Is Hillary habitual liar?

Wow, seems like Hillary is not a good a liar as her husband Bill, not that he was a good liar either, "I did not have sexual relations with that women"

Is anyone following the blatant lie she told? What do her supporters think of this?
How will they spin this Whammy?

First, her lie about being a critic of NAFTA, yet records show she completely heartily supported it. When it comes to the essential test of the trade debate, Clinton has been identified as a liar -- a put-in-boldface-type "L-I-A-R" liar.

Then there was her whammy about being named after Sir Edmond Hillary...Not!
Does she just make this stuff up as she goes?

Now her big on about being fired upon in Bosnia!

"To hear her tell it, she was lucky to escape with her life, landing in a hail of sniper fire. She said they were forced to cut short the greeting ceremony at the airport and had to run with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.' But apparently there was time to stop and visit at the airport with an 8-year-old girl..."

Even her daughter Chelsea is lying for her!

I guess that is what the Clintons are known for now…Lies.

Does she not know about Youtube, Snopes and Google or are people that stupid to just let her lie. And to think this is Presidential material. Wow…how low can you go?

No wonder Obama is kicking her as* I cannot wait until the country gets rid of this despicable family!

Your turn…do not equivocate!

I don't know, but that picture just ruined my day!

This will help you Brian...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BfNqhV5hg4

If not, she's got me fooled.

...the answer is....no....I will let the doctors/lawyers on the forum give the correct terminology as to why.

don4975 Wrote:

She is no different that any other politician. They all say whatever they think you want to hear today and then count on you being to stupid to remember what they said the following week. I wonder how many times she and Bill said "I do not recall" or something similar during their tenure?

updated 4:59 a.m. ET, Tues., March. 25, 2008
WASHINGTON - Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign said she "misspoke" when saying last week she had landed under sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia as first lady in March 1996. She later characterized the episode as a "misstatement" and a "minor blip."


oops...she made a mistake about someone firing BULLETS at her head. Yeah, I might have forgotten that also!

She is such a bad LIAR...

If it was someone of the other party it would be called a "bald-faced lie serving no other purpose but to inflate his presence"

Gerry we know they all fib or stretch the truth to suit their needs but the aduacity of her lies is what boggles me.

Now she says she "mispoke"

Tell that to your father when you were a kid....

"Dad, I did not lie, I mispoke"

I guess I should not complain because at least the left wing media is covering it for a change.

"I guess I should not complain because at least the left wing media is covering it for a change."

I suspect the media is not covering it the way they would if it was McCain who lied, though. Does not really matter to me one way or another. I will say that the fact that she was caught in another lie does not effect my opinion of her in the least. I bet it does not effect the opinion of her follower's either.

Duh?

I agree with Gerry. She will say anything to get elected.

So will Obama, so will McCain...

The question is.........Who does that leave to run the country? What would happen if no one voted until someone worthy of a vote, someone with integrity ran for office?
What would happen? Would President Bush stay at the helm by default?

Nope....he has had his 2 terms...and that is that by law.

I think we should all write in Richard Petty!

Thanks for the pic Don, there goes my lunch. I need to diet anyway.

Are the Clintons French? it would make sense.

Does this mean that if out of protest, each citizen did not vote, no one would be running the USA?
Forced to vote for someone who is a proven liar isn't really all that good of a situation.
Sort of looks like they have everyone over a barrel.
The election slogan should be, "Vote for the most honest leader, the one who lies the less! "

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMfUajhL24I

Jim1971 Wrote:

Jack, I have written many posts on the ethics of Hllary and Bill Clinton. If you have done all the research it shows the make up of Hillary's mind. You have to start with where her mind is. She beleives she is royalty and should not have to worry about the facts. Once you start from that fact most of her other actions over the last 20 years can be understood. In any situation think first how would a Monarch act and then go forward. I have not seen or heard any what we might consider lies from either Barak or McCain. The closest is the Rezko real estate deal with Barak and McCain's vote on taxes.

OK so where has Obama lied?
OK so where has McCain lied?

Flip Flopping one's position is not the same...A lie is a lie.

