I have told the story for years........

That's the point... she often lies about things that serve no purpose. It's a character flaw... it's blind ambition.

Why lie that chelsea was running around the trade center on 9/11?

Why lie about evading sniper fire I'm bosnia?

Why lie that she was named after Sir Edmond Hillary.

That her family was dead broke upon leaving the white house.

Benghazi was a protest because of a youtube... it was a disgusting video! Right?

She learned in The Wall Street Journal how to make a killing in the futures market.

She didn't know about the FALN pardons.

She didn't know that her brothers were being paid to get pardons that Clinton granted.

Taking the White House gifts was a clerical error.

She didn't know that her staff would fire the travel office staff after she told them to do so.

She didn't know that the Peter Paul fundraiser in Hollywood in 2000 cost $700,000 more than she reported it had.

She opposed NAFTA at the time.

She was instrumental in the Irish peace process.

I don't see the point in most of these lies... anymore than saying that she was class president.

There's something very flawed in her personality. Given an equal choice to lie or tell the truth... she chooses to deceive.

Why?

I don't know if those are lies or not? Just because you posted it doesn't make it true.

Vikingwoman wrote:I don't know if those are lies or not? Just because you posted it doesn't make it true.

If only you had lived through those times and were engaged in the world around you.

Oh well... believe what's most convenient... like usual.

It was not my impression or opinion, not Tim's, but the 1965 Maine South class who clearly believed she lied and after they confronted her when invited to the White House she changed her Bio. I know Dreams has difficulty with this, but it is pretty obvious what happened, but yes.......there is a chance that somebody made all this up out of thin air in Dreamsworld, and then for 10 years it appeared in her bio.....and lo and behold she knew nothing about the same until her classmates corrected her.......yep that is the logical ticket. If you have not seen the history of her lies as PK has pointed out, then unlike her classmates.....you probably would not have confronted Hillary if you had been invited with the class and thought that it was a typo.....yep that is the logical ticket.

If it was not your impression or opinion then why did you post this:

"Hillary was an incredibly bright and ambitious young women who on her college and subsequent resumes had herself as class President".

I just asked you to prove it. You made statements she put in on her resumes and bios w/o any evidence of such. You could not prove it or even say what her response was when confronted and offered up nonsense such as it was removed after she was confronted. I don't believe anything Pkr. posts and I daresay he couldn't prove any of it either. So until you can prove she actually did that then it is heresay, a rumor, something told from another person (the actual definition) not fact. Agreed?

It was represented that the bio information was seen when she was first lady of Arkansas.  It was removed when she was first lady of the nation.   This was over a decade which her classmates saw a lie.  You can interpret it anyway you wish, I think I will stick to the impression of her classmates and my understanding of a long history of her stretching the truth.  So you would be comfortable with a lie on your bio and not correct the same?  Of course if you thought nobody in Illinois would read the bio when you were first lady of Arkansas.....why would you worry about it.....ooopps.....your husband got elected president. Even if your theory of omission and error was true......a decade.....please. There was no error or omission over a decade, and if you think a person like Hillary does not read her official bio......please.

2seaoat wrote:It was not my impression or opinion, not Tim's, but the 1965 Maine South class who clearly believed she lied and after they confronted her when invited to the White House she changed her Bio.  I know Dreams has difficulty with this, but it is pretty obvious what happened, but yes.......there is a chance that somebody made all this up out of thin air in Dreamsworld, and then for 10 years it appeared in her bio.....and lo and behold she knew nothing about the same until her classmates corrected her.......yep that is the logical ticket.  If you have not seen the history of her lies as PK has pointed out, then unlike her classmates.....you probably would not have confronted Hillary if you had been invited with the class and thought that it was a typo.....yep that is the logical ticket.

You know, Oats, this really was not your story to pull out of the Walter Mitty bag - especially if "Tim" who was president of the class didn't use it as his own degree of connection to Hillary.

So what if your band of schoolmates confronted her. What impact does that have on this election?

