Tactical_Spam wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Oh, "Liar-In-Chief" is what we're referring to Hilary Clinton as now?

A) She's going to be the next President.

B) Yes, she's a fething liar.

Your disrespectful attitude to someone you have never met but only have a political beef with is despicable.

What? I can't hear you way up on your horse... here, use this:

You might need a bigger sound system.

Spoiler:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Oh, "Liar-In-Chief" is what we're referring to Hilary Clinton as now?

A) She's going to be the next President.

B) Yes, she's a fething liar.

Your disrespectful attitude to someone you have never met but only have a political beef with is despicable.

What? I can't hear you way up on your horse... here, use this:

You might need a bigger sound system.

This big enough?

Spoiler:

All that aside, I have to agree with both of y'all... Yes, HRC is a lying, two-faced good for nothin' (ask Monica) politician. And as Djones pointed out, there are major issues with her getting elected because of that dishonesty.

But, I think that there is a respectful way of disagreeing or calling out things that are wrong.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
To be fair, "liar-in-chief" pretty much applies to almost every president.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
To be fair, "liar-in-chief" pretty much applies to almost every president.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/20/yes-its-a-major-problem-that-two-thirds-of-voters-dont-think-hillary-clinton-is-honest-or-trustworthy/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/7/hillary-clinton-not-honest-and-trustworthy-florida/?page=all

Hell, she even lied when trying to say how trustworthy she is.

http://time.com/3951961/hillary-clintons-cnn-interview-trustworthy/

Yeah, it's all a political beef. *rolls eyes*

Way to miss the point.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
This thread really is a Microcosm of american politics, Bicckering, insults, misdirections, character assasinations.
And those that have good ideas, get drowned out by the few.

 djones520 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/20/yes-its-a-major-problem-that-two-thirds-of-voters-dont-think-hillary-clinton-is-honest-or-trustworthy/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/7/hillary-clinton-not-honest-and-trustworthy-florida/?page=all

Hell, she even lied when trying to say how trustworthy she is.

http://time.com/3951961/hillary-clintons-cnn-interview-trustworthy/

Yeah, it's all a political beef. *rolls eyes*

Way to miss the point.

No. I got your point, you're upset at people pointing out the truth that your chosen candidate is a lying scum bag.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
This thread really is a Microcosm of american politics, Bicckering, insults, misdirections, character assasinations.
And those that have good ideas, get drowned out by the few.

 whembly wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
To be fair, "liar-in-chief" pretty much applies to almost every president.

True... however, I'd argue that our future Liar-in-Chief takes the gold medal every time.

 AduroT wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
To be fair, "liar-in-chief" pretty much applies to almost every president.

True... however, I'd argue that our future Liar-in-Chief takes the gold medal every time.

Iraq has WMDs.

Hillary on March 6, 2003. wrote:
"There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm, and I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I have followed for more than a decade.

For now nearly 20 years, the principal reason why women and children in Iraq have suffered, is because of Saddam's leadership.

The very difficult question for all of us, is how does one bring about the disarmament of someone with such a proven track record of a commitment, if not an obsession, with weapons of mass destruction.

I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision, and it is unfortunate that we are at the point of a potential military action to enforce the resolution. That is not my preference, it would be far preferable if we had legitimate cooperation from Saddam Hussein, and a willingness on his part to disarm, and to account for his chemical and biological storehouses.

With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I do not believe that given the attitudes of many people in the world community today that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems were it not for United States leadership. And I am talking specifically about what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo, where my husband could not get a Security Council resolution to save the Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. And we did it alone as the United States, and we had to do it alone. It would have been far preferable if the Russians and others had agreed to do it through the United Nations -- they would not. I'm happy that, in the face of such horrible suffering, we did act."

 Kanluwen wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/20/yes-its-a-major-problem-that-two-thirds-of-voters-dont-think-hillary-clinton-is-honest-or-trustworthy/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/7/hillary-clinton-not-honest-and-trustworthy-florida/?page=all

Hell, she even lied when trying to say how trustworthy she is.

http://time.com/3951961/hillary-clintons-cnn-interview-trustworthy/

Yeah, it's all a political beef. *rolls eyes*

Way to miss the point.

No. I got your point, you're upset at people pointing out the truth that your chosen candidate is a lying scum bag.

Yeah okay. THAT'S my point.

My point wasn't that people like you and Whembly whine about people mocking the Republican candidates or digging into their past, and then you post filth like that.

You whine and whine and whine about a lack of respect from the President for the Republican party and how he shouldn't be calling them out for the crap they're pulling, and then you post trash like this.

The hypocrisy is staggering, and the lack of respect for an elected official(whether or not you voted for them) is HILARIOUS considering the nonsense that gets put out about things like people needing to show police respect just for the fact that they're police.

