What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (2 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
cstu said:
Rohn Jambo said:
She exists but I respect her right for privacy,
Click to expand...
I showed you that the name Eileen Wellstone originated from a blog entry (that no longer exists) which used an anonymous source for the claim, yet you still believe she exists? 

https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/721079-official-hillary-clinton-2016-thread/?do=findComment&comment=19488354
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if "It's still real to me dammit" or "It's not a lie, if you believe it" is the more appropriate meme here.

 
cstu said:
I showed you that the name Eileen Wellstone originated from a blog entry (that no longer exists) which used an anonymous source for the claim, yet you still believe she exists? 

https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/721079-official-hillary-clinton-2016-thread/?do=findComment&comment=19488354
Click to expand...
I thought the story came from this book?

https://www.amazon.com/Unlimited-Access-Agent-Inside-Clinton/dp/0895264064

Is this the blog article you referred to?  http://albertpeia.com/oxfordassault.htm

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited by a moderator:
BeaverCleaver said:
Love.... :lmao:
Click to expand...
Do you guys really believe she thought "this 25 year old kid will be President someday and I'll use being married to a President to springboard my own Presidential campaign when I'm in my 60's"?  If she really had that much planning and foresight then she deserves to be President.

 
cstu said:
Do you guys really believe she thought "this 25 year old kid will be President someday and I'll use being married to a President to springboard my own Presidential campaign when I'm in my 60's"?  If she really had that much planning and foresight then she deserves to be President.
Click to expand...
Love...... :lmao:

 
cstu said:
Rohn Jambo said:
I thought the story came from this book?

https://www.amazon.com/Unlimited-Access-Agent-Inside-Clinton/dp/0895264064

Is this the blog article you referred to?  http://albertpeia.com/oxfordassault.htm
Click to expand...
Both of them referenced this:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070516192906/http:/chblue.com/Feb1999/022599/clintonwomen022599.htm

It's a made up story that the right-wing blogs have been spreading around with no idea where it came from.
Click to expand...
The story itself doesn't add up.

- "A retired State Department employee spoke with the family" (since when are English crimes investigated by U.S. authorities?; it's certainly possible that the State Department would have been notified -- but only after British police already opened an investigation. That means that a record of the case should exist in the British archives. But there's nothing on file.)

- "the victim's family declined to pursue the case" (the alleged victim was 19-years old, making her an adult; her family would have had no control over pursuing the case)

- why would the article make a big deal out of "speaking to the family" but never even mention if he spoke to the victim?

- she "confirmed the incident" (what, exactly, did she confirm? That they met at a bar? That they had consensual sex? The fact that the article avoids saying "confirmed the sexual assault" is fishy.)

- "she changed her phone number" (how would a reporter know if a number was changed, rather than just disconnected?)

- she "hired a barrister" (this is another clue that the article may be fake, as the word "barrister" refers to a courtroom lawyer or judge; the more appropriate term in this situation is "solicitor". Furthermore, why is the barrister's name deliberately withheld? Proper journalistic style would dictate that the barrister is named and quoted).

- the fact that in 25 years, not one media outlet has ever provided a single quote from this person, or any other direct evidence that the person actually existed. All the "evidence" comes from unnamed third-party sources ("state department employee", "family members", "barrister", "reporter", etc.).

- extensive Google searches turn up completely empty for anyone named "Eileen Wellstone" who was born c. 1950. All search hits redirect to the Capitol Hill Blue blog.

- a search of English birth and marriage records (here, here, here and here) turns up exactly 0 hits for anyone matching the name of "Eileen Wellstone".

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bruce Dickinson said:
You're not undecided.  You've known for over a year that you will vote for Trump.

Hillary Clinton is a Methodist and a woman.  I can't think of a two-way combo more immediately disqualifying for you than that.

You're too bigoted against religious people to vote for one, and don't respect women enough to put one in office.  

