Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Hillary and Obama gave 20% of the USA's uranium to Putin (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Hillary and Obama gave 20% of the USA's uranium to Putin
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Clinton state department scandal has blown up into something huge. Even the New York Slimes is covering it, though in true Praetorian Guard Media fashion are doing their best to pretend this is Hillary's fault alone despite a committee made up of the 7 highest Obama cabinet officials having signed off on it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0

So we know that Clinton sold out her own country for a few million dollars, but the bigger story here is that Barry signed off on this too, but the liberal MSM is doing their best to avoid acknowledging that.

So, who can downplay this? Even the liberal pundits are now going after Hillary. This should absolutely sink any prospects of her candidacy.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From what little I can find this appears to be a Canadian company with little in the way of holdings in the US.

This seems like something that any US government would sign off on. There don't appear to be legitimate strategic considerations that would block the sale.

If there were bribes/payola going on then it should be investigated. Although donations to a non profit are hard to spin as a bribe. 500k to Clinton for a speech is fairly common - he is a well paid public speaker and 500k a speech is his going rate. (He's made 106 million doing speeches).

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/23/first-on-cnn-bill-clintons-106-million-speech-circuit-windfall/

[ April 23, 2015, 08:11 PM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The promise to keep the company public was broken faster than you can say "payoff," and now with Russia calling the shots on the private company and the money that flowed into Clinton's pockets, it is a huge scandal indeed. But then, I guess the New York Times is just a partisan GOP attack dog right?

What is particularly humorous is how Obama is attempting to plead ignorance of this even with his top cabinet ministers all having agreed to it.

At least we know exactly how much our national security is worth to Hillary: $2.35 million.

quote:
There don't appear to be legitimate strategic considerations that would block the sale.
If there are no strategic considerations then why did this have to be approved by the foreign investment committee and the highest members of this government?

[ April 23, 2015, 08:08 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why are you claiming a 'national security interest'? That seems to be misleading - as far as I can tell there isn't one as far as Uranium Ones US holdings are concerned (If the US tried to block the sale, their minor holdings in the US could have been divested).

quote:
If there are no strategic considerations then why did this have to be approved by the foreign investment committee and the highest members of this government?
Any sale of a US holding to a foreign business requires this committees approval - whether it be Russia, Canada, Mexico, Israel, England, France, etc. And it always requires the sign off of 'the highest members of this government' because the are the membership of the committee. Whether the company makes toilet paper, hoisery, sprinklers, donuts, etc. is irrelevant.

quote:
CFIUS is an inter-agency committee authorized to review transactions that could result in control of a U.S. business by a foreign person (“covered transactions”), in order to determine the effect of such transactions on the national security of the United States.
quote:
The members of CFIUS include the heads of the following departments and offices:

Department of the Treasury (chair)
Department of Justice
Department of Homeland Security
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
Department of State
Department of Energy
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
Office of Science & Technology Policy

The following offices also observe and, as appropriate, participate in CFIUS’s activities:

Office of Management & Budget
Council of Economic Advisors
National Security Council
National Economic Council
Homeland Security Council
The Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Labor are non-voting, ex-officio members of CFIUS with roles as defined by statute and regulation.

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/international/Pages/Committee-on-Foreign-Investment-in-US.aspx

I'm sure they probably spent more time doing a review due to the name containing Uranium than they would have if it were Bobs Donut Shop.

Here is guidance for the CFIUS

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/international/foreign-investment/Documents/CFIUSGuidance.pdf

Unless there is a legitimate security concern it doesn't have the authority to block the transaction.

What security concern do you think there is?

That the US won't be able to secure Uranium? The company involved was not a US supplier and we have a number of mines idled because the price is low.

That the Russians will give uranium to terrorists?

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Are you suggesting that we don't have enough uranium to fuel our national ambitions? Or that Russia did not control enough to harm us, and with this deal they finally do?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh that partisan NY times! They must be making this entirely up to "get" Hillary....
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Failure to mention that Clinton typically gets 500k - 750k for overseas speeches seems rather misleading.

Any investment bank in Russia would have 'ties' with this corporation.

His source on 'why it is a concern' appears to be someone who is trying to put a political book out claiming it should be a concern.

It isn't like the reserves can be made to magically disappear. They can readily be emininent domained if needed. However it would be silly to do so. Uranium is easy to find, we have modest proven reserves because there is no economic or strategic reason to find more.

quote:
The price of a mineral commodity also directly determines the amount of known resources which are economically extractable. On the basis of analogies with other metal minerals, a doubling of price from present levels could be expected to create about a tenfold increase in measured economic resources, over time, due both to increased exploration and the reclassification of resources regarding what is economically recoverable.