JackMG Wrote:

>
> Tuning in to C-Span recently, I found myself listening to a speech by Senator
> Barrack Hussein Obama, Jr. He was standing in the pulpit of a black church
> in Selma, Alabama, and as I studied the body language of the dozen or so
> black ministers standing behind the senator, I couldn't help but be
> reminded of the little head-bobbing dolls that people used to place in the
> rear windows of their 1957 Chevrolets. If their reactions are any
> indication, the new Schlickmeister of the Democrat Party is actually a
> pretty accomplished public speaker. However, as he spoke, I found my bull_
> _ _ _ alarm going off, repeatedly. But I couldn't quite figure out why
> until I actually read excerpts of his speech several days later. Here's
> part of what he said: "...something happened back here in Selma, Alabama.
> Something happened in Birmingham that sent out what Bobby Kennedy called,
> "ripples of hope all around the world." Something happened when a bunch of
> women decided they were going to walk instead of ride
> the bus after a long day of doing somebody else's laundry, looking
> after somebody else's children.
>
>
> "When (black) men who had PhD's decided 'that's enough' and 'we're
> going to stand up for our dignity,' that sent a shout across oceans so
> that my grandfather began to imagine something different for his son. His
> son, who grew up herding goats in a small village in Africa could suddenly
> set his sights a little higher and believe that maybe a black man in this
> world had a chance.
>
>
> "… So the Kennedy's decided we're going to do an air lift. We're
> going to go to Africa and start bringing young Africans over to this
> country and give them scholarships to study so they can learn what a
> wonderful country America is.
>
>
> "This young man named Barack Obama got one of those tickets and
> came over to this country. He met this woman whose great
> great-great-great-grandfather had owned slaves; but she had a good idea
> there was some craziness going on because they looked at
> each other and they decided that we know that, (in) the world as it
> has been, it might not be possible for us to get together and have a
> child. There was something stirring across the country because of what
> happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across
> a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born. So don't
> tell me I don't have a claim on Selma, Alabama. Don't tell me I'm not
> coming home to Selma, Alabama."
>
>
> Okay, so what's wrong with that? It all sounds good… but is it?
>
> Obama told his audience
> that, because some folks had the courage to "march across a bridge" in
> Selma, Alabama, his mother, a white woman from Kansas, and his father, a
> black Muslim from Africa, took heart. It gave them the courage to get
> married and have a child. The problem with that characterization is that
> Barrack Obama, Jr. was born on August 4, 1961, while the first of three
> marches across that bridge in Selma didn't occur until March 7, 1965, at
> least five years after Obama's parents met.
>
>
>
> Obama went on to tell his audience
> that the Kennedys, Jack and Bobby, decided to do an airlift. They would
> bring some young Africans over so that they could be educated and learn
> all about America. His grandfather heard that call and sent his son,
> Barrack Obama, Sr., to America.
>
>
> The problem with that scenario is that, having been born in August
> 1961, the future senator was not conceived until sometime in November
> 1960.
> So, if his African grandfather heard words that "sent a shout
> across oceans," inspiring him to send his goat-herder son to America, it
> was not Democrat Jack Kennedy he heard, or his brother Bobby, it was
> Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
>
>
> Obama's speech is reminiscent of Al Gore's claim of having invented
> the Internet, Hillary Clinton's claim of having been named after the first
> man to climb Mt. Everest… even though she was born five years and seven
> months before Sir Edmund climbed the mountain, and John Kerry's imaginary
> trip to
> Cambodia.
>
>
> As one of my black friends, Eddie Huff, has said, "We need to ask
> some very serious questions of the senator from Illinois. It's not enough
> to be black, it's not enough to be articulate, and it's not enough to be
> eloquent and a media darling… The only question will be how deaf an ear,
> or how blind an eye, will people turn in order to turn a frog into a
> prince."
>
>
> It appears that Senator Barrack Hussein Obama, Jr. is not a "fresh
> face," as media sycophants like to describe him, he's just another in a
> long line of Democrat snake oil salesmen.

don4975 Wrote:

I would think by now those of you on the right, not IN the right but ON the right, would find another horse. I think we all get it by now. The Liberals, Democrats, whatever are the worst thing to happen to this planet. If it weren't for those on the right this planet would be a god-less place. Praise be to the Conservatives that save us from the left. It must feel good to be perfect and never, ever make a mistake. I have yet to make up my mind about which candidate to vote for but pity my little brain for thinking, after reading all these posts, the right can do no wrong.

