In partnership with CBSSports.com
The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports
Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports
A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics
Feedback for IMS and 247Sports
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
"...Disbelief for the sake of disbelief is not a virtue. .."
I agree but I did not do this, as I showed that Hillary Clinton has been outed through her career as a person who lies and who is unethical. In my mind, but not yours, that changes her credibility when circumstances like that discussed require believability.
BUT let's refocus on her testimony. Was it acceptable to you ? Did she explain it to your satisfaction? If so how?
The link shows moments in her testimony to prompt your recollections.
I honestly don't understand TAG's point of view about Hillary's "alleged" blood clot and condition. The arguments about journalists make no sense. It's not as if someone just blindly took HIllary's personal word for it. What else did you want them to do?
- Seek out what her doctors had to say? Guess what -- they did that!
- Seek out detailed information about the specifics of the medical condition? We know the clot was located in the vein between the brain and and the skull behind Clinton's right ear.
- Seek out the long-term effects of the condition? The doctors believe the clot did not result in any stroke or neurological damage
- Seek out how she was treated? She was treated with blood thinners to help dissolve the clot.
Short of violating federal statutes and gaining access to her medical records, what did you want journalists to do here? Impugning the entire profession on these facts seems a bit absurd.
As for the substance of Hillary's testimony, I think it probably went as well for her and the administration as it could have gone. Like many others, I think some Republican Senators came away looking a bit worse in parts than Hillary did.
This post was edited by terps99 18 months ago
Her testimony is an entirely separate issue from whether or not she lied boldly and repeatedly for political gain (and had many others do so on her behalf) about a serious medical issue.
It's a serious accusation that requires proof beyond assertions of past dishonest behavior.
In the same way that all serious accusations about politicians (OBAMA LIED ABOUT HIS BIRTH PLACE! BUSH DID/ALLOWED 9/11 TO HAPPEN! SECOND SHOOTER ON THE GRASSY KNOLL!) require serious proof.
This particular false accusation is, of course, in no way near the magnitude of those other 3, and in fact nowhere near previous false accusations she's been a party to. It's a light appetizer at the False Accusations Dinner, but still worth pointing out as false (or under the most charitably interpretation, unproven).
"And I try to har-mo-nize with songs the lonesome sparrow sings...
There are no kings inside the Gates of Eden."
I'm just really biased against the double fist bang on the table maneuver.
Quite right - anyone can believe anything they want, including that a cunt who has lied on a regular basis for oh, the last thirty years, about almost everything, will suddenly start telling the truth...
I do, tag has taken one step beyond the rational.
You can't just call someone a cunt because you disagree with something they say.
She's not Debbie Yow.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports