It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rand paul drops Bombshell against the clintons

page: 4
19
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: wasaka

here ya go.




“I remember asking Jeffrey, ‘What’s Bill Clinton doing here?’ kind of thing, and he laughed it off and said, ‘Well, he owes me a favor,’ ” Roberts told her lawyers in a 2011 interview obtained by RadarOnline.com. “He never told me what favors they were.”
‘Sex slave’ claims Bill Clinton visited Epstein’s ‘orgy island’


and so far no denial by bill saying " i never had sex with those young girls" oh yea!, that i have found.




posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 06:03 PM
link   
I'm sure both parties choose a particular candidate to be the "attack dog" so the rest can stay above the fray.

They always want to dig up the smelliest dirt on the opposition while keeping up the appearance that they're above all that sort of nonsense.
edit on 4/9/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: asmall89

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: asmall89
a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

Clinton wasn't better than any others. The reason why the economy was in good shape was because of the Tech bubble, which also happened to burst in his last year. This was all due to wreckless monetary policy set forth by the fed.

My parents lost half their assets value after the bubble burst.


Did Clinton invade two countries fully? Bomb yes, but invade no. The War on Terror and foreign engagements were much more under both Bush I and Bush II.

In my view, the democrats are still much better on foreign policy and domestic policy, excepting their mutual support with the Republicans for domestic surveillance. The Republicans are more extreme on all of those topics, excepting the surveillance (equal). I do think though that the Democratic elite, just like the Republican elite, are sold out. So perhaps much of it is a parade.


No but Clinton did bomb Iraq throughout his presidency, among other nations. I do not support Bushes,Obama, nor Clintons. They have all done their share of destroying the world and this country. People shouldn't let hindsight blind them when it comes to Clinton...he was just as bad.


I agree that I do not want either a Bush or Clinton in office. For example, I am horrified at the thought of Hilary running, lol.

I wouldn't say that Clinton was quite as bad as Bush, if only because Bush REALLY took advantage of the War on Terror to get the Patriot Act going, then CIA torture (which is a war crime and anti-American) officially okayed (but it was probably going on long before and after him), and the war in Iraq.

However, this is not to say that Clinton is some saint. And the bombing you mentioned I am against too. He might have been worse than a lot of other Republican presidents in the past for all I know. I only am comparing these two. And, I tend to feel after having read more and more about Clinton that perhaps there is corruption going back. But then, it seems like most presidents now days are sold out. Am I wrong on that?
edit on 9-4-2015 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: American-philosopher
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

that's why I found it so shocking that he would make reference to that. The day after he announces. Either he knows for a matter of fact that it is true. Or he has made one of the worst blunders ever.



If true I would worry for Paul (or even if he is wrong). Clinton and co. is a powerful entity, more so than the Pauls.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 06:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: American-philosopher
a reply to: Answer

I don't know if I grasp the full understanding of your statement people are judged and looked at by their past actions or "transgressions". Yes we look at character and all that as a part of what makes you who you are but also your past plays a part in that as well.



Not the individual's past, the past actions of others.

My point is that people always try to deflect attention away from their favored politician by pointing out the actions of another.

A criticism is made against Obama or Clinton and the other side deflects it by saying "yeah, well Bush did xxxx." A person is not judged based on if their shyte smells just a little better than another's.


I agree with you, as long as someone is equally calling people and things out. And that is the way it should be. Unbiased judgment based on evidence.

Too many people, however, convey or imply severe bias (on both sides) and will say statements guaranteed to inflame the other side.

For example, they will say perhaps some kernel of truth about let's say a Republican scandal or something, but then include in a later sentence something to the effect of "see how corrupt conservatives are," etc. Vice versa.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: American-philosopher
a reply to: Answer

Okay I get that I agree with that. I was pointing this out because mostly I thought that this was a bold move for rand to make and say this. Clinton has enough skeletons already one more is probably not going to hurt that much.

What's more was I was looking for the full interview on CNN's website and could not find the part where Rand actually mention it and could not find it.



I wasn't addressing your OP... more the responses that came after and the behavior of many posters in other political threads.


Obviously if information pertains to a presidential candidate, it is relevant. What's not relevant is comparing Hillary Clinton's actions to G.W.Bush in an attempt to excuse her behavior.


You neglect to mention, with all due respect, that some of us saying that were responding to others beginning such implications/discussions.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: American-philosopher

I suspect it is 100% true. Hillary was hiding something when she deleted those emails, and when she made a habit of using her own email server.

I would suspect this is happening on a far greater scale than just Hillary though, and on both sides of the aisle (AIPAC, I'm looking at you). She's just the most obvious one.

I'll go a step further, if the reality of the situation is half as serious as what Rand Paul is currently describing, Hillary won't just be out of the race, she'll be in jail. That's if it's as serious as claimed... while it's probably true there's probably a lot of hype being thrown about as well.
edit on 9-4-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: wasaka

here ya go.




“I remember asking Jeffrey, ‘What’s Bill Clinton doing here?’ kind of thing, and he laughed it off and said, ‘Well, he owes me a favor,’ ” Roberts told her lawyers in a 2011 interview obtained by RadarOnline.com. “He never told me what favors they were.”
‘Sex slave’ claims Bill Clinton visited Epstein’s ‘orgy island’


and so far no denial by bill saying " i never had sex with those young girls" oh yea!, that i have found.


