the last several decades. Fool you once, shame on Clinton, but fool you twice, shame on you.

 

[BeAChooser]

And doesn't the "show up to defend the Clintons" thing get old for you? Fact check: I did not even live in the United States before mid 98. Therefore I was not even here for most of the Clinton years.

And yet, here you are.

I have no dog in this fight.

And yet, here you are.

Quote:
That fact that I can prove Williams, Fiske, Starr and many others in the Clinton administration lied about the facts?

Yes, much like troofers can "prove" that there was no plane that hit the Pentagon.

"troofers" can't "prove" that. In fact, I've argued against them on those threads repeatedly and effectively. And in those cases, just like here, I was the one posting actual, verifiable facts and clear logic. They were waving hands. Like you. You are doing exactly what they do ... making assertions you won't defend with sources and ignoring the source facts that prove you wrong.

Conjecture is not proof.

True. But there is no conjecture involved in asserting Williams lied to the Senate when she told them she removed nothing from Foster's office. The Secret Service saw her do it. There is no conjecture involved in asserting that Williams lied about not talking to Susan Thomases. The phone records prove it. There is no conjecture involved in asserting that Hillary and Williams talked on the phone immediately prior to and after the search of Foster's office. Again, phone records prove it. There is no conjecture involved in knowing that Starr lied when he claimed the FBI files had all been returned to the FBI. Ray said they weren't ... and he should know. There is no conjecture involved in asserting that Fiske lied. I showed that his claims that witnesses said Foster was depressed are nothing but lies by quoting the actual FBI and Park Police witness interview notes and testimony. But of course, like a troofer, you don't want to discuss those facts.

 

[BeAChooser]

Secret Service are obviously in on it as well. I think we can count the FBI as a given at this point. Then a large number of Democratic senators, that almost goes without saying.

Now Ausmerican ... here's an example of conjecture.

 

[BeAChooser]

The military guy who authorized the Citgo station to be built south of the plane's flight pattern. Oh, wait, wrong meticulously-hashed-out reworking of a historical event. My bad.

So BB, given the facts I've noted, would you care to explain why you don't think Hillary ordered Williams to remove items from Vince Foster's office the night of his death? Or perhaps you could explain how Lisa Foster's statement on a handwritten FBI interview note that her husband was "fighting" a "prescription" turned into a statement on the typed FD-302 interview report that he was "fighting depression". Don't believe me? Look at this: http://www.swlink.net/~hoboh/foster...or_Depression/prescription_for_depression.htm

 

[BeAChooser]

As you're on a skeptic's forum, perhaps you should teach yourself a bit about the burden of proof. Notably, it's up to you to demonstrate that your claims are true.

I have. Repeatedly on threads just like this. And every time ... just like now ... the folks on your side of the fence simply ignore every fact and source provided and try the same tactics as seen on this thread. Let's test you. Let's see if you will address even one small fact in this case.

Please explain how Lisa Foster's statement on a handwritten FBI interview note from the night her husband died that her husband was "fighting prescription" magically turned into a statement on the typed FD-302 interview report in the IOC final report that he was "fighting depression". Look at this: http://www.swlink.net/~hoboh/foster...or_Depression/prescription_for_depression.htm and I await your response.

 

[Tricky]

Please explain how Lisa Foster's statement on a handwritten FBI interview note from the night her husband died that her husband was "fighting prescription" magically turned into a statement on the typed FD-302 interview report in the IOC final report that he was "fighting depression". Look at this: http://www.swlink.net/~hoboh/foster...or_Depression/prescription_for_depression.htm and I await your response.

It is pretty obvious that in her hastily scribbled note, she meant to say "Dr. said he was fighthing depression" or perhaps "fighting depression and given a prescription", which the doctor confirms. Nobody "fights a prescription". That is simply stupid. No one is obligated to fill or take a prescription they don't want. There is no "fight".

Trying to turn this into a suggestion that he was not depressed and hadn't been give a prescription for antidepressants is simply ludicrous.

That site full of "facts" is a conspiracy theory site. Your "facts" are wild assumptions that are constructed and shoehorned in to fit a scenario that only CT people seem to believe.

This is just one tiny example of why we don't bother to dispute your "wall of words" kind of argument. It is not worth our time to debunk every CT book and article you've read. I'm impressed by your devotion to this cause in reading and citing every little scrap of anti-Clinton woo, but certainly not by your skepticism.

 

[Lonewulf]

Yes, I keep hearing that. It's almost like all democrats nowadays consider themselves independents. Is democrat a bad word?

You really are unaware that there's a way to be an independent voter? That pretty much makes you COMPLETELY ignorant of American politics...

I'm not registered as Democrat or Republican. I'm registered Independent. It's the truth. Get over it, and yourself.

Either that, or actually prove your claim that I'm lying. If you can't, then please shut the hell up.

 

[Ausmerican]

BAC, I think it is quite clear I do not hold you in high regard. I think you are blindly partisan, completely unwilling to look at any evidence about any liberal or Democrat objectlively, and have little regard for the truth or critical thinking if either get in the way of advancing your own agenda and petty obsession with the Clintons. In short I feel pretty much the same way about you as you do about me and most other posters here.