Oh, the Oatie/Mitty connection.

It goes to show her base character. It's a glimpse into that person that would hold the most powerful position on earth.

That's all.

2seaoat wrote:It was represented that the bio information was seen when she was first lady of Arkansas.  It was removed when she was first lady of the nation.   This was over a decade which her classmates saw a lie.  You can interpret it anyway you wish, I think I will stick to the impression of her classmates and my understanding of a long history of her stretching the truth.  So you would be comfortable with a lie on your bio and not correct the same?  Of course if you thought nobody in Illinois would read the bio when you were first lady of Arkansas.....why would you worry about it.....ooopps.....your husband got elected president.  Even if your theory of omission and error was true......a decade.....please.  There was no error or omission over a decade, and if you think a person like Hillary does not read her official bio......please.

Do you know how many bios are written about her? Books? Articles? Columns? Again, if this were a true issue the media would have been all over it especially now as trivial as it is. There is nothing about it because it is a rumor, story,gossip like the murder of Vince Foster and so many others. Please Oatie, use your logic and quit dwelling on heresay.

It has been almost twenty years since the lie was pulled from the bio......and yes it does go to character of a future President. Trivial....perhaps, but as PK said it is consistent with her base character.....hard driven....ambitious....and willing to stretch the truth to justify the means to the end of her personal ambition. I will still reluctantly vote for her, and would not withhold my vote just because she is a liar.

Well, that's your unsupported opinion and you're entitled to believe what you want. Just remember when you post those unsupported opinions you will be challenged to prove them and so far you have failed.

2seaoat wrote:...hard driven....ambitious....and willing to stretch the truth to justify the means to the end of her personal ambition.   I will still reluctantly vote for her, and would not withhold my vote just because she is a liar.

Well, good thing, I guess, Sea, because your description seems to fit just about every politician now coming down the pike, with the possible exception of Bernie Sanders. But honesty, integrity and ethics will not do Bernie a bit of good,  because his message is just too radical.   If he were a moderate, I think he could've been dynamite in this election.

so far you have failed.


How? First, you said I had no links and had failed. I provided the link. Next, you said the link could have been a mistake and Hillary had nothing to do with the misinformation. I then gave you the ten year time frame where she did NOTHING to correct her bio......and that an omission is often WORSE than her puffing her resume, and finally it was a miracle that it suddenly disappeared from her bio after the confrontation.......yes, it would be consistent to say that I have failed when you posted that the evidence was hearsay....not even understanding the same, but heck, my only purpose was to show that Hillary has been adverse to the truth since she was probably in college and her ambition and goals have always pushed the truth to the side. PK gave you a list of other lies she has committed, and you pretty much said he failed, or you were unfamiliar with the same.....as usual trying to teach you basics is a bridge too far. There is nothing to prove. She allowed a lie that puffed her resume for ten years. She took it down only after being confronted by classmates. There is nothing to prove beyond the facts. The ability to connect the dots takes intelligence. If you connect them as an innocent mistake by one of her staffers and that she never saw the mistake....then go with that interpretation of the facts. I will stick with my interpretation.....she lied and was caught.

Oh,Get real,man! You posted a link written by Soylent Communications w/ a copyright on it. She didn't write that. It lists a dozen sources where they got their info. You're trying to pass that off as something she wrote.Do yourself a favor and google Hillary Clinton bios and see how many come up and then tell me she wrote them all and knows every bio written. Sheesh!

I cannot help you with comprehension when I said Sandra's arresting officer would lose his job and be prosecuted.......I could have spent hours trying to fill your void......like I said.....it is a bridge too far. You believe Hillary's bio with her being her high school president was a mistake and she had nothing to do with it. I think that speaks loud and clear, and again wasting any time on trying to help you in comprehension is ALWAYS a bridge too far.

because his message is just too radical

I think that Bernie has not proposed anything which could be characterized as radical. I think it would be fair to say his goals are going to be fiscally very difficult to achieve, but why is it radical to educate Americans? Why is it radical to say health care is a right? Why is it radical to cut defense spending? Why is it radical to look at tariffs when nations are dumping products and manipulating their currency? I have been listening to him for five years and radical is never the word I would use. Naive would be more fitting, because the ability to pay for these programs require real world accounting, and my criticism for Bernie has never been that anything he has argued is radical, but much more difficult to pay for than his proposal allow.