I have to agree with Gerry, politicians have two goals, to get elected and then get re-elected. And they will all tell you what you want to hear. But what is they say about glass houses. Like I said, please find another horse! I enjoy the banter but not the same old stuff over and over.

Steve

Is Hillary habitual liar?

I don't seem to recall....

My lies were taken out of context......

I was misquoted...............

A politician's best defense!

Gerry Wrote:

don4975 Wrote:

Now, now, Hillary is a prevaricator. Or maybe it is that she is a mythologist. Or simply a teller of tall tales. Or maybe she simply has a bad case of selective memory ~ remembering things as she would like them to have been rather than what they were.

I get a kick out of her bloated statements about her "experience". Sort reads like a resume' from someone who wants you to think that they did and were involved in such and such, but who might actually only have passed the room where these things happened.

I am much more concerned about what a candidate's experiences were and where they led, rather than how many or over how many years. Just because a person has done something or worked in a job for many years doesn't necessarily mean that they did the right thing or with improving results all that time. And it doesn't necessarily mean that a person learned a damned thing from the experience either.

"And it doesn't necessarily mean that a person learned a damned thing from the experience either."

Evidently she learned little from Husband Bill's lying and cheating and that being the truth will prevail.

we do not have to think to tell the truth, only a lier needs a good memory

Jerry, I think you hit the nail on the head.

You don't need to think to tell a lie, either, but you'd better have a good memory to tell it more than once to the same people.

Neither of the last several administrations have been paragons of honesty. I won't even start on the lies concerning Bush, his minions, and Iraq. This lack of honest obout our real problems has kept us from making any progress on issues that both Left and Right can come together on. Most of you aren't going to vote for Obama anyway, but the fact remains he has the best odds of being the next President. I can imagine the Roman Senate arguing over giving the Goths some worthless lands in what is now Austria rather than seeing the larger picture and making needed changes in their society, and using diplomacy, to ensure the survival of their city and culture.

What is the old saying, "A problem well defined is a problem half solved". If we can't even be honest about the problems we all face as a nation, how can we possibly solve them? Lefties believe we need government to help us solve large problems that are too big for individuals and private organisations to handle on their own. As it stands we have some big problems, so who else is going to solve them? However, the first step in both sides getting together to solve them is honesty about how bad some of them are.

Leave it to some of you to bring this up.So you think hill is a liar,ok maybe,but you cant honestly sit there behind your little coumpters and tell me straight up that our president isnt also a liar.The fight that is presently going on between demo canidates has got me ready to switch parties (independent) it all about selfishness,the truth will come out soon enough weather they care about party unity or they just want to win the nomantion,just dont sit there and preach about whose a liar when the biggest is in the whitehouse and maybe it was his staff but makes no difference to me as he's the boss!

To the point Steve the thread did not even deal with Bush it is about Hillary, Barak and John McCain. If they could document a Bush lie it was in the news and they would have impeached Bush if it was clear. Is it a lie if you rely on all your advisors. There are just so many versions. Hillary has been doing this for her entire career.

Richard you'll have to better then that.If i posted about lies this administration has committed,what kind of reply's would i get?Could i use your same reply? The simple fact is these type of posts are just the endless attacks on democrates,frankly i think they border on paranoia. The sad fact is the democratic party blew it,they had the oportunity to take back the Whitehouse and these are the canidates they came up with. Talk to you tonight,have a good day---------Steven

Gerry, you see what I mean...never fails...never! They can't debate without comapring someone elses bad behavior.

I think Hillary is done...cooked. She told a big fat made up lie...twice and got caught! I think she knows it now also.

That takes a lot for me to say since I fear Hillary/Bill more then Obama. She's been exposed!

Obama will be easy to beat...empty suit.