Enjoy voting for Trump.  You know he's the candidate that fits your worldview the closest.
Click to expand...
Hey iStalker, I'll probably end up voting for the Hilmonster.   And I love women.  Once again you have no idea what you're talking about. 

 
Hillary got a bump from the conventions and the first debate.  Its clear that Americans will move away from the Trump they are getting.  No reason to think Hillary won't get another bump after the second debate.

 
tonydead said:
Hey iStalker, I'll probably end up voting for the Hilmonster.   And I love women.  Once again you have no idea what you're talking about. 
Click to expand...
I'm open to the possibility that the person you are here is different from the person you are in your brick-and-mortar life.  

What I said about the person you are here is 100% true.  You have a long history of bigotry and hostility towards religious people, you have a long history of using female terms and feminine characteristics as insults and/or signs of weakness, and you haven't disqualified a ticket of climate change deniers and anti-vaxxers with a Young Earth Creationist, yet you claim to know a lot about science and claim it is important.

 
[scooter] said:
The story itself doesn't add up.

- "A retired State Department employee spoke with the family" (since when are English crimes investigated by U.S. authorities?; it's certainly possible that the State Department would have been notified -- but only after British police already opened an investigation. That means that a record of the case should exist in the British archives. But there's nothing on file.)

- "the victim's family declined to pursue the case" (the alleged victim was 19-years old, making her an adult; her family would have had no control over pursuing the case)

- why would the article make a big deal out of "speaking to the family" but never even mention if he spoke to the victim?

- she "confirmed the incident" (what, exactly, did she confirm? That they met at a bar? That they had consensual sex? The fact that the article avoids saying "confirmed the sexual assault" is fishy.)

- "she changed her phone number" (how would a reporter know if a number was changed, rather than just disconnected?)

- she "she hired a barrister" (this is another clue that the article may be fake, as the word "barrister" refers to a courtroom lawyer or judge; the more appropriate term in this situation is "solicitor". Furthermore, why is the barrister's name deliberately withheld? Proper journalistic style would dictate that the barrister is named and quoted).

- the fact that in 25 years, not one media outlet has ever provided a single quote from this person, or any other direct evidence that the person actually existed. All the "evidence" comes from unnamed third-party sources ("state department employee", "family members", "barrister", "reporter", etc.).

- extensive Google searches turn up completely empty for anyone named "Eileen Wellstone" who was born c. 1950. All search hits redirect to the Capitol Hill Blue blog.

- a search of English birth and marriage records (here, here, here and here) turns up exactly 0 hits for anyone matching the name of "Eileen Wellstone".
Click to expand...
Wow.  Well done.  I'm impressed.

 
Gawain said:
This was independently confirmed by Dexys Midnight Runners.
Click to expand...
Speaking of  Dexy's Midnight Runners ....

I went out dancing awhile ago....

They played "The Twist"....so, I did the twist.

They played "Jump".....so, I jumped

They played "Come on Eileen"....they threw me out !

 
Last edited by a moderator:
History behind Hillary's 'Lincoln Defense' :

David Herbert Donald‘s biography Lincoln explains how the president walked that balance:

One important bit of assistance Lincoln gave to the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment he was not prepared to make public at the time. During the last days of debate in the House of Representatives, rumors spread that Confederate commissioners were on their way to Washington to negotiate a settlement, that peace was at hand. Fearing defections among the reluctant supporters of the measure, Ashley anxiously asked the President whether there was any truth in the reports. Choosing his words with care, Lincoln replied: “So far as I know, there are no peace commissioners in the city, or likely to be in it.” His note calmed the Democrats, who, as he said later, “would have gone off in a tangent at the last moment had they smelt Peace.”

In fact, at that very moment a Confederate peace commission, consisting of Alexander H. Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederacy, John A. Campbell, the Confederate assistant secretary of war, and Robert M.T. Hunter, the prominent Virginia Confederate senator, was crossing into Union lines—but at City Point, not Washington.
Click to expand...

