Hillary says grieving mother is wrong!

[Guest042616-1]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Wrong, fido... everyone already knows she's a liar. That's why her "untrustworthy" rating is through the roof. The whole point of this thread is to show the Hildabeast is a MEGA-LIAR. She is in a league with Josef Goebbels. There is simply no limit to how vile she can be when it comes to lying. She even lies about her lies and calls out the families of the victims of her lies as liars. How low down and slimy can a liar get? Even the most jaded student of American politics has to lift an eyebrow when they hear Hillary lie. She does it almost effortlessly.

Of course, after accusing me of debating in bad faith, you proceed to do exactly that by avoiding my very simple question.

Keep in mind that, normally, when one attacks the character of another, they tend to be revealing more about themselves than the person they attack.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

Of course, after accusing me of debating in bad faith, you proceed to do exactly that by avoiding my very simple question.

Keep in mind that, normally, when one attacks the character of another, they tend to be revealing more about themselves than the person they attack.

Not in this case.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

Keep in mind that, normally, when one attacks the character of another, they tend to be revealing more about themselves than the person they attack.

You're referring to the way Hillary attacked the character of a GOLD STAR MOTHER OF AN AMERICAN HERO by calling her a liar, right?

[lustylad]

Hey fido, I give you grudging credit for your dogged persistence in trying to put lipstick on a pig.

When we're done with this thread, can we start another one where you defend the Holocaust?

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by lustylad

“We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack—not a protest.”

- Hillary Clinton speaking to Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Qandil on September 12, 2012.

Originally Posted by eatfibo

Already debunked.

First, you hide behind old, stonewalled Benghazi investigations that have been overtaken by new disclosures. Now you hide behind a link? It doesn't debunk anything. Why can't you answer in your own words?

[Guest042616-1]

Originally Posted by lustylad

You're referring to the way Hillary attacked the character of a GOLD STAR MOTHER OF AN AMERICAN HERO by calling her a liar, right?

This blatant mischaracterization of her comments has already been addressed by myself earlier in the debate. If you want to debate "in good faith," feel free to address how I've already made it clear she did nothing of the sort. Also, while you're at it, if you want to want to debate "in good faith," please answer my question.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

Sorry, I was talking the debate in context. This thread is about Clinton lying. Whether the failure of intelligence happened in Libya or here doesn't change the fact that evidence doesn't support the claim that she lied or intentionally misled anyone.


Where, exactly, did I say it wasn't my source? The fact that it is my source doesn't change the fact that he also cited it, making it his source too.


The discussion was about whether or not Clinton lied or misled anyone. Please answer this question, if you don't, it is you not debating "in good faith." Why does it matter where the conflicting information originated when it comes to determining whether or not Clinton lied? Unless the conflicting information came from her herself (it did not), then it matters not where it originated.


Untrue. Your link and my link both debunk this claim.


Where, exactly, did I say the source wasn't mine?

Hildabeast lied, eatbibeau. Re-read Websters' definition of lie, eatbibeau: "to create a false or misleading impression." When a seasoned anchorman like CBS' Scott Pelley reports that the administration blamed the Benghazi attack on a video, it was because he was "deceived," eatbibeau. Pelley heard what Odumbo and Hildabeast said, eatbibeau, and he reported that the administration blamed it on a video, eatbibeau, because it was Hildabeast and Odumbo's intent to "deceive," eatbibeau. Odumbo and Hildabeast further propagated their lie when they sent out Susan Rice as their spokesperson on the Sunday talk show circuit to propagate their lie, eatbibeau. You're lying and dissembling when you argue that Hildabeast and Odumbo didn't lie.

Every time you refused to take ownership of your source is when you denied the source was your, eatbibeau.

Originally Posted by eatfibo

Already debunked.

It's quite disingenuous of you to argue that Odumbo and Hildabeast were confused by the "fog of war" when they blamed the Benghazi attack on a video and then cite an article that clearly parses words and ignores intent when it claims that Hildabeast never blamed it on a video, eatbibeau. You can't legitimately argue those two tacks without out fully hulling your credibility, eatbibeau.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Yes I did, whiny bitch.

Quit lying about your own lies.

You did not. Quit lying about me lying about your lying, AssupLiar, and answer the question!

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Every time you refused to take ownership of your source is when you denied the source was yours, eatbibeau.

Just another example of how libtards have no intellectual integrity. Intellectually honest people don't disown their sources, even if someone is clever enough to use their source against them.
.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You did not. Quit lying about me lying about your lying, AssupLiar, and answer the question!

AssupLiar/asswipe cannot stop lying, it is his nature.