......SteveY,maybe...but let me ask you why you are so willing to turn a blind eye to HC.
In many years past I was a supporter of McCain,as I bet were many of the posters here. As he continually "lied" about his conservancy I stopped trusting him and said I will not support him.

What will it take for you to realise that HC is a pathological lier, and throw her overboard. 6863m is correct she truly believes she is Imperical, its rather frightening. I predict that should she get elected,...look for BC to turn up....face down...in a park.

...the Dems have very poor choices as do the GoP, its sad, its depressing. This is a retorical question but I have to ask it....why does this keep happening to us?

wyatt Wrote:

Soyokaze 72MGB Wrote:

Soyokaze,...blah..blah..empty suit....no but anarchists do....just teasin,...I liked Obama on the face of it, but was really dissappointed after the church episode. I would not have voted for him, but if elected I would have respected the country's choice. Now I see him as just another slick pol. I do hope he takes it from HC though.

Perhaps no more or less, Marc, than John McCain. Experience comes in many forms and not all of it leads or leads to where our country ought to be. I will grant that he has tried, often in spite of his own party's fixation on ideology and holding power at any cost, even to the exclusion of the will of the people they supposedly represent. The world is full of empty suits, and it is also full of audio animatronics figures who have no original ideas or actions of their own but who are willing to swallow the cosmic BS of their party (either one) for the opportunity at Power. I am looking for someone who has the intelligence to realize that Power is not just a goal, but a means to an end. And in this case, the end is doing the will of the people and governance, not just holding on to power at all costs. I think we have had quite enough of an imperial Presidency from either side, and it is time to move on to reclaiming the participatory government the Founders attempted to institute so long ago. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are NOT just quaint artifacts, they are supposedly the foundation of our government. If we don't believe in them anymore, and POWER is the true reason for being of our government, it is about time we were HONEST with ourselves and dealt with it by discarding them for something that fits the power at all costs model better.

McHain in '08!!!!!!!!!!!

To quote lewis Black, " The fact that the Democrates could not come up with a canidate that could bet W. Bush is pathetic" or something like that. It is looking like the Dem's will not be able to defeat the republicans in 08 either no matter which bowel of stinking sh_t gets the nomination. I am a regestered republican (that has trouble spelling!) and was planning on voting democratic regardless just to send a message and rein in the right wing conservatives and their whackyness. I can't do it, both Hilary and Obama stink. I perdict the republican party makes a clean sweep. Just my two bits and I am not going to argue about it.

Bob, I like your thoughts, but I have a problem with your "will of the people"...it doesn't jibe with your constitution/bill of rights message. I don't want the will of the people,...thanks. They scare the crap out of me.

AzMarc Wrote:

Car and Driver magazine ran a "Dan Gurney for President" campaign back in 1968, complete with in-magazine bumper stickers for subscribers.

I'd still be cool with that.

Dan Gurney??? sounds cool, but be careful,...remember John Glenn.

...apologies first....sorry.... OK, heres my meanie thought for the day............

Hillary Clinton......a one bagger.....or a two bagger......


...Ok, ...so l'ma pig. I said I was sorry....

Two thick ones.

I don't trust Clinton as far as I could throw my MG. I read the link that Ryan posted and am impressed with Obama. being an evil Republican I can only hope he beats the anti-christ. I was going to wait till after the democratic canidate was decided to really dig into their positions on the issues but this thread has forvced the issue. Now to check up on McCain

I dont think combat records are something to lie about or service records

GILMGA Wrote:

I think McCain has been vetted well.

If Obama is the nominee...I think he is going to be killed in the GE. esp. after the Pastor Write speech.

Besides giving a good speech and graduating College, he brings nothing to the table,

except a nasty wife with an anti-American attitude and a Rezko debacle.

GOP will lay Rezko on his doorstep and he may be serve time in jail! Won't that rock the vote.

Dems really messed up....

"Hope" and "We can do it" I'm going to have to put that on my resume.

Go Obama....Run Obama Run....!!!!!!!!!

Soyokaze 72MGB Wrote:

A truckload of hope and a dollar will buy you a cup of coffee. paul

Wyatt,
If not the will of the people, then cut them out of the franchise altogether. If so, then there was no reason to create a voting system and allow even tax paying propertied land owners in on the process in the first place. Again, it goes back to being honest with ourselves about our motivations. And when I say our, I mean both those in power, and those who are given the chimera of power by being called the electorate.