 
Bruce Dickinson said:
I'm open to the possibility that the person you are here is different from the person you are in your brick-and-mortar life.  

What I said about the person you are here is 100% true.  You have a long history of bigotry and hostility towards religious people, you have a long history of using female terms and feminine characteristics as insults and/or signs of weakness, and you haven't disqualified a ticket of climate change deniers and anti-vaxxers with a Young Earth Creationist, yet you claim to know a lot about science and claim it is important.
Click to expand...
Seriously dude, you're creepy. 

 
[scooter] said:
The story itself doesn't add up.

- "A retired State Department employee spoke with the family" (since when are English crimes investigated by U.S. authorities?; it's certainly possible that the State Department would have been notified -- but only after British police already opened an investigation. That means that a record of the case should exist in the British archives. But there's nothing on file.)

- "the victim's family declined to pursue the case" (the alleged victim was 19-years old, making her an adult; her family would have had no control over pursuing the case)

- why would the article make a big deal out of "speaking to the family" but never even mention if he spoke to the victim?

- she "confirmed the incident" (what, exactly, did she confirm? That they met at a bar? That they had consensual sex? The fact that the article avoids saying "confirmed the sexual assault" is fishy.)

- "she changed her phone number" (how would a reporter know if a number was changed, rather than just disconnected?)

- she "hired a barrister" (this is another clue that the article may be fake, as the word "barrister" refers to a courtroom lawyer or judge; the more appropriate term in this situation is "solicitor". Furthermore, why is the barrister's name deliberately withheld? Proper journalistic style would dictate that the barrister is named and quoted).

- the fact that in 25 years, not one media outlet has ever provided a single quote from this person, or any other direct evidence that the person actually existed. All the "evidence" comes from unnamed third-party sources ("state department employee", "family members", "barrister", "reporter", etc.).

- extensive Google searches turn up completely empty for anyone named "Eileen Wellstone" who was born c. 1950. All search hits redirect to the Capitol Hill Blue blog.

- a search of English birth and marriage records (here, here, here and here) turns up exactly 0 hits for anyone matching the name of "Eileen Wellstone".
Click to expand...


I think you're giving a little too short shrift for the work done by the authors themselves:

- They contacted and interviewed the State Department employee who made the claim.

- They contacted State Department.

- They contacted Oxford.

- They did a Foia request.

- They contacted Wellstone herself:

Miss Wellstone, who is now married and lives near London, confirmed the incident when contacted this week, but refused to discuss the matter further. She said she would not go public with further details of the attack. Afterwards, she changed her phone number and hired a barrister who warned a reporter to stay away from his client.
Click to expand...
- The only question you have then is if the authors are lying.

This is Capitol Hill Blue:

Who, or what, is Capitol Hill Blue?

Capitol Hill Blue is a non-partisan, take-no-prisoners political news site launched in October 1994 by newspaperman Doug Thompson. That makes us the oldest surviving news site on the Internet. But don’t take our word for it. Go to Google and see if you can find anything older. Bet you can’t.

Are you a blog?

Good God no. We’re working journalists, not a group of malcontents who sit in front of our computers in our underwear. We work for a living and have lives.

...

What are your politics?

Politics? We don’t need no stinkin’ politics. We believe it is the job of newsies to report the news, not be influenced by political beliefs or bias.

We subscribe to legendary Chicago newspaperman Finley Peter Dunne’s belief that it is the role of a newspaperman to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.”
Click to expand...


- From what I can tell there are several pieces critical of the GOP and right on that site now and in the past. They appear to be investigatory journalists.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Fwiw if I'm not mistaken Capitol Hill Blue is still around, it advertises itself as the oldest political blog on the Internet, and it's not right wing or left wing. IIRC.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com
Click to expand...
The website exists but the page referring to Eileen Wellstone does not.  AFAIK there's is no updated page referring to her.

Also, I never said the Capital Hill Blue website was biased, only that right wing websites used the page from the Capital Hill Blue website as the only evidence that such a person exists.

 
cstu said:
The website exists but the page referring to Eileen Wellstone does not.  AFAIK there's is no updated page referring to her.

Also, I never said the Capital Hill Blue website was biased, only that right wing websites used the page from the Capital Hill Blue website as the only evidence that such a person exists.
Click to expand...
The article is from 1997, folks. I don't think the fact it's not an active link should be held against it. Actually the fact that the site has been around so long should be in its favor, not against it.

I'd agree on your point though, I didn't mean to indicate you were saying that, I'm just saying it appears to be politically even handed.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I think you're giving a little too short shrift for the work done by the authors themselves:

- They contacted and interviewed the State Department employee who made the claim.

- They contacted State Department.

- They contacted Oxford.

- They did a Foia request.

- They contacted Wellstone herself:

- The only question you have then is if the authors are lying.

This is Capitol Hill Blue:
Click to expand...
- They talked to a person who claimed they were a retired State Department employee - do they have proof of this?

- The State Department refused to comment

- Oxford officials refused to comment

- A FOIA request failed to turn up any records of the incident

- They contacted a person who claimed to be Eileen Wellstone - do they have proof they spoke to the real person or did they receive a phone number of someone pretending to be her?

 
cstu said:
- They talked to a person who claimed they were a retired State Department employee - do they have proof of this?

- The State Department refused to comment

- Oxford officials refused to comment

- A FOIA request failed to turn up any records of the incident

- They contacted a person who claimed to be Eileen Wellstone - do they have proof they spoke to the real person or did they receive a phone number of someone pretending to be her?
Click to expand...
They reached a woman claiming to be Eileen Wellstone who confirmed the incident? How does that happen?

I'm not trying to prove this out, but I don't think the site or the report suggest that it didn't happen.

By the way this is the claim:

A retired State Department employee, who asked not to be identified, confirmed that he spoke with the family of the girl and filed a report with his superiors. Clinton admitted having sex with the girl, but claimed it was consensual.
Click to expand...
Is this that horrible? This could be out of any college campus today. And it was 1969, when things were very conservative and I'm guessing Oxford had some sort of strict old behavior code back then.

The stuff about Bill Clinton 'raping' women isn't some description of a guy hiding in back alleys like Jack the Ripper. This is a guy who supposedly has a history of coming on to women in strong fashion. The guy has a woman addiction and the stories go way back. Sure get rid of the the Wellstone story, then the next one is in 1972. CHB claimed they spoke to that woman too.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
The article is from 1997, folks. I don't think the fact it's not an active link should be held against it. Actually the fact that the site has been around so long should be in its favor, not against it.

I'd agree on your point though, I didn't mean to indicate you were saying that, I'm just saying it appears to be politically even handed.
Click to expand...
Think about this:

- Someone comes to you at your blog claiming to have held an important government job and tells you a wild story no one else has heard

- Every official channel you investigate turns up nothing

- You make a phone call to a number provided to you by the person you just met, confirm the story with whoever it is on the other end of the phone, and then post the story to your website as 'confirmed'.

Does that sound reasonable to you?

 
cstu said:
Think about this:

- Someone comes to you at your blog claiming to have held an important government job and tells you a wild story no one else has heard

- Every official channel you investigate turns up nothing

- You make a phone call to a number provided to you by the person you just met, confirm the story with whoever it is on the other end of the phone, and then post the story to your website as 'confirmed'.

Does that sound reasonable to you?
Click to expand...
Is it good investigatory journalism in and of itself? No. But if we are surmising information about work that CHB did not do we could also surmise information they did do. It's not WaPo here. Then again the likes of WaPo have also not debunked the story.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Is it good investigatory journalism in and of itself? No. But if we are surmising information about work that CHB did not do we could also surmise information they did do. It's not WaPo here. Then again the likes of WaPo have also not debunked the story.
Click to expand...
If it's not good investigatory journalism then why would you treat it as fact rather than a small blog getting catfished?

