Her calendar.
LOL!
Her calendar is missing information, folks.
It's pretty obvious that she murdered Vincent Foster, ordered the attack on the consulate in Benghazi, and sent ISIS classified information.
Keep on keepin' on, amateur psychologist.
First you ask a stupid question because you're too lazy to read and now you evoke the absurd in a flailing attempt to recover your dignity. Nice to see a person who pulls his foot out of his mouth once in a while even if only to change feet. It does, however, make you charge about me being an amateur psychologist rather funny
Shorter you:
I've got nothin'.
Keep on keepin' on, amateur psychologist.
This thread is just sad.
Some people are immune to seeing patterns unless they can make it fit their own narrative. This is true for both sides. Hillary is a terrible candidate and very corrupt. Trump is a horrible candidate and we assume very corrupt but most likely just self interested. One thing I think we can all agree on is that if there are debates they will be both entertaining and tragic.
It isn't propaganda if it's true, or was that just your version of sniper fire?
Have you pondered how we might have become so jaded?
What exactly is true? Go through the list of Hillary scandals and tell me which one are true?
Is her sniper fire story a scandal in your eyes?
What exactly is true? Go through the list of Hillary scandals and tell me which one are true?
Is her sniper fire story a scandal in your eyes?
Umm, you continually post reasons for us to be jaded.
This thread is just sad.
Some people are immune to seeing patterns unless they can make it fit their own narrative. This is true for both sides. Hillary is a terrible candidate and very corrupt. Trump is a horrible candidate and we assume very corrupt but most likely just self interested. One thing I think we can all agree on is that if there are debates they will be both entertaining and tragic.
Maybe this could be a good learning experience for you:
Take your sniper fire scandal example. Go to YouTube and find video of Billary explaining how she landed under sniper fire, then more video of Billary explaining how they were running from said sniper fire. Watch Billary. Listen to Billary. Do you see how smoothly Billary does Billary? Now, had there been no video of her having not been in those conditions, or someone who would speak out on it, what would have happened? The 'facts have a liberal bias' would have been 'Billary dodged sniper fire, man she is brave, let me vote for her - twice if I live in Chi!'.
If she'll so perfectly and smoothly lie for something so...nothing...do you really think massive ego political whore Billary isn't going to be lying about everything else she can for political gain? Especially things that aren't going to have potential video evidence? What do you think she's going to do when she knows ahead of time there is no way for someone (and, that someone is generally the media, who overwhelmingly is liberal) to actually expose the lie (misrepresentation and exaggeration, especially for self-benefit, is basically a lie), and this she can Billary out anything she wants for the sheeple?
It's like you Simple Jack mofos can't learn from Hope and Change 'Most Transparent Ever!' O'Bummer, you'll run right back to the rich fake candidate who will tell you Intellectual head nodding material so you can go head nod at each other how this rich fake is going to do something for you because he/she cares. I mean...buwhahahaha....for Intellectuals you guys consistently are pretty F'ing dumb, ya know?
I'm curious if you've known successful people in life given that a relatively inconsequential embellishment we'd expect of family/friends' stories is so shocking.
It must have went over my head, it makes no sense to me.
See Hillary, if you'd have married him, [then] you wouldn't be married to the president of the United States. Hillary responded, "No, I'd still be married to the president..."
Except this isn't a inconsequential embellishment. This is a political whore needlessly and massively fluffing up her trip so she can score public points for the benefit of her political stature. And she was caught red handed at it. If she does this for a nothing like her safe trip, can you trust anything that comes out of her mouth that she already knows ahead of time will be impossible/difficult to check her on (if the media even has the true will)?
Or, asked another way: Does a serial compulsive liar/exaggerator/political comment crafter deserve trust? If this serial whore so smoothly lies about something so unimportant, WhoTF is dumb enough to actually believe anything else she says?
Well, we have our answer: Predictably, it's the Left. Lulz... Good job Lefties! You could have had Bernie, instead, you've got Billary! Oh Intellectuals...lol... :thumbsup:
It doesn't make any sense as written. He needs to to change "you'd have" to "you hadn't." <shrug>
I transparently asked you which "certain records" you're clutching your pearls over, because egads man, as far as I can tell, it is in regards to an entry on a personal calendar.If you want to immunize yourself against amateur psychologists, try not to be so transparent.
And don't feel bad. Everything I can see in you I can see because I've seen it in me. We are all the same.
So here's your psychology lesson for today:
The more you know about yourself the greater will be your PhD in everybody else. I'll let you decide how many amateurs you think are aware of that. Love you.
Thanks for making my point for me.
It seems grammatically interesting to me because you'd have sounds OK to my ear sort of like if 'you'd of' crossing over with if you had, but I think, in any case I think if he had said 'if you hadn't' that would make no sense since she didn't marry him but married Bill. Anyway.....
As a reader I'm left pondering if you've known any successful people in life, given that a relatively inconsequential embellishment we'd expect of family/friends' stories is so shocking. If anything else I'd recommend choosing a more substantive lie because this is a particularly weak example for your case.
Only when they are from the other party.Shouldn't we expect more of our elected leaders?
Confusing shaking hands with little girls as coming under sniper fire is hardly an inconsequential embellishment. It is the signs of a pathological liar. There is also a consistent pattern of lies, extending to the details surrounding her personal server. Many pathological liars are also successful people, but shouldn't we expect more of our elected leaders?
S News correspondent who was on the trip with Clinton wrote her own account of it in 2008, after Clinton's speech at George Washington University. She did admit that there were some potential security risks, but acknowledged that it didn't rise to the level of landing under sniper fire.
Sharyl Attkisson recalled:
"Due to the possibility of sniper fire, our pilots used what we were told are 'assault take-offs and landings.' In short, the climb and descent are very fast, and very steep to minimize exposure to hostile fire on the ground."
"It's exciting and frightening and, in the midst of it all, wearing our helmets and bulletproof vests, it's easy to imagine we may be narrowly escaping enemy bullets."
"In reality, we had no known incidents of enemy fire on our aircraft."
To be fair, however, Attkisson did note in her 1996 CBS report that the "frontline outpost" that Clinton and Chelsea visited was "one of the most dangerous places where US forces are operating."
"The president himself never made it this far inside Bosnia when he visited in January," Attkisson said in the report.