Herb & Suds
Well-Known Member
Yeah that and meme's is what the dullards consider facts
It's ready
- Thread starter tangerinegreen555
- Start date
NaturalFarmer
Well-Known Member
Your opinion is literally dog shit. Show me where anything was disproven.
Herb & Suds
Well-Known Member
Hey I just showed you an opinion DUH
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
do a fact check on anything I said. The only thing that is phony are your sources of so-called information.
I'm confident because I rely on facts. I relish the idea that my justified confidence bothers you.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Links found in an earlier post by me. Also one by Herb and Suds. If you can't read them try sounding out the words.
https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/facts-uranium-one/
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v..._had_nothing_to_do_with_uranium_one_sale.html
NaturalFarmer
Well-Known Member
@Fogdog, I literally have never met anyone as dum as you are sister. Not a chance anyone is that stupid, you are bought and sold my friend. No way somebody is so wrong on so many issues by chance or luck. Total Anti American and massquarading as a holy lamb.
How is the Uranium One deal fake exactly?
How is the Uranium One deal fake exactly?
What is your point. Did you disprove Ukrainian influence in the 2016 election?
tldr
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
You don't need to take my word for it, go to the links I provided and read them. I'm sorry they contain big words but that's how adults communicate.
Sorry but proving a negative isn't possible. Can you prove you don't fuck dogs? Well you can't. But that's not how debate works. So, no I'm not the one who has to disprove anything about Ukrainian affecting the 2016 election.
That would be up to you. Or investigative bodies in Washington. If Clinton did anything illegal and it can be proven then she should face the music. As should Trump if anything in Muellers report proves he committed crimes. Wouldn't you agree?
Herb & Suds
Well-Known Member
My point is if you are dissuaded by opinions then one should be all that is needed to change your view
NaturalFarmer
Well-Known Member
Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html
NaturalFarmer
Well-Known Member
Clinton is the Democrat party dude and they have high influence as seen by the tarmac meeting. How many tarmac meetings did we not see?
In response to the later, of course you can provide fact check that obviously would be a highly coveted secret not easily obtained by anyone let alone some hack fact checker. What exactly did they prove? Did Billy not collect $500k from Moscow during the timeframe of the deal? Uranium one was shade. What gives with the whistle blower for Clinton? Think they are related? Give me a break, they are the FBI and DoJ, but thats changing slowly or draining I should more accurately say.
Last edited:
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Says Hillary Clinton sold 20 percent of America’s uranium to Russia and then "the Russian government gave $145 million to the Clinton Foundation." Former FBI Director and special counsel Robert Mueller "delivered it."
The deal, however, was not Clinton’s to approve alone. The CFIUS panel also includes the attorney general and the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Commerce, Energy and Homeland Security, as well as the heads of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
The claim makes it seem like Clinton had the power of vetoing or approving the deal, which she did not.
The claim makes it seem like Clinton bears responsibility for the deal when a panel of several departments and agencies were part of its approval.
while the connections between the Clinton Foundation and the Russian deal may appear fishy, there is no proof of any quid pro quo.
https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fact-checks/statements/2018/dec/07/blog-posting/complex-tale-involving-hillary-clinton-uranium-rus/
Again it is up to her accusers to prove she did something wrong. When looking at the facts, their so-called evidence doesn't hold up. She didn't have the power that you say she had regarding the sale of Uranium One. It's not even clear how much money was given to the Clinton Foundation. But yeah, the Clinton's were never above doing stuff that seemed wrong. I get it. Also you don't like her.
Also, your whataboutism deserves ridicule. This does not have anything to do with Trump and whether or not he is a criminal.
You may quite reasonably hold me to the same standard regarding Mueller's findings.
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
quit posting shit from fox or the hill if you want me to take it seriously...i take everything with a grain of salt....but i have to use the whole fucking box for either of those places....yeah, cnn and huffington are just as bad the other way, but as far as i can tell, they haven't started just manufacturing bullshit, yet...
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Nope
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
well there ya go man, i gotta trust politifact before i trust the hill....it's the only site i know of that isn't full of shit, and will make a public correction asap if they make a mistake...and i don't recall them making manySays Hillary Clinton sold 20 percent of America’s uranium to Russia and then "the Russian government gave $145 million to the Clinton Foundation." Former FBI Director and special counsel Robert Mueller "delivered it."
The deal, however, was not Clinton’s to approve alone. The CFIUS panel also includes the attorney general and the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Commerce, Energy and Homeland Security, as well as the heads of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
The claim makes it seem like Clinton had the power of vetoing or approving the deal, which she did not.