How about you try to get CHB to release the name of their anonymous source and the phone number of the person they called?

How do I reach you?

You can reach us at info@capitolhillblue.com

Our snail mail address is:

Capitol Hill Blue
PO Box 67
Floyd, VA 24091

Who is your staff?

Doug Thompson – Editor & Publisher
John Dawkins – News Editor
Sherry Brewer – Copy Editor

 
Last edited by a moderator:
cstu said:
If it's not good investigatory journalism then why would you treat it as fact rather than a small blog getting catfished?

No major paper has debunked it because there's nothing to debunk.  How about you try to get CHB to release the name of their anonymous source and the phone number of the person they called?
Click to expand...
What the article states is that they were trying to confirm or deny the allegations made by Gary Aldrich about Wellstone in his book.

So they were/are a site that did that. No one else did, but we also know that no one else tried.

The fact that Gary Aldrich was lying would be a big story in and of itself. You don't think WaPo, NYT and other major media news orgs wouldn't jump all over that?

I find it surprising that this story is important. Do we really need to do the work to establish or deny that Bill is a serial lifelong womanizer? Does the suggestion that he hit on 2 girls in college and law school and it went south - in the late 60s/early 70s - really strike people as horrible or weird in the context of his history and the way men behaved, and were allowed to behave, back then?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The other encounters were confirmed with more than 30 interviews with retired Arkansas state employees, former state troopers and former Yale and University of Arkansas students.
Click to expand...
The writers at CHB claimed they did 30 interviews.

Seems important.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
What the article states is that they were trying to confirm or deny the allegations made by Gary Aldrich in his book.

So they were/are a site that did that. No one else did, but we also know that no one else tried.

The fact that Gary Aldrich was lying would be a big story in and of itself.

I find it surprising that this story is important. Do we really need to do the work to establish or deny that Bill is a serial lifelong womanizer? Does the suggestion that he hit on 2 girls in college and law school and it went south - in the late 60s/early 70s - really strike people as horrible or weird in the context of his history and the way men behaved, and were allowed to behave, back then?
Click to expand...
Do you have a link to the allegations by Gary Aldrich?  All I found was this:

Gary Aldrich (Unlimited Access, p. 171) writes:

"Investigation reveals that after the winter of 1969, Mr. Clinton embarked on a tour of Europe, and there are suggestions that school officials told him he was no longer welcome on campus.....There were no grades available for review to approve or disprove claims regarding Clinton's achievement, since the university will not release such records absent the candidate's authority. It is noted that normally a candidate would sign a release so as to allow investigators to confirm or deny educational claims. In this case, the candidate will neither sign a release form nor will he provide documentation related to his attendance and performance at Oxford."
Click to expand...
If he was 'no longer welcome on campus' then why did he later receive an honorary degree:

President Clinton returned today for a sentimental journey to the university where he didn't inhale, didn't get drafted and didn't get a degree.

The last got rectified by Oxford University in a ceremony conducted by men in black gowns speaking in Latin in a 325-year-old stone building designed by Christopher Wren. Mr. Clinton, who studied politics at University College as a Rhodes Scholar from the fall of 1968 to the spring of 1970, was awarded an honorary doctorate in civil law.
Click to expand...

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I find it surprising that this story is important. Do we really need to do the work to establish or deny that Bill is a serial lifelong womanizer? Does the suggestion that he hit on 2 girls in college and law school and it went south - in the late 60s/early 70s - really strike people as horrible or weird in the context of his history and the way men behaved, and were allowed to behave, back then?
Click to expand...
Womanizing (i.e. having consensual sex) is a far cry from rape, that's why it's an important story. 

 
cstu said:
Do you have a link to the allegations by Gary Aldrich?  All I found was this:

If he was 'no longer welcome on campus' then why did he later receive an honorary degree:
Click to expand...
30 years later. As President. So, yeah I think they would be willing to overlook his little issue and claim him as one of their own.