This is in fact suggested in the IAEA-NEA figures if those covering estimates of all conventional resources (U as main product or major by-product) are considered – another 7.3 to 8.4 million tonnes (beyond the 5.9 Mt known economic resources), which takes us past 200 years' supply at today's rate of consumption. This still ignores the technological factor mentioned below. It also omits unconventional resources (U recoverable as minor by-product) such as phosphate/ phosphorite deposits (up to 22 Mt U), black shales (schists – 5.2 Mt U) and lignite (0.7 Mt U), and even seawater (up to 4000 Mt), which would be uneconomic to extract in the foreseeable future, although Japanese trials using a polymer braid have suggested costs a bit over $600/kgU. Research proceeds.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-fuel-cycle/Uranium-Resources/Supply-of-Uranium/
Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca, why do you think any of us care how the NYT is reporting on this?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm glad to hear the New York Times will no longer be cited as a credible news source here.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You are perhaps confusing credibility with oracular authority...?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So the Times is reporting something from the future... I didn't realize that. Guess I better check the dates on that article again. No, it isn't that...

It seems to be facts substantiated by statements from the parties involved.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No. Rather, you are insisting that because the Times is reporting on it, it must be as scandalous as you insist it is. There are a few logical gaps in that chain.

As I pointed out earlier, for example, there aren't actually any practical national security implications here.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
From what little I can find this appears to be a Canadian company with little in the way of holdings in the US.

This seems like something that any US government would sign off on. There don't appear to be legitimate strategic considerations that would block the sale.

It wouldn't have had to go through the state department if it was some small takeover of a Canadian company. The article claims that Uranium One had acquired control of a significant amount of the uranium assets in U.S. companies, and this is why it mattered when the Russians wanted to acquire Uranium One. If you have evidence that directly refutes this then I would congratulate you for having quickly debunked an entire NYT article.

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
No. Rather, you are insisting that because the Times is reporting on it, it must be as scandalous as you insist it is. There are a few logical gaps in that chain.

As I pointed out earlier, for example, there aren't actually any practical national security implications here.

The article claims the issue is allowing control of a major fuel component to go to Russian hands. An analogy would be like Iran trying to acquire oil fields in Texas. It's not a 'direct threat', but it could have security implications down the road both in terms of the uranium market and also the total supply of uranium.

I'm not sure I believe LR's quote above that claims the world uranium supply will last 200+ more years and so the total supply isn't a concern. I did a calculation myself a few years back and my figure was more like around 50 years. Even if it's something in between that's still significant depending on what technologies develop over time.

Regarding Hillary it's not direct proof she did anything wrong, but I'd say it's got potential for a major scandal. A uranium company, of all things, feeds money into the Clinton Foundation just as the state department clears that company's deal to go through. Aside from the general implication of bribery (which people used to take seriously on principle), and also of using a 'foundation' to skirt the law in terms of accepting contributions from foreign companies (for obvious national security reasons), there is the point that this particular 'bribe' is coming directly from Russia, a country that the MSM has branded as the devil at the same level as Iran, or worse. When the term "new cold war" is bandied around freely, to insinuate that the Secretary of State made a deal with the enemy - that would be serious indeed, far more serious even than simply threatening Hillary's campaign chances.

[ April 24, 2015, 01:26 AM: Message edited by: Fenring ]

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
When I saw the headline this morning, I felt a bit of worry that this might be something big. But Seneca's hyperbole in the opening post reassures me that this is just another Benghazi-gate, e-mail-gate, Vince Foster-gate, etc. The Right wouldn't feel the need to play this up so much if there was real substance to it. [Smile]

But, time will tell. Maybe there is actually something there this time.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wouldn't it be nice if we could investigate this further by searching through Clinton's emails... oh wait.

Anyone who thinks she didn't set up a private email system for reasons exactly like this needs to check their gullibility.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If we're going to be putting up with this for the next 6 months, I'd rather Clinton self-destruct now and get it over with.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
NH: that does seem to be the modern Republican strategy, though: "Vote for us, because if you don't we will do everything we can to make the government unworkable. Don't worry about the Democrats doing the same thing, though: they care too much about the country to press the self-destruct button when they aren't in power. (BTW, Democrats hate the USA)"
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Because Hillary is the only Democrat candidate right?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's not so much about the working of government as the utterly tiresome scandal mongering.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So Hillary could literally get away with murder and no doubt many would write any complaints off as "scandal mongering."
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No. However, it is almost a certainty that the Republican scandal machine would then just move down to the next candidate on the list. Heck, just look at your own posting style.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And look at yours. It's clear you are defending Hillary regardless of how awful she is.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Which viable Democratic candidate would you rather see Donald supporting, Seneca?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In case you need a list, Seneca, here are the viable candidates according to FiveThirtyEight:

Martin O'Malley
Lincoln Chafee
Bernie Sanders
Jim Webb

I'd also include:

Joe Biden

Which would rather see Donald supporting? [Smile]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I will pick one of them over Clinton in the primary.
Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sanders would be a hilarious President, just on a comedy level.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Any of those would be better than Hillary.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
...it's not direct proof she did anything wrong, but I'd say it's got potential for a major scandal.

