Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Can't wait to hear what Kalmy comes up with to point fingers the other way here!

???

Uranuswon?

All based on a book that the author admits has no basis...

ABC News reported that it "uncovered errors" in Peter Schweizer's upcoming anti-Clinton book, Clinton Cash. Schweizer has a long history of sloppy research and reporting -- earlier this week, ThinkProgress revealed that the conservative author cites a hoax press release in the book.

On April 23, ABC News explained that their independent review of the source material used for Clinton Cash "uncovered errors in the book, including an instance where paid and unpaid speaking appearances were conflated." The book purports to reveal connections between Hillary Clinton's time as secretary of state, donations to the Clinton Foundation, and paid speeches given by the Clintons, but Schweizer reportedly admits in the book he cannot prove his allegations.

According to ABC, Schweizer "said the errors would be corrected." The book is due for release on May 5; it is unclear whether the errors will be corrected before the first publication.

Media Matters identified ten previous instances in which Schweizer made serious factual errors, issued retractions, or relied on questionable sourcing.

"Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation as Russians Pressed for Control of Uranium Company

.....Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.

But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.

At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show........"
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/ca ... mpany.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Even the lib media can't ignore this massive Clinton corruption...

New York Times is not liberal

I've only been saying on this forum for like 10 years...
The whole thing is about rare Earth Mineral rights in the "Stans"
Our primary interest in Afghanistan is MINING RIGHTS

Oil is just a side project

dbackjon wrote:New York Times is not liberal

And cites Media Matters as fact-checker...



Nicely done...POTY candidate.

dbackjon wrote:New York Times is not liberal

HOLY SHIT

dbackjon wrote:New York Times is not liberal

dbackjon wrote:New York Times is not liberal

And you are not gay.

andy7171 wrote:Can't wait to hear what Kalmy comes up with to point fingers the other way here!

Clinton IS the other way.

dbackjon wrote:New York Times is not liberal

And your source, media matters, exists solely to run defense for Hillary Climton.

Your support for her given your own circumstances is proof positive that it isn't about issues- it's about team

Chizzang wrote:I've only been saying on this forum for like 10 years...
The whole thing is about rare Earth Mineral rights in the "Stans"
Our primary interest in Afghanistan is MINING RIGHTS

Oil is just a side project

As I've said before in response to what you've said before-

If it's all about mineral rights then we're doing it wrong- China is the mining hegemon in Afghanistan

Besides, setting up 9-11 to enable us to snag Afghanistan rare earths is a little cumbersome. We could have just claimed to be invading "for the children" and foregone the whole photo shopping airplanes onto the WTC.

But I guess I'll defer to you and Spandos on the details of all this

dbackjon wrote:New York Times is not liberal

You shouldn't be doing all this work for free, Jon

I suggest you send Mr. Podesta a bill for your yeoman work

CID1990 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:I've only been saying on this forum for like 10 years...
The whole thing is about rare Earth Mineral rights in the "Stans"
Our primary interest in Afghanistan is MINING RIGHTS

Oil is just a side project

As I've said before in response to what you've said before-

If it's all about mineral rights then we're doing it wrong-China is the mining hegemon in Afghanistan

Besides, setting up 9-11 to enable us to snag Afghanistan rare earths is a little cumbersome. We could have just claimed to be invading "for the children" and foregone the whole photo shopping airplanes onto the WTC.

But I guess I'll defer to you and Spandos on the details of all this

So you're saying that rare earths don't have anything to do with why we're still in Afghanistan. Interesting.

kalm wrote:

andy7171 wrote:Can't wait to hear what Kalmy comes up with to point fingers the other way here!

Clinton IS the other way.

Well played!

houndawg wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
As I've said before in response to what you've said before-

If it's all about mineral rights then we're doing it wrong-China is the mining hegemon in Afghanistan

Besides, setting up 9-11 to enable us to snag Afghanistan rare earths is a little cumbersome. We could have just claimed to be invading "for the children" and foregone the whole photo shopping airplanes onto the WTC.