I think a better question is why would Yale Law have admitted him if such a thing was on his record.

 
cstu said:
Womanizing (i.e. having consensual sex) is a far cry from rape, that's why it's an important story. 
Click to expand...
I agree with that. Why couldn't these encounters have happened but fall into the same 'he said / she said' rubric we are all so used to? We are talking the late 60s and 70s, totally different time.

 
These recent posts have definitely convinced me not to vote for Bill Clinton.  

I salute the posters doing important work here, not allowing themselves to be distracted by trifling matters like the GOP presidential nominee/sexual predator who also wants to jail political opponents

 
Last edited by a moderator:
cstu said:
If it's not good investigatory journalism then why would you treat it as fact rather than a small blog getting catfished?

How about you try to get CHB to release the name of their anonymous source and the phone number of the person they called?

How do I reach you?

You can reach us at info@capitolhillblue.com

Our snail mail address is:

Capitol Hill Blue
PO Box 67
Floyd, VA 24091

Who is your staff?

Doug Thompson – Editor & Publisher
John Dawkins – News Editor
Sherry Brewer – Copy Editor
Click to expand...
Thanks, but no thanks. I'd like to think we could all agree that debunking by major news organizations in the 90s would have been a good idea. The CHB staff and Aldrich were available to them back then, but apparently no one considered this worth exploring even though establishing the existience of the long rumored Vast Right Wing Conspiracy would be a major coupe in and of itself.

 
I mean, politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position.
Click to expand...
- Hillary Clinton

 
tommyGunZ said:
Hillary was literarally talking about Lincoln when she made the public/private position in her speech.  That page from the transcript is out there. 
Click to expand...
Yep:

You just have to sort of figure out how to -- getting back to that word, "balance" -- how to balance the public and the private efforts that are necessary to be successful, politically, and that's not just a comment about today. That, I think, has probably been true for all of our history, and if you saw the Spielberg movie, Lincoln, and how he was maneuvering and working to get the 13th Amendment passed, and he called one of my favorite predecessors, Secretary Seward, who had been the governor and senator from New York, ran against Lincoln for president, and he told Seward, I need your help to get this done. And Seward called some of his lobbyist friends who knew how to make a deal, and they just kept going at it. I mean, politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position. And finally, I think -- I believe in evidence-based decision making. I want to know what the facts are. I mean, it's like when you guys go into some kind of a deal, you know, are you going to do that development or not, are you going to do that renovation or not, you know, you look at the numbers. You try to figure out what's going to work and what's not going to work.
Click to expand...
I think her description of the creation of the 13th Amendment a little weird, but that's ok. Yep that was in her speech.

 
Nate Silver ‏@NateSilver538  6m6 minutes ago
—Trump was down 5-6 points before the weekend.
—That doesn't account for pu**y tape.
—Polls show he lost the debate.

 Nate Silver ‏@NateSilver538  2m2 minutes ago
—More leaked tapes/taxes probably ahead.
—No ground game, far fewer ads.
—Bannon seems to have gained influence at Conway's expense.
Click to expand...
About sums it up -- wouldn't be surprising at all if HRC is up 8 points by this time next week.  And 8 is right around the O/U you'd need in order to see Dems have a fighting chance to take the House.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
No politician should be two-faced about clear cut issues. If you're pro life in public, you can't be pro choice in private; that's dishonest. 

But most issues are not clear cut; they are nuanced and it's not always wise to reveal a leader's true thoughts to the public. Slavery is clearly evil, but the passage of the 13th Anendment was nuanced; that was the theme of the film Lincoln which Hillary referenced last night. 

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

mr. furley
Long Island serial killer suspect in custody
Replies
34
Views
2K
Dezbelief
Dezbelief
krista4
In this thread I rank my favorite Beatles songs: 204-1.
138 139 140
Replies
7K
Views
263K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top