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.

 

Hillary Clinton Invokes Bush-Gore 2000 Election Dispute in Remarks on Nigerian Corruption

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Hillary Clinton Invokes Bush-Gore 2000 Election Dispute in Remarks on Nigerian Corruption


www.cnsnews.com

Then she drew a comparison to the situation in the U.S. where, she said, “our democracy is still devolving.”

“You know, we had all kinds of problems in some of our past elections, as you might remember,” she continued. “In 2000, our presidential election came down to one state where the brother of the man running for president was the governor of the state. So we have our problems too.”
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 06:15 AM
link   
Here we have yet more proof that Democrats have free reign to spread whatever conspiracies they want, even over seas. After weeks of non-stop hand wringing about "birthers" for the last month, we see that Democrats still beleive THEY have the right to spread whatever conspiracies they like. A double standard we see demonstrated again and again.

Does anyone here think the media will get all hot and bothered by it? Nope.

www.cnsnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 13-8-2009 by Wimbly]



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 07:01 AM
link   
For crying out loud, what a pathetically hypocritical woman- how many hundreds of millions of people in the US and ten years after her HUSBAND was president she becomes the second most powerful politician- yeah THAT was all down to coincidence wasn't it Hilary, just sheer luck, not through connections, who you know etc


Horrible woman



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by blueorder
 


Its just not her hypocrisy, but the MSM's. MSNBC has been defending Hillary on this statement all morning. Yet, they spent the last month trashing "birters" or anyone who suggests anything they don't like about Obama. It doesn't get much more hypocritical than that!



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 07:35 AM
link   

In 2000, our presidential election came down to one state where the brother of the man running for president was the governor of the state.


But this statement is true regardless of whether you're left or right winged.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by acrux
 


Shes implying a conspiracy where Bush's brother stole the election for him. You must have been watching MSNBC this morning to get that talking point.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 07:40 AM
link   
Well, if all the left have to protest now are fabricated incidents from a bygone election, I guess things are going pretty well for them.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wimbly
reply to post by acrux
 


Shes implying a conspiracy where Bush's brother stole the election for him. You must have been watching MSNBC this morning to get that talking point.


1. I was at work this morning & i am in Australia not US.
2. First i heard of this was from you.

Bush did steal elections
www.oilempire.us...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.thetruthseeker.co.uk...

[edit on 13-8-2009 by acrux]



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by acrux
 


No, those are conspiracy theories, not fact. Te media has been attacking protesters and anyone who buys in to the birther conspiracy for a straight month now.

This story is an example of how the left/democrats get to do whatever they want, because they are the media. Its ok for them to spread conspiracies as a political weapon, but not the right.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wimbly
reply to post by acrux
 


This story is an example of how the left/democrats get to do whatever they want, because they are the media. Its ok for them to spread conspiracies as a political weapon, but not the right.


And the right did exactly the same thing when they were in power.

[edit on 13-8-2009 by acrux]



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 08:37 AM
link   
Well if anybody would know a conspiracy when they see one, it would be Hilliary. Just ask Vince Foster.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Well if anybody would know a conspiracy when they see one, it would be Hilliary. Just ask Vince Foster.


(Seeing as we're treating conspiracy theories as fact in this thread.)

Don't think you can. The Clintons had him killed in '93.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by acrux

In 2000, our presidential election came down to one state where the brother of the man running for president was the governor of the state.


But this statement is true regardless of whether you're left or right winged.


and the statement

"THIS STATEMENT WAS MADE BY THE VICE PRESIDENT, WHO HAPPENS TO BE THE WIFE OF A RECENT PRESIDENT" is also true- she is mired deep in the cronyism of mainstream politics



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by acrux
 



And the right did exactly the same thing when they were in power.


No, they didn't. The MSM spent all of its time destroying Bush and everyone around him. Anytime Republicans suggested Democrat's rhetoric was unamerican, they were smacked down by the MSM. Even then, it was directed at other politicians like Harry "The war is lost" Reid.

At no time did Bush or any Republican go after American citizens the way this white house and media are. It just never happened. Bush actually defended his critics on many occasions. So please, spare us all the "two wrong make a right" argument.




[edit on 13-8-2009 by Wimbly]



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 09:34 AM
link   

At no time did Bush or any Republican go after American citizens


What about the patriot act?



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by acrux

At no time did Bush or any Republican go after American citizens


What about the patriot act?


to be honest, Bush is arguably left wing/liberal, he expanded the role of the state and social spending and decided to act the nanny abroad in countries which did not really want his help



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 09:40 AM
link   
What better way to take the heat off of the current administration than to start getting people all hot and bothered about what happened 8 years ago? Because if it weren't for that election, none of this would be happening now.....


From what I see, it's working wonderfully.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Here is something for you to consider.

2000 election DOES come down to one state, that being florida where one of the contenders brothers was governor, and where there many many voting discrepancies and other shady activities.

2004 election is between two people both from the same secret small and powerful fraternal society. Skull and bones, the opposition to bush was a man who was most similar to frankenstein and not at all the ideal person to run against a highly unpopular at the time president.

2008 have the nobody barak with his very sordid history and the highly regarded and respected mccain. Then mccain goes and gets a complete moron of a vp who does not win him votes but rather loses him votes and the election. What they thought they needed someone to appeal to the christian base? As if barak being a very liberal black man wasnt enough, to drive those people to vote for mccain regardless of their fear of his independence?

No what choosing palin did was drive voters away from mccain, people who feared having a certifiably stupid idiot as the president should something unfortunate happen to mccain who is quite old and with heart problems.

You want to look for a conspiracy look for who the influence-rs where on choosing sarah palin to be vp bc she is the reason mccain lost the election.

[edit on 13-8-2009 by Desolate Cancer]



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Desolate Cancer
 


I think you're right, but your reasoning is backwards. (just my opinion)

I believe Palin was chosen BECAUSE she was a throw away. The republicans had zero chance of winning that election no matter who the candidate was.

They needed to have two republicans that they knew wouldn't run again because they knew they weren't going to win. They certainly didn't want to waste good candidates that would most certainly lose face in that campaign and would therefore already be behind the eight ball come 2012. (McCain was an excellent candidate, but because of his age most people knew he had no intention of running again).

Republicans knew the next four years were going to be about simply trying the save the entire party from imploding. Which is exactly why they are distancing themselves from Palin.

The woman was qualified to run for VP but now, according to Republicans themselves, is no longer worthy of even SPEAKING on behalf of Republicans. Rather quick fall from grace. Too quick.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by lpowell0627
 


Your reasoning does make sense, but i think the election was very close up until people realized how stupid palin was.

You say she was qualified to be vp. Do you think or not think that she is a very stupid human being?

I mean sure there is more to being a politician than intelligence but she is rather quite very dumb. I mean whats your opinion on this?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join