But I guess I'll defer to you and Spandos on the details of all this

So you're saying that rare earths don't have anything to do with why we're still in Afghanistan. Interesting.

You're saying they ARE, alien boy?

Link

CID1990 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:I've only been saying on this forum for like 10 years...
The whole thing is about rare Earth Mineral rights in the "Stans"
Our primary interest in Afghanistan is MINING RIGHTS

Oil is just a side project

As I've said before in response to what you've said before-

If it's all about mineral rights then we're doing it wrong- China is the mining hegemon in Afghanistan

Besides, setting up 9-11 to enable us to snag Afghanistan rare earths is a little cumbersome. We could have just claimed to be invading "for the children" and foregone the whole photo shopping airplanes onto the WTC.

But I guess I'll defer to you and Spandos on the details of all this

You are a funny sum-bitch I'll give you that

Okay Mr. Smarty pants I'm not talking about 9/11
I'm talking about what you hinted at - that China has been the rare earth big dog
and its cost Europe and the U.S. huge set-backs in Rare Earth monopolization
Most Canadian/Australian/ European Mining Corporations are like Banks - They're GLOBAL

With agreements and contracts and cooperative deals reaching into all corners of the globe

The "STANS" are the future battle ground of the Rare Earth mining forefront
You either get to those locations through blunt military force
or by placing the proper "elected" officials
we need to get the governments in place in the STANS to allows us to do what we do baby

Chizzang wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
As I've said before in response to what you've said before-

If it's all about mineral rights then we're doing it wrong- China is the mining hegemon in Afghanistan

Besides, setting up 9-11 to enable us to snag Afghanistan rare earths is a little cumbersome. We could have just claimed to be invading "for the children" and foregone the whole photo shopping airplanes onto the WTC.

But I guess I'll defer to you and Spandos on the details of all this

You are a funny sum-bitch I'll give you that

Okay Mr. Smarty pants I'm not talking about 9/11
I'm talking about what you hinted at - that China has been the rare earth big dog
and its cost Europe and the U.S. huge set-backs in Rare Earth monopolization
Most Canadian/Australian/ European Mining Corporations are like Banks - They're GLOBAL

With agreements and contracts and cooperative deals reaching into all corners of the globe

The "STANS" are the future battle ground of the Rare Earth mining forefront
You either get to those locations through blunt military force
or by placing the proper "elected" officials
we need to get the governments in place in the STANS to allows us to do what we do baby

Too late. Bill's friends were Canadian. They will rule the world now.

dbackjon wrote:New York Times is not liberal

And Media Matters is unbiased. Get real, Jon.

CID1990 wrote:

houndawg wrote:

So you're saying that rare earths don't have anything to do with why we're still in Afghanistan. Interesting.

You're saying they ARE, alien boy?

Link

No, no, you're right, oh orifice from which all knowledge emanates.

No way we would be interested in trillion dollars worth of anything our good friends the Chinese have a near-monopoly on. I don't know where Chiz comes up with this stuff. Maybe the Oct. 2011 issue of Scientific American?

CID1990 wrote:

houndawg wrote:

So you're saying that rare earths don't have anything to do with why we're still in Afghanistan. Interesting.

You're saying they ARE, alien boy?

Link

I'll give you some sources to attempt to divert the argument to after you tell us that rare earth elements don't have anything to do with why we're still in Afghanistan.

C'mon ciddy, say it for daddy.

https://medium.com/@brianefallon/clinto ... 7a71cb40b0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/fivepoints ... h-5-points" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



For your reading pleasure

If the NeanderCons had anything other than innuendo and speculation, I'd fall over dead. Even the NYT article said this was 'speculative.' I'd of gone with 'specious' (and I'm no fan of HRC or Bubba).

WTF is up with conservatism in America? Wacko evangelicals and those Cliven Bundy-types run the Republican show. (That's a nice way for me to call you, Dumb Asses). Attack politics, wedge and divide, HATE!, FEAR! and Goebbels-like propaganda. (Jesus would not like that)

... Unfunded liabilities of the federal government= $93.8 trillion

Exhibit A(ss)