Was Hillary pandering to conservatives?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

MarAzul

LongShip
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
21,370
Likes
7,281
Points
113


That was pretty much inline with all religions in the world. It is doubtful any conservatives will vote for her now and this is just one many reasons since most do indeed think marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman. So has she changed her belief to at least gather the gay vote? Or is the woman just loose with the truth?
 
That was pretty much inline with all religions in the world. It is doubtful any conservatives will vote for her now

Like any of you were going to if she hadn't changed her mind on this?

and this is just one many reasons since most do indeed think marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman. So has she changed her belief to at least gather the gay vote? Or is the woman just loose with the truth?

If you look around, you'll see that a significant fraction of Americans also changed their view on that subject. Maybe that means she blows with the wind; maybe it means she's in tune with the public. Spin as you wish.

barfo
 
goncharnoe-delo-centrovka-05.jpg


The Clintons treat truth like a lump of clay. Mold it into whatever form is polling well that day.
 
She is also trying to pander Bernie fans with her new look.

image.jpeg
 
The Clintons treat truth like a lump of clay. Mold it into whatever form is polling well that day.

Cute analogy, but there is no objective truth on this subject. Whether she's for it or against it is entirely up to her to decide.

barfo
 
Cute analogy, but there is no objective truth on this subject. Whether she's for it or against it is entirely up to her to decide.

barfo
Unless she lies about it.

Her telling the truth is a rare thing.
 
Unless she lies about it.

Her telling the truth is a rare thing.

[List of lies told by Denny's favorite republican candidates at the last debate... except that I'm too lazy to type them in, and Denny would just say "I'm not a Republican (I just happen to defend all republicans all the time)" ]

barfo
 
[List of lies told by Denny's favorite republican candidates at the last debate... except that I'm too lazy to type them in, and Denny would just say "I'm not a Republican (I just happen to defend all republicans all the time)" ]

barfo
I don't have any favorite republican.

I'm just kinda insulted when someone bends the truth about them, or democrats for that matter.

Mags' KKK and Nazi claims about Sanders and social democracy are beyond absurd.

Oh my, I just defended a democrat.
 
I don't have any favorite republican.

I'm just kinda insulted when someone bends the truth about them, or democrats for that matter.

Mags' KKK and Nazi claims about Sanders and social democracy are beyond absurd.

Oh my, I just defended a democrat.

Better get that checked, it might grow if you aren't careful.

barfo
 
Cute analogy, but there is no objective truth on this subject. Whether she's for it or against it is entirely up to her to decide.

barfo

No objective truth on this subject? But I thought she said it was a "sacred bond". I guess it was sacred until the polls changed. Remember when she had to duck under sniper fire in Bosnia? Yeah, nobody else did either. Hillary is a congenital liar.
 
No objective truth on this subject? But I thought she said it was a "sacred bond". I guess it was sacred until the polls changed. Remember when she had to duck under sniper fire in Bosnia? Yeah, nobody else did either. Hillary is a congenital liar.

Apparently telling war stories leads to exaggeration. Did I ever tell you about the time that Brian Williams and I were on patrol in Vietnam and we came upon 10,000 Viet Cong? Killed them all we did, and we didn't even have weapons. Just used our teeth and mud from the rice paddies.

barfo
 
you'll see that a significant fraction of Americans also changed their view on that subject

Naw! I doubt anyone that believes marriage is scared bond between a man and a woman, has changed their mind. A number of people may have changed their mind as to whether Gays
should be allowed legally marry, but that is a different question. To make that happen, the definition Marriage needed to be changed. As it apparently stands now, the legal definition, is now
different than the definition accepted by most religions and people that viewed it as a sacred bond. It is more like the state imposing a definition on religion in violation of the 1st amendment.
The argument of the violation of the 14th amendments equal justice was alway bogus unless you changed the definition of marriage.
 
Apparently telling war stories leads to exaggeration. Did I ever tell you about the time that Brian Williams and I were on patrol in Vietnam and we came upon 10,000 Viet Cong? Killed them all we did, and we didn't even have weapons. Just used our teeth and mud from the rice paddies.

barfo
Hillary should get the same treatment as Williams.
 