A major part of what is wrong with politics. One doesn't need proof or even evidence - just scandal - to ruin a candidate. No wonder we rarely get anyone of quality interested in public office.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
...it's not direct proof she did anything wrong, but I'd say it's got potential for a major scandal.

A major part of what is wrong with politics. One doesn't need proof or even evidence - just scandal - to ruin a candidate. No wonder we rarely get anyone of quality interested in public office.
To be fair the word "scandal" is supposed to mean that someone was caught doing something wrong. If you mean to say that alleged wrongdoing is being treated as if it was a proven wrongdoing then you're obviously right, but that has been the case for as long as there have been newspapers. The amazing thing is that when proven wrongdoing is revealed (e.g. CIA torture, NSA surveillance, etc) there is no major scandal. This says more about the operational guidelines of the MSM than it does about the populace.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I didn't say it was a new thing. Although with media trying to fill 24 hours, it is worse than ever.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Any of those would be better than Hillary.
Pick one.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And it does seem to be the operational guidelines of more than just the MSM.

Name a media for which it isn't. [Wink]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
And look at yours. It's clear you are defending Hillary regardless of how awful she is.

That's interesting... Please, do show where I have defended Hillary Clinton, Seneca.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
And look at yours. It's clear you are defending Hillary regardless of how awful she is.

That's interesting... Please, do show where I have defended Hillary Clinton, Seneca.
Here:
http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/6/11201.html

Here:
http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/6/10997.html

Here:
http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/6/11560/2.html

Among others.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
And look at yours. It's clear you are defending Hillary regardless of how awful she is.

That's interesting... Please, do show where I have defended Hillary Clinton, Seneca.
Here:
http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/6/11201.html

Here:
http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/6/10997.html

Here:
http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/6/11560/2.html

Among others.

You're going to have to do better than that Seneca.

The "defense" of Clinton in the first link-
"Are you guys seriously debating the ramifications of a joke told at the expense of the KGB, but mostly of George Bush, on the campaign trail in New Hampshire?

I mean, sure if she was serious that would say something about her but who here really thinks that Putin gives a flying fig about Clinton taking a shot at Bush? This is the same guy who implicitly linked the US and Nazi Germany in a speech decrying US dominance and unilateralism.

This comment rates somewhere above asphalt but below tar on the global inflammatory scale."

The "defense" of Clinton in the second one-
"So, for NOT sinning (by not having hot girl on girl sex) and for keeping to her vows (staying married, not getting divorced) while her husband cheated on HER (forgiving the sinner, in fact) she gets derided as a hypocrite while she should be held in the highest regard by these folks."

and

"You want HC to ask the US public for forgivness for having her husband cheat on her? [Confused]

BTW, I think it is priceless that you can claim to know what has gone on between HC and Bill behind closed doors - that you know for a fact that they haven't 'dealt' with their marrital issues already."

In the third link, Donald's entire contribution was "yup".

This looks a lot more like attacks on stupidity than defense of Clinton, but then again, one often sees what they are looking for. I'm curious how one could see a defense of Clinton in "yup". (not posted with a quote or any indication of which post it was aligned with, just a lonely "yup" in cyberspace)

Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The third one was Donald agreeing with someone who explicitly said they were defending Clinton....
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I especially liked the "yup" since, given the intervening 7 years, I now have absolutely no idea what that "yup" likely meant.

It's interesting though, that Seneca actually invested the time necessary to look back 7 years just to find me curmudgeonly calling people silly in almost the same way as I have been recently calling him out. Not to mention that he misinterprets things from 7 years ago using the same filters as he uses on more recent posts.

It good to see we are both consistent.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
I especially liked the "yup" since, given the intervening 7 years, I now have absolutely no idea what that "yup" likely meant.

It's interesting though, that Seneca actually invested the time necessary to look back 7 years just to find me curmudgeonly calling people silly in almost the same way as I have been recently calling him out. Not to mention that he misinterprets things from 7 years ago using the same filters as he uses on more recent posts.

It good to see we are both consistent.

What is consistent in this specific situation is you were defending Hillary then as you are now.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It seems to me more that Donald has been defending truth and perspective, which have in some scenarios aligned against slander aimed at one or another individual.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Or, it could just be that we are all highly skeptical about any would be scandal that is paraded out to us weekly. If it has substance it may sway people from supporting her. (of thsoe who actually do, most support here seems to be luke warm at best or just placing a safe bet)

quote:
So Hillary could literally get away with murder and no doubt many would write any complaints off as "scandal mongering."
If it went to trial? No. Anything short of that? Yup. [Wink]
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1