Hillary barks in Vegas
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLgrYByQlsU[/youtube]
But this is way better
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-MmVVfEFzo[/youtube]
Via Northsigh1
Hillary barks in Vegas
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLgrYByQlsU[/youtube]
But this is way better
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-MmVVfEFzo[/youtube]
Via Northsigh1
Well, if it barks like a dog, is female…..
Just sayin’.
A new breed of canine. The Goldman Pincher
@DrJohn: Goldman Donation Retriever.
@Bill:
Goldman Poodle?
political slut begging for more money
Asset Hound.
Goldman can get Hillary to roll over and beg
That might be funny, but Hillary had yet another one of her horrible coughing fits today in front of an audience.
There’s definitely something wrong with the woman.
I wonder how often that happens to her when she’s not in front of cameras.
When she quits the race, her health is a ready-made excuse.
@Nanny G: She’s choking on her own lies.
@Bill: Or hairballs!
And here it is:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/…
Ahmed Wali Karzai was murdered during a 2011 shoot-out, a killing later claimed by the Taliban.
Republican Rep. Chris Stewart, a member of the House intelligence committee, said, “I have never read anything more sensitive than what these emails contain. They do reveal classified methods. They do reveal classified sources and they do reveal human assets.”
The treasonous BITCH who wants to be President!
(Not cursing, a term for a female dog.)
And for those who deride Fox as a news source;
“U.S. government official with knowledge of the document told Fox News.”
@Petercat: Bad link
@Petercat, #11:
Why would anyone with more than a double digit I.Q. assume that a republican House member’s comments to FOX News concerning Hillary Clinton’s e-mails are objective and unbiased?
Look up the word hyperbole. Either what you just read is an example of it, or Representative Chris Stewart hasn’t been given much to read in his capacity as a member of the House Intelligence Committee.
Then it isn’t an example, is it? At least not of anything in Clinton’s e-mails. I suppose it might serve as an example of how false ideas can be planted in peoples’ heads without resorting to outright lying.
@Budvarakbar: #14
Try this:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/17/clinton-email-chain-discussed-afghan-nationals-cia-ties-official-says.html
@Greg: #13
Read the whole thing.
“One of the classified email chains discovered on Hillary Clinton’s personal unsecured server discussed an Afghan national’s ties to the CIA and a report that he was on the agency’s payroll, a U.S. government official with knowledge of the document told Fox News.”
That’s not hyperbole. That’s a statement of fact.
“The U.S. government official said the Clinton email exchange, which referred to a New York Times report, was among 29 classified emails recently provided to congressional committees with specific clearances to review them. In that batch were 22 “top secret” exchanges deemed too damaging to national security to release.”
Not hyperbole. Fact.
@DrJohn: #4 Dont be dissin’ poodles, both of my rescues just got a clean bill of health today, they wouldn’t bark at Hillary they would bite her then I’d have to have them checked again.
She is obviously some unknown cur hound, that should have been culled. No pedigree there but some genetic tie to Pelosi.
@Petercat, #15:
Why should anyone take it as fact? We’re no longer talking about a specific assertion that’s attributable to Representative Chris Stewart, or to any other known source. Now we’re suddenly talking about “a U.S. government official with knowledge of the document,” which is how FOX commonly tags specious information that mysteriously appears out of thin air. They regularly mix this sort of total rubbish into their news stories, apparently not worrying that it will be noticed.
Rep. Stewart has also made a serious accusation, but then has provided absolutely nothing to support it. He’s not even giving a specific example suggesting what the violation might be like.
@Greg: AGAIN, more accusations of Fox dishonesty without any supporting citations. You know, Greg, just because someone points out that Hillary is a despicable liar (Fox does it, but in all honesty, EVERY news outlet should be reporting this fact) does not automatically mean they are lying.
EVERY news organization uses unnamed sources. You wouldn’t have any reporting if they didn’t. True, it IS possible to abuse that process. However, you have no proof or even an indication of reason to suspect Fox is abusing the process, other than you don’t like what they say.
Gosh. How COULD he? Hey, perhaps his proof is classified.
@Bill, #18:
The evidence of total rubbish that I’m citing is the quoted paragraph from FOX News, which is being passed off as factual information. The phrase “a U.S. government official with knowledge of the document” might as well read “turn off your brain at this point, and imagine we’ve just mentioned an actual source.”
How many instances like this does an intelligent person have to see before it occurs to him that the “news” outlet in question might simple be making things up? They’re countless. FOX does this constantly.
Or perhaps he’s lying about a person more likely to be seen as a better choice for president than either of the two republican front runners, confident that no one will be able to conclusively demonstrate that he’s lying.
That’s the republican scandal tactic in a nutshell, isn’t it?