Hillary should get the same treatment as Williams.

So, as an equal opportunity critic, why is that you criticize Hillary for "lying" (in quotes because I'm not sure how you can possibly know whether she lied, then or now, about her position on gay marriage) but defended Carson when he lied the other night?

barfo
 
So, as an equal opportunity critic, why is that you criticize Hillary for "lying" (in quotes because I'm not sure how you can possibly know whether she lied, then or now, about her position on gay marriage) but defended Carson when he lied the other night?

barfo
She lied about being shot at. That's the least of it.

She lied about cattle futures, rose law firm billing records, and numerous other questionable legal or ethical activities. She lied about Benghazi and her emails. Some things never change: her being legally/ethicality challanged and you defeding her no matter the evidence.
 
So, as an equal opportunity critic, why is that you criticize Hillary for "lying" (in quotes because I'm not sure how you can possibly know whether she lied, then or now, about her position on gay marriage) but defended Carson when he lied the other night?

barfo
Carson didn't lie. He was in no position to influence any of the company's decisions other than to hire him as a speaker. I see little difference in his "association " with the company than yours with bayer when you bought aspirin.
 
Carson didn't lie. He was in no position to influence any of the company's decisions other than to hire him as a speaker.

Who said anything about him influencing the company's decisions?

What Carson said is that he had "no involvement" with them, and that to say he did was "propaganda".

But in fact, not only did he make speeches for them, he recorded product endorsement videos, he once claimed that they'd funded his chair at Johns Hopkins (whether they did or not cannot be proven, but he is on tape saying that they did), he appeared on their website...

To say he had "no involvement" is just a lie.

I see little difference in his "association " with the company than yours with bayer when you bought aspirin.

Then you've got blinders on. I don't recall recording any videos for Bayer. They didn't pay me to speak at their conferences. I'm not on their webpage....

You are defending a lie.

barfo
 
She lied about being shot at. That's the least of it.

She lied about cattle futures, rose law firm billing records, and numerous other questionable legal or ethical activities. She lied about Benghazi and her emails. Some things never change: her being legally/ethicality challanged and you defeding her no matter the evidence.

I'm not, actually, defending her. All I've said is that there is no way, with respect to her position on gay marriage, to tell whether she is lying (about her true beliefs) or not. It's not provable one way or the other.

Where as you are defending Carson in what is very clearly, provably, a lie. And you don't seem to object to any of the other lies offered up that night, either. Interesting, no?

barfo
 
There was a fact check on Carson and most everything he's claimed have been misleading or lies.
 
I'm not, actually, defending her. All I've said is that there is no way, with respect to her position on gay marriage, to tell whether she is lying (about her true beliefs) or not. It's not provable one way or the other.

Where as you are defending Carson in what is very clearly, provably, a lie. And you don't seem to object to any of the other lies offered up that night, either. Interesting, no?

barfo

I think there's plenty to not like about Carson, so you don't need to manufacture bullshit to whine about.

"I find the Big Bang really quite fascinating. I mean, here you have all these highfalutin scientists and they’re saying it was this gigantic explosion and everything came into perfect order. Now these are the same scientists that go around touting the second law of thermodynamics, which is entropy, which says that things move toward a state of disorganization. So now you’re gonna have this big explosion and everything becomes perfectly organized and when you ask them about it they say, ‘Well we can explain this, based on probability theory because if there’s enough big explosions, over a long period of time, billions and billions of years, one of them will be the perfect explosion.’ … So I say what you’re telling me is if I blow a hurricane through a junkyard enough times over billions and billions of years, eventually after one of those hurricanes there will be a 747 fully loaded and ready to fly. (Carson adds that the Big Bang is “even more ridiculous” because there is order to the universe.) Well, I mean, it’s even more ridiculous than that ’cause our solar system, not to mention the universe outside of that, is extraordinarily well organized, to the point where we can predict 70 years away when a comet is coming. Now that type of organization to just come out of an explosion? I mean, you want to talk about fairy tales, that is amazing."
 
Hey barfo.

Do Bill and Hillary have a relationship with these banks?

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article24785188.html

Ten of the world’s biggest financial institutions – including UBS, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs – have hired Bill Clinton numerous times since 2004 to speak for fees totaling more than $6.4 million. Hillary Clinton also has accepted speaking fees from at least one bank.
 