The hypocrisy is staggering, and the lack of respect for an elected official

 Frazzled wrote:

The hypocrisy is staggering, and the lack of respect for an elected official

The moment you respect an elected official, something is wrong.

THEY work for US.

 CptJake wrote:

 AduroT wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
To be fair, "liar-in-chief" pretty much applies to almost every president.

True... however, I'd argue that our future Liar-in-Chief takes the gold medal every time.

Iraq has WMDs.

Yes, Hillary did say that.

Hillary on March 6, 2003. wrote:
"There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm, and I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I have followed for more than a decade.

For now nearly 20 years, the principal reason why women and children in Iraq have suffered, is because of Saddam's leadership.

The very difficult question for all of us, is how does one bring about the disarmament of someone with such a proven track record of a commitment, if not an obsession, with weapons of mass destruction.

I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision, and it is unfortunate that we are at the point of a potential military action to enforce the resolution. That is not my preference, it would be far preferable if we had legitimate cooperation from Saddam Hussein, and a willingness on his part to disarm, and to account for his chemical and biological storehouses.

With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I do not believe that given the attitudes of many people in the world community today that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems were it not for United States leadership. And I am talking specifically about what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo, where my husband could not get a Security Council resolution to save the Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. And we did it alone as the United States, and we had to do it alone. It would have been far preferable if the Russians and others had agreed to do it through the United Nations -- they would not. I'm happy that, in the face of such horrible suffering, we did act."

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 AduroT wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
To be fair, "liar-in-chief" pretty much applies to almost every president.

True... however, I'd argue that our future Liar-in-Chief takes the gold medal every time.

Iraq has WMDs.

Yes, Hillary did say that.

Hillary on March 6, 2003. wrote:
"There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm, and I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I have followed for more than a decade.

For now nearly 20 years, the principal reason why women and children in Iraq have suffered, is because of Saddam's leadership.

The very difficult question for all of us, is how does one bring about the disarmament of someone with such a proven track record of a commitment, if not an obsession, with weapons of mass destruction.

I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision, and it is unfortunate that we are at the point of a potential military action to enforce the resolution. That is not my preference, it would be far preferable if we had legitimate cooperation from Saddam Hussein, and a willingness on his part to disarm, and to account for his chemical and biological storehouses.

With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I do not believe that given the attitudes of many people in the world community today that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems were it not for United States leadership. And I am talking specifically about what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo, where my husband could not get a Security Council resolution to save the Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. And we did it alone as the United States, and we had to do it alone. It would have been far preferable if the Russians and others had agreed to do it through the United Nations -- they would not. I'm happy that, in the face of such horrible suffering, we did act."

That's Clinton saying Saddam had an obsession with WMDs, not that he had them, unless there's more context that's missing to that.

 whembly wrote:

True... however, I'd argue that our future Liar-in-Chief takes the gold medal every time.

 whembly wrote:

This is such a pattern, you can't believe what she said she had for breakfast.

 CptJake wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 AduroT wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
To be fair, "liar-in-chief" pretty much applies to almost every president.

True... however, I'd argue that our future Liar-in-Chief takes the gold medal every time.

Iraq has WMDs.

Yes, Hillary did say that.

Hillary on March 6, 2003. wrote:
"There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm, and I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I have followed for more than a decade.

For now nearly 20 years, the principal reason why women and children in Iraq have suffered, is because of Saddam's leadership.

The very difficult question for all of us, is how does one bring about the disarmament of someone with such a proven track record of a commitment, if not an obsession, with weapons of mass destruction.

I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision, and it is unfortunate that we are at the point of a potential military action to enforce the resolution. That is not my preference, it would be far preferable if we had legitimate cooperation from Saddam Hussein, and a willingness on his part to disarm, and to account for his chemical and biological storehouses.

With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I do not believe that given the attitudes of many people in the world community today that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems were it not for United States leadership. And I am talking specifically about what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo, where my husband could not get a Security Council resolution to save the Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. And we did it alone as the United States, and we had to do it alone. It would have been far preferable if the Russians and others had agreed to do it through the United Nations -- they would not. I'm happy that, in the face of such horrible suffering, we did act."

That's Clinton saying Saddam had an obsession with WMDs, not that he had them, unless there's more context that's missing to that.

How do you suppose she intends to disarm him of WMDs she does not think he has?

Or could it be, she wants to disarm him of the WMDs she thinks he DOES have? And she clearly states he has a COMMITMENT to WMDs...

Come on, you really can't twist it the way you are trying to and expect to have credibility. Her words are there. Read them.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 AduroT wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
To be fair, "liar-in-chief" pretty much applies to almost every president.