Here we go again. Bringing up the Bland case in order to validate you being right. Let's not go down that road again. We have hashed that to death and you were not correct on that either. The trooper was indicted for lying about the reason he pulled her from the car. The argument was whether he could make her get out of the car and you were wrong on that. So now you fail to acknowledge whether Hillary wrote that bio in face of evidence she did not. Typical Oatie. BTW, look up the definition of "heresay" and then tell me again that is wrong to call it that. LOL!

A little cheese on the trap, and well......I guess Hillary lied.

You can believe that story because your friend told it to you but more intelligent people would regard it w/ a grain of salt.

You can believe that story because your friend told it to you but more intelligent people would regard it w/ a grain of salt.

More intelligent people..... really. I thought you had studied and learned.....I guess this correspondence course should have been taken on a pass/fail basis.

We all have our strength's and weaknesses,Oatie. You have your knowledge in area's of your studies as do most people but you lack the ability to be objective in the face of evidence in many situations mainly due to your need to be right. Preconceived notions do that in most cases.

2seaoat wrote:because his message is just too radical  

I think that Bernie has not proposed anything which could be characterized as radical.  I think it would be fair to say his goals are going to be fiscally very difficult to achieve, but why is it radical to educate Americans?  Why is it radical to say health care is a right?   Why is it radical to cut defense spending?  Why is it radical to look at tariffs when nations are dumping products and manipulating their currency?   I have been listening to him for five years and radical is never the word I would use.  Naive would be more fitting, because the ability to pay for these programs require real world accounting, and my criticism for Bernie has never been that anything he has argued is radical, but much more difficult to pay for than his proposal allow.

Remember back in the day when far left was "radical" and far right was "reactionary?"   That's where I was in my head.   Never the word you would use, perhaps, but the word I used, and I stand by it.   Maybe these days "progressive" is the word of choice in this circumstance, but I'm nothing if not a verbal throwback.

I would only add that not only is Bernie naive when it comes to "real world accounting," but also in his belief that he can actually inspire the masses to get off their duffs, get actively involved in the political system and radically (yet another meaning) change the status quo in the areas he deems most need fixing (e.g., concentration of wealth, campaign finance reform, "Medicare for all").   Call me cynical and faithless,  but I very, very seriously doubt he can move those masses.  First evidence would be landslide victories for him in the primaries.  Does anyone believe we will we see that?

And don't get me wrong -- I really like the guy.  It's hard not to.  And I agree with many of his goals, just not that they stand a chance in heck of being accomplished, for all the reasons you and I have given and then some.

but I very, very seriously doubt he can move those masses. First evidence would be landslide victories for him in the primaries. Does anyone believe we will we see that?

I think he might win three or four primaries on Tuesday, and in Michigan, Illinois, NY, Maine, and California I think he will make this race a great deal closer than the structural advantage the Clinton's have with older black church going southerners. The democratic party resides in Blue states and Bernie is far from done. I find it amusing that people have written him off. He speaks the truth, and almost everybody likes this guy.

2seaoat wrote: but I very, very seriously doubt he can move those masses.  First evidence would be landslide victories for him in the primaries.  Does anyone believe we will we see that?

I think he might win three or four primaries on Tuesday, and in Michigan, Illinois, NY, Maine, and California I think he will make this race a great deal closer than the structural advantage the Clinton's have with older black church going southerners.  The democratic party resides in Blue states and Bernie is far from done.   I find it amusing that people have written him off.  He speaks the truth, and almost everybody likes this guy.

We shall see.  I never say never, but I would not be placing any money on the man.

The title of this thread should have been:

I told A story for years. LOL!