The claim makes it seem like Clinton bears responsibility for the deal when a panel of several departments and agencies were part of its approval.
while the connections between the Clinton Foundation and the Russian deal may appear fishy, there is no proof of any quid pro quo.
https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fact-checks/statements/2018/dec/07/blog-posting/complex-tale-involving-hillary-clinton-uranium-rus/
Again it is up to her accusers to prove she did something wrong. When looking at the facts, their so-called evidence doesn't hold up. She didn't have the power that you say she had regarding the sale of Uranium One. It's not even clear how much money was given to the Clinton Foundation. But yeah, the Clinton's were never above doing stuff that seemed wrong. I get it. Also you don't like her.
Also, your whataboutism deserves ridicule. This does not have anything to do with Trump and whether or not he is a criminal.
You may quite reasonably hold me to the same standard regarding Mueller's findings.
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
yeah...but can he prove he doesn't WANT to...?
NaturalFarmer
Well-Known Member
This is how fake news works dude..distract, distract, distract, point.. Mueller delivered Highly Enriched Uranium that was confiscated in Georgia which is seperate from Uranium One. As he was however the director of the FBI during the time.Says Hillary Clinton sold 20 percent of America’s uranium to Russia and then "the Russian government gave $145 million to the Clinton Foundation." Former FBI Director and special counsel Robert Mueller "delivered it."
The deal, however, was not Clinton’s to approve alone. The CFIUS panel also includes the attorney general and the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Commerce, Energy and Homeland Security, as well as the heads of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
The claim makes it seem like Clinton had the power of vetoing or approving the deal, which she did not.
The claim makes it seem like Clinton bears responsibility for the deal when a panel of several departments and agencies were part of its approval.
while the connections between the Clinton Foundation and the Russian deal may appear fishy, there is no proof of any quid pro quo.
https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fact-checks/statements/2018/dec/07/blog-posting/complex-tale-involving-hillary-clinton-uranium-rus/
Again it is up to her accusers to prove she did something wrong. When looking at the facts, their so-called evidence doesn't hold up. She didn't have the power that you say she had regarding the sale of Uranium One. It's not even clear how much money was given to the Clinton Foundation. But yeah, the Clinton's were never above doing stuff that seemed wrong. I get it. Also you don't like her.
Also, your whataboutism deserves ridicule. This does not have anything to do with Trump and whether or not he is a criminal.
You may quite reasonably hold me to the same standard regarding Mueller's findings.
I posted from Hill because I thought it was a liberal rag. Interesting. The hill is not conservative though, it is owned by Democrat hacks. The Hill is the liberal establishment DC and their voice.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
LEFT-CENTER BIAS
These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. See all Left-Center sources.
- Overall, we rate The Hill slightly Left-Center biased based on story selection that very slightly favors the left and High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing.
The Hill is pretty good when they are reporting a story. Their opinion pieces are not reliable. The link that unNatural Farmer posted was an opinion piece and they didn't do any fact checking.
Agree with you about CNN and HuffPo
Herb & Suds
Well-Known Member
There you go posting pesky facts instead of suppositionSays Hillary Clinton sold 20 percent of America’s uranium to Russia and then "the Russian government gave $145 million to the Clinton Foundation." Former FBI Director and special counsel Robert Mueller "delivered it."
The deal, however, was not Clinton’s to approve alone. The CFIUS panel also includes the attorney general and the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Commerce, Energy and Homeland Security, as well as the heads of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
The claim makes it seem like Clinton had the power of vetoing or approving the deal, which she did not.
The claim makes it seem like Clinton bears responsibility for the deal when a panel of several departments and agencies were part of its approval.
while the connections between the Clinton Foundation and the Russian deal may appear fishy, there is no proof of any quid pro quo.
https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fact-checks/statements/2018/dec/07/blog-posting/complex-tale-involving-hillary-clinton-uranium-rus/
Again it is up to her accusers to prove she did something wrong. When looking at the facts, their so-called evidence doesn't hold up. She didn't have the power that you say she had regarding the sale of Uranium One. It's not even clear how much money was given to the Clinton Foundation. But yeah, the Clinton's were never above doing stuff that seemed wrong. I get it. Also you don't like her.
Also, your whataboutism deserves ridicule. This does not have anything to do with Trump and whether or not he is a criminal.
You may quite reasonably hold me to the same standard regarding Mueller's findings.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
That link about Uranium one proves you wrong.
I'm sorry that you can't handle reality.
What about the potential corrupt acts by Trump? You don't like to talk about those do you?