True... however, I'd argue that our future Liar-in-Chief takes the gold medal every time.

Iraq has WMDs.

Yes, Hillary did say that.

Hillary on March 6, 2003. wrote:
"There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm, and I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I have followed for more than a decade.

For now nearly 20 years, the principal reason why women and children in Iraq have suffered, is because of Saddam's leadership.

The very difficult question for all of us, is how does one bring about the disarmament of someone with such a proven track record of a commitment, if not an obsession, with weapons of mass destruction.

I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision, and it is unfortunate that we are at the point of a potential military action to enforce the resolution. That is not my preference, it would be far preferable if we had legitimate cooperation from Saddam Hussein, and a willingness on his part to disarm, and to account for his chemical and biological storehouses.

With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I do not believe that given the attitudes of many people in the world community today that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems were it not for United States leadership. And I am talking specifically about what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo, where my husband could not get a Security Council resolution to save the Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. And we did it alone as the United States, and we had to do it alone. It would have been far preferable if the Russians and others had agreed to do it through the United Nations -- they would not. I'm happy that, in the face of such horrible suffering, we did act."

That's Clinton saying Saddam had an obsession with WMDs, not that he had them, unless there's more context that's missing to that.

How do you suppose she intends to disarm him of WMDs she does not think he has?

Or could it be, she wants to disarm him of the WMDs she thinks he DOES have? And she clearly states he has a COMMITMENT to WMDs...

Come on, you really can't twist it the way you are trying to and expect to have credibility. Her words are there. Read them.

She was saying she wanted Saddam to "disarm", you're the one claiming she wanted him to disarm WMDs. There's nothing in there that says she's talking about WMDs, which is why I asked for the broader context in which the comment was made. I don't have to spin anything, her words are, as you say, there.

Hillary 10 October 2002 wrote:"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members...

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, effects American security.

This is a very difficult vote, this is probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction."

Puerto Rico met its deadline for repaying $354 million in debt, the island’s development bank announced Tuesday, avoiding what some feared would be its first major default.

But it was unclear how long the payments would continue or whether the Commonwealth would meet other looming deadlines between now and Jan. 1.

The announcement of the repayments came as Gov. Alejandro García Padilla and other officials were testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is considering whether to give the island bankruptcy protection. The governor reiterated that Puerto Rico had run completely out of cash, and that as of Tuesday it was going to “claw back” certain revenues dedicated to paying debts, and use the money instead to provide government services and service general obligation bonds.

In his opening statement to the committee, the governor did not specify which types of debts would go unpaid as a result.

The statement from the development bank seemed to reflect the governor’s intentions.

“Today’s debt service payments reflect our commitment to honor our obligations notwithstanding the extreme fiscal challenges we face in an effort to facilitate a voluntary restructuring process with our creditors,” said the bank’s president, Melba Acosta Febo. “However, make no mistake, Puerto Rico’s liquidity position is severely constrained at this time despite the extraordinary measures the government has taken to improve it.”

The statement also said the governor had signed an executive order allowing the island “to begin redirecting certain revenues in light of recently revised revenue estimates and its deteriorating liquidity situation.”

“We have taken this difficult step in the trust that Congress will act soon,” Mr. García Padilla added, speaking slowly and clearly so his meaning would not be misunderstood. “But do not be misled. We have no resources left. Puerto Rico cannot keep this up longer.”

Tuesday’s hearing was the fifth so far this year in which various Congressional committees have taken testimony on what has caused Puerto Rico’s financial distress and what might be done about it. The Senate Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over the federal bankruptcy law.

Puerto Rico owes roughly $72 billion to bondholders and at least $43 billion more to its governmental retirement system. Governor García Padilla has been saying since June that the government cannot pay that much debt and needs to restructure. But it cannot work out its debts in bankruptcy court because of its legal status as a territory. Governor García Padilla urged the Judiciary Committee to amend the bankruptcy law to give Puerto Rico that ability.

So far, the Republicans who control Congress have said they want to help Puerto Rico but cannot until it provides audited financial statements and reveals how much the assistance will cost.

The committee’s Republican chairman, Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, said he had been “very troubled” to read in The New York Times on Monday that some of the governor’s advisers had been urging him to default, and said he wanted the governor to let him know whether that was true.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Puerto Rico owes roughly $72 billion to bondholders and at least $43 billion more to its governmental retirement system.

 Breotan wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Puerto Rico owes roughly $72 billion to bondholders and at least $43 billion more to its governmental retirement system.

How the hell did they get that deep into debt without anyone doing anything about it?

O.o

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
It really should be made a state. The 3.5 million people who live there have no representation.