Having said that, my comment in post #103 was uncalled for, out of line and worst of all, personal. For that I do honestly and sincerely apologise.

 

[boloboffin]

So BB, given the facts I've noted, would you care to explain why you don't think Hillary ordered Williams to remove items from Vince Foster's office the night of his death? Or perhaps you could explain how Lisa Foster's statement on a handwritten FBI interview note that her husband was "fighting" a "prescription" turned into a statement on the typed FD-302 interview report that he was "fighting depression". Don't believe me? Look at this: http://www.swlink.net/~hoboh/foster...or_Depression/prescription_for_depression.htm

No, for the same reason I don't provide a detailed forensic analysis of the flaming bag of poo some silly kids might leave at my front door. Douse, sweep, trash.

 

[gdnp]

I have. Repeatedly on threads just like this. And every time ... just like now ... the folks on your side of the fence simply ignore every fact and source provided and try the same tactics as seen on this thread. Let's test you. Let's see if you will address even one small fact in this case.

No, BAC, we are not going to play that game. These charges have been investigated by the justice department, by Senate committees, and by Kenneth Starr, and although there may be some discrepancies in various accounts none found any behavior worthy of indictment or censure. We do not wish to attempt to reproduce their investigations over the internet.

You claim that each of these investigators was either biased, bought off, or otherwise compromised by the Clinton conspiracy. I suggest you read up on the No True Scotsman fallacy

 

[GreyICE]

It is pretty obvious that in her hastily scribbled note, she meant to say "Dr. said he was fighthing depression" or perhaps "fighting depression and given a prescription", which the doctor confirms. Nobody "fights a prescription". That is simply stupid. No one is obligated to fill or take a prescription they don't want. There is no "fight".

Trying to turn this into a suggestion that he was not depressed and hadn't been give a prescription for antidepressants is simply ludicrous.

That site full of "facts" is a conspiracy theory site. Your "facts" are wild assumptions that are constructed and shoehorned in to fit a scenario that only CT people seem to believe.

This is just one tiny example of why we don't bother to dispute your "wall of words" kind of argument. It is not worth our time to debunk every CT book and article you've read. I'm impressed by your devotion to this cause in reading and citing every little scrap of anti-Clinton woo, but certainly not by your skepticism.

Pull it! PULL IT! He said pull it, not pull out! Who uses the phrase pull out? Obviously a demolition term!

 

[Darth Rotor]

BAC, you have failed to tell us what the pathologists had to say about Foster's suicide. Or, I lost that detail in your wall of text.

Got anything?

DR

 

[A'isha]

What is interesting is that you don't see that *I'm* the one acting like the anti-truthers. I'm the one linking facts that prove things. You folks are the ones avoiding them. You folks are the ones using the *truther* method of debate. For example, what characteristics do we associate with 911 *Truthers*?

1) They ignore any fact that proves them wrong. But I've addressed every single point made by my opponents on this thread. It has been YOUR side that has had to ignore factual points over and over.

2) They ignore or dismiss what real experts on the subject say. I'm the one quoting the experts as far as hand writing analysis is concerned. I'm the one quoting the witness statements gathered by Park Police and the FBI in this matter. It is YOUR side that is been ignoring or dismissing out of hand what they say.

3) They throw out red herrings and employ countless strawmen. Again, that's not a tactic I've used here. That's a tactic YOUR side in this debate seems to be employing. Whether Hillary was indicted or convicted of a crime is irrelevant to whether she actually obstructed justice by sending Williams to Fosters office to remove items. Whether or not Williams was convicted of perjury, she clearly did in her testimony before Congress.

Now I can see what you hope to do at this point. Finding yourself unable to effectively challenge the many facts I've presented, you hope to have the thread removed to the CT forum. A tactic of last resort in this case. But hopefully, the administration of this forum will see that these allegations clearly have substance and should be discussed before a Clinton again represents the US as a member of the Executive Branch.

You extensively quote what conspiracy websites have to say rather than going to primary sources or official reports ("fbicover-up.com"? Yes, they sound totally unbiased), you make speculations then treat your speculations as proven evidence for yet further speculations (pretty much the entirety of your post #53 in this thread), you claim that any investigative analysis or official report that disagrees with any of your "evidence" has been produced by someone who's in on the conspiracy and/or paid off by the "true culprits" (Kenn Starr was really working for the Clintons! Snopes is a bunch of Clinton-lovers), you twist the actual evidence to suit your argument even if that interpretation makes no sense ("fighting a prescription"? Really?), you keep repeating the same things over and over despite the evidence and arguments presented to you (I've read your Ron Brown threads...yikes), and you keep hijacking barely-related threads to rant about your pet conspiracies (turning a thread about Obama's selection of Clinton-era staffers for his cabinet into "ZOMG Hilalry killded Vince Foster!").

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Slight derail:

Can anyone point to a site with a concise and up-to-date list of who Obama has named for what positions?