I've always been a little skeptical of the Virginia Roberts accusations. They sound a lot like the paranoid delusions of sex with celebrities you sometimes hear from women with certain forms of mental illness. On the other hand Epstein was convicted and there appears there might be other corroborating evidence so who knows. In any case she never accused Clinton of anything. She just said she saw him.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw


I went on a search for body counts, lie counts, Bill implicated in pedophile sex slave island, Hillary destroying women who slept with Bill

Mmm. Indeed. And all you could find was a handful of obviously right-wing-biased, little bitty, obscure websites.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: DelMarvel

ya, go ahead and believe he didn't know what was taking place there. (maybe even took part in it.) hill and billary never make a move unless they think they can cover their asses.

how many women accused him of raping / sexual assaulting them when he was governor.
being a pedo is not that far of a leap.

there is a long list of women that accused him of rape / sexual assault going back to 1969 when he was at Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar that didn't get a degree there.

there is much more,it always makes me laugh when some people fail to see fire where the smoke is unless it's against someone they don't like.

and billary sure did stand by her man the whole time. all the while having some fun of her own.













edit on 9-4-2015 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 08:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein
a reply to: seeker1963

Well, my point was that Bill has been an excellent president compared to what we have had in a freaking looooong time!!

I understand you don't have much good to say about Bush(s) or Obama, but geesh...Bill was a saint compared to these other crooks..That was my point!


I am getting the impression that if you were in the oval office with that dress on it would still get stained.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

I think there are only two good things about the Clinton administration:
1) its over.
2) The economy he inherited. An economy that was bust by the time he left office.

And please don't blame Bush for everything you think is wrong with this country. The democrats had control of congress, at one point by super-majority, and could have done anything they wanted. And they did nothing. The last two years of the Bush administration is a failure on the part of democrats, and nothing more. Bush didn't even have veto power and the democrats still accomplished nothing. Kind of like now...same story, different year.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 09:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein

originally posted by: grandmakdw
After watching the dirty tricks for 8 years that the Clintons pulled repeatedly, I would not put anything past the Clintons.

Too bad most young voters can't remember the repeated dirty tricks, the list of enemies who just disappeared, the women's lives that Hillary purposely ruined because of the horndog. Well, I'd believe just about anything about them.


If that's all the bad stuff you can pull against Bill....I will take him any day of the week over what we have had to deal with! The Bush disaster, corruption, stealing, criminal charges against George Jr disappearing once daddy became president and MUCH, MUCH more!! Then the Obama disaster, taking the debt almost into gazillions, unemployment, terminal state of the country and MUCH, MUCH more...

Give me Bill back....Let him get happy endings in the oval office....At least the country was in great shape! He was the best president we had in a very, very long time!! Sad to say, but 100% true!


You mean the guy who sold out our countries steal industry to China?

Those were GOOD paying middle class jobs, gone forever! Now we have burger flippers demanding $15 an hour?
Yah, that's the guy...



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Even though, I was in the military during Clintons administration and that wasn't that great I will say that our country was in good financial shape with him. No deficit, actually before his term was up the country had a positive balance and that is something major there.

fact

As things are now I don't know if that will ever happen again.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 10:12 PM
link   
Some more skullduggery.....

(warning - foul language in the article)
Hillary Clinton Reversed Position on Trade Deal With Colombia After Huge Donation to Clinton Foundation




posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 11:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein
a reply to: seeker1963

Well, my point was that Bill has been an excellent president compared to what we have had in a freaking looooong time!!

I understand you don't have much good to say about Bush(s) or Obama, but geesh...Bill was a saint compared to these other crooks..That was my point!
Clinton was half decent and only because there was a Republican Congress to reign him in. He ended Glass Steagall, which is pretty much why the banks are out of control, caused the World's economy to collapse and will probably do the same in very short order, in the not too distant future. So yeah he was a great president.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 12:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

Why do the Chinese need more technology to be illegally transferred to them?
THEY already have ICBM capability from the LAST time they paid him off.
edit on 10-4-2015 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 02:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Even though, I was in the military during Clintons administration and that wasn't that great I will say that our country was in good financial shape with him. No deficit, actually before his term was up the country had a positive balance and that is something major there.

fact

As things are now I don't know if that will ever happen again.


The country was still in debt under Clinton, we just weren't adding more. He managed to balance the budget and then in his final year create a surplus. If we had followed that budget, it's just about now that we would have the national debt paid off. Bush and Obama weren't fans of that though.

I want the next president to sit down, be critical of every program and figure out how much if any we need to spend on it, and even raise it if necessary. I don't want them to cut things just to cut them, but I do want them to make smart cuts.

Then I want congress to create their own budget proposal, which I fully expect to be more restrictive than the presidents.

Then I want them to sit down and trade tax increases to support the presidents higher budget, with adopting lower cost measures from whatever Congress comes up with.

Then, after they get a balanced budget, I want them to tack on an additional tax for 20 years which can only go to the principal on the debt, with the goal of it being paid down at that point.

So in numbers, if we're at 5 triilion budgets by the time Obama is out, I want the new person and congress to settle on 4, then raise taxes from 2.4 trillion to 4 trillion to fully cover it. Then raise an extra 1 trillion in taxes per year (so the government takes in 5, but spends 4) to pay down our 20 trillion debt. It would suck, but if we want financial responsibility.... that's what needs to happen.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: American-philosopher

...The laundry list of Clinton Scandal is 99% BS..

...The bit about the Clinton Foundation accepting foreign funds is mostly true...but that is a world-wide charity and the funds are tagged for various charitable efforts. If they trace money to the Clintons personally, that's a scandal, until then...

..This is not a "Bomb-Shell"...its been talked about in the news for over a month..

..Rand Paul is a crappy candidate...partisanship aside...and no specific love for Hillary...she will crush him in a General Election, that's just the reality. Jeb has the best chance of beating Hillary...and those realities have nothing to do with who I "like" or "want" for POTUS.




top topics



 
19
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join