That was pretty much inline with all religions in the world. It is doubtful any conservatives will vote for her now and this is just one many reasons since most do indeed think marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman. So has she changed her belief to at least gather the gay vote? Or is the woman just loose with the truth?

She wouldn't know the truth if her husband came all over its dress.
 
I think there's plenty to not like about Carson, so you don't need to manufacture bullshit to whine about.

"I find the Big Bang really quite fascinating. I mean, here you have all these highfalutin scientists and they’re saying it was this gigantic explosion and everything came into perfect order. Now these are the same scientists that go around touting the second law of thermodynamics, which is entropy, which says that things move toward a state of disorganization. So now you’re gonna have this big explosion and everything becomes perfectly organized and when you ask them about it they say, ‘Well we can explain this, based on probability theory because if there’s enough big explosions, over a long period of time, billions and billions of years, one of them will be the perfect explosion.’ … So I say what you’re telling me is if I blow a hurricane through a junkyard enough times over billions and billions of years, eventually after one of those hurricanes there will be a 747 fully loaded and ready to fly. (Carson adds that the Big Bang is “even more ridiculous” because there is order to the universe.) Well, I mean, it’s even more ridiculous than that ’cause our solar system, not to mention the universe outside of that, is extraordinarily well organized, to the point where we can predict 70 years away when a comet is coming. Now that type of organization to just come out of an explosion? I mean, you want to talk about fairy tales, that is amazing."

He has a very poor understanding of science, for sure.

But you've got me pegged wrong. I support Carson for the Republican nomination :)

But you are still defending his lies. Why? Do you really believe, despite all evidence, he had "no involvement" with Mannatech, or are you just trolling?

barfo
 
Hey barfo.

Do Bill and Hillary have a relationship with these banks?

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article24785188.html

Ten of the world’s biggest financial institutions – including UBS, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs – have hired Bill Clinton numerous times since 2004 to speak for fees totaling more than $6.4 million. Hillary Clinton also has accepted speaking fees from at least one bank.

Yes they do, although based only on what you posted (didn't read the link), I'd say it's still less of an 'involvement' than Carson had with Mannatech.

barfo
 
He has a very poor understanding of science, for sure.

But you've got me pegged wrong. I support Carson for the Republican nomination :)

But you are still defending his lies. Why? Do you really believe, despite all evidence, he had "no involvement" with Mannatech, or are you just trolling?

barfo
I believe his involvement with the company was both minimal and trivial. A mountain from a mole hill for no good purpose. "Involvement" as I said, no more than yours with bayer because you buy their aspirin.

If there were even a remote chance Carson would somehow grant this company favors as prez, then it might be an issue. Not seeing it.
 
Yes they do, although based only on what you posted (didn't read the link), I'd say it's still less of an 'involvement' than Carson had with Mannatech.

barfo
You're joking as usual.

There is so much involvement between the banks, favors from Hillary, and money going to the Clinton foundation that you have to wonder about the legality or ethics of it all.
 
I believe his involvement with the company was both minimal and trivial.

So you do agree that there was involvement, and therefore, he lied. Progress.

A mountain from a mole hill for no good purpose.

He was the one who chose to lie about it on national TV. He didn't have to. He could have just told the truth, there was really no reason to lie. But he did, and that says something.

"Involvement" as I said, no more than yours with bayer because you buy their aspirin.

I've already pointed out how misleading that analogy is.

If there were even a remote chance Carson would somehow grant this company favors as prez, then it might be an issue. Not seeing it.

The issue is that he lied about it. Why did he do that? A secondary issue is, what the hell is a medical doctor doing endorsing quackery? It makes you wonder if he has any ethics. Come to think of it, so does lying about it.

barfo
 
There is so much involvement between the banks, favors from Hillary, and money going to the Clinton foundation that you have to wonder about the legality or ethics of it all.

Sure, it is indeed a reasonable question to ask, and to have answered.

barfo
 
Sure, it is indeed a reasonable question to ask, and to have answered.

barfo

Until it does get asked, then you'll complain about it. Seen that act before a few times :)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top