Marc,
I grant you much of what you have said. I admire his service and fortitude in Nam, and, for a senator during the last 30 yrs of what has become Washington politics, he is better than most. However, his playbook was authored 30 yrs ago, and some of us believe that it is time to move on. It is the same with Hillary as far as I am concerned. Progress is too often made by attrition, when it should have been made by design.

I think this article wraps it up.....

Hillary is being "swiftboated"!

She claimed that she came under sniper fire when she visited in Bosnia in 1996, but was contradicted by videotape showing her sauntering off the plane and stopping on the tarmac to listen to a little girl read her a poem.

Similarly, John Kerry's claim to heroism in Vietnam was contradicted by 264 Swift Boat Veterans who served with him. His claim to having been on a secret mission to Cambodia for President Nixon on Christmas 1968 was contradicted not only by all of his commanders -- who said he would have been court-martialed if he had gone anywhere near Cambodia -- but also the simple fact that Nixon wasn't president on Christmas 1968.

In Hillary's defense, she probably deserves a Purple Heart about as much as Kerry did for his service in Vietnam.

Also, unlike Kerry, Hillary acknowledged her error, telling the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: "I was sleep-deprived, and I misspoke." (What if she's sleep-deprived when she gets that call on the red phone at 3 a.m., imagines a Russian nuclear attack and responds with mutual assured destruction? Oops. "It proves I'm human.")

The reason no one claims Hillary is being "swiftboated" is that the definition of "swiftboating" is: "producing irrefutable evidence that a Democrat is lying." And for purposes of her race against matinee idol B. Hussein Obama, Hillary has become the media's honorary Republican.

In liberal-speak, only a Democrat can be swiftboated. Democrats are "swiftboated"; Republicans are "guilty." So as an honorary Republican, Hillary isn't being swiftboated; she's just lying.

Indeed, instead of attacking the people who produced a video of Hillary's uneventful landing in Bosnia, the mainstream media are the people who discovered that video.

I've always wondered how a Democrat would fare being treated like a Republican by the media. Now we know.

It's such fun watching liberals turn on the Clintons! The bitter infighting among Democrats is especially enjoyable after having to listen to Democrats hyperventilate for months about how delighted they were to have so many wonderful choices for president.

Now liberals just want to be rid of the Clintons -- which is as close to actual mainstream thinking as they've been in years. So the media suddenly notice when Hillary "misspeaks," while rushing to make absurd excuses for much greater outrages by her opponent.

Liberals are even using the Slick Willy defense when Obama is caught fraternizing with a racist loon. When Bill Clinton was exposed as a philandering, adulterous, pathological liar, his defenders said that everybody is a philandering, adulterous, pathological liar.

And now, when B. Hussein Obama is caught in a 20-year relationship with a raving racist, his defenders scream that everybody is a racist wack-job.

In the Obama speech on race that Chris Matthews deemed "worthy of Abraham Lincoln," B. Hussein Obama defended Wright's anti-American statements, saying:

"For the men and women of Rev. Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table."

So in the speech the media are telling us is on a par with the Gettysburg Address, B. Hussein Obama casually informed us that even blacks who seem to like white people actually hate our guts.

First of all: Watch out the next time you get your hair cut by a black barber over the age of 50.

Second, Rev. Wright's world wasn't segregated.

And third, what about Wright's wanton anti-Semitism? All the liberals (including essence-besplattered Chris Matthews) have accepted Obama's defense of Wright and want us to understand Wright's "legitimate" rage over his painful youth in segregated America.

But the anti-Semitic tone of Wright's sermons is as clear as his rage against the United States. Rev. Wright calls Israel a "dirty word" and a "racist country." He denounces Zionism and calls for divestment from Israel.

In addition to videos of Rev. Wright's sermons, Obama's church also offers for sale sermons by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, whom Rev. Wright joined on a visit to Moammar Gadhafi in Libya in 1984. Just last year, Obama's church awarded Farrakhan the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award, saying Farrakhan "truly epitomized greatness."

What, pray tell, is the legitimate source of Wright's anti-Semitism? I believe Brother Obama passed over that issue entirely in his "conversation," even as he made the obligatory bow to Israel's status as one of our "stalwart allies." Why does crazy "uncle" Wright dislike Jews?

Will liberals contend that these remarks were "taken out of context"? Maybe Wright's church was trying to say that Farrakhan isn't great when it said he "epitomized greatness." Who knows? We weren't there.

Can liberals please educate us on the "legitimate" impulses behind Rev. Wright's Jew-baiting?

bobmunch Wrote:

I agree, Marc. But the past is pretty well defined, so at the least, one has some idea of what they DON'T want in the new one. I think that is where much of the country is now, no matter which party you talk to. Will either get what they think they will get? Not sure, but I would admit that McCain is a known quantity, but then you have to want what he brings with him, both as baggage and as camp followers, as well as his track record. Obama is a blank slate mostly, and a bigger question mark, but also brings some lighter baggage and perhaps some fresher ideas and processes to the table. It is something like whether you want to hire the guy who designed the Sherman tank or the one who will design the one to replace the Abrams.

bobmunch Wrote:

don4975 Wrote:

...Ryan,...are you ok? you're gettin a little scary... you aren't a pod person yet ...are ya?

Marc,
"By that logic, we didn't know that much about GWB when we elected him either, right?"

Pretty much true. I am not convinced that the Republican voters quite got what they had thought they were getting, much less the rest of the american public. But then, Hope springs eternal, they say.

I am not impressed that a comparison on one facet of a candidate is a particularly good indicator when there are so many other variables involved. Taken at this point in both GWs (2000) and Barack's campaigns, I think it pretty obvious that GW was no Barack, even as Dan Quayle was no Jack Kennedy.

Ryan,
You mean you don't accept Ann Coulter's usual vomit as trustworthy reporting? ;)

http://welcome-to-pottersville.blogspot.com/2007/09/mort-sahl-and-mr-fish-on-clinton.html

wyatt Wrote:

bobmunch Wrote:

I can speak really only for myself, Marc.

For me, he has a better grasp of the problems we have and will face than McCain or Clinton. Certainly, we have a blood sucking elephant in the room in Iraq, and that is an issue that cannot be ignored (thanks to our NeoCon friends ~ I doubt you voted for them or their agenda in 2000, Marc). But before there was an Iraq war, there were and continue to be many other issues that affect Americans that were and, in many cases, continue to be ignored. People at the grassroots level are well aware of what these are, they live with them every day. People like Newark's Cory Booker know what they are at the street and project level. Folks in Detroit know what hasn't been done or finished in 40 yrs while politicians pursued other agendas, both right and left. The folks in St. Paul, New Orleans, and countless other cities can see what needs to be done for the future without dwelling on the past, even the recent past.

And, I suppose the key factor in my judgement is who understands best what governance is about? Navigating the existing system in Washington may be important, but it is not the only measure of making progress within it. Where power and influence lead should be, at least in my opinion, to genuine issues of governance which should be to meet the needs of the people, not just special interests. The question then becomes who gets to decide what that is? The "deciders" we have had for the last 30+ yrs have not demonstrated to me (and apparently, not to a significant portion of the citizenry) that they have a clue what those issues are.

America is not a static nation or concept. We have Ideals and great words from our history to live by and they are what have carried us forward for more than two centuries. But we are not done yet. Those ideals are goals, not a done deal, and from my vantage point, that is one of the primary things that the current crop of politicians and so-called leaders have forgotten. In its place there has become entrenched a notion that control of power is the basis of governance rather than a means of empowering it. As the focus and belief have shifted, so have the results. The polarizing effects of this perverted notion have crossed our expressed ideals and people's fundamental beliefs about what can be done to meet their needs. In exasperation and disgust, many have found that more can get done without government and its current polarized climate, by simply having their own dialogue within their own communities and rediscovering that there can actually be concensus among people of varying political backgrounds if the WILL exists. And that is something that far too many politicians and ordinary citizens have lost sight of.