Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Sunday January 10 2016, @11:30AM   Printer-friendly
from the the-truth-is-out-there dept.

Although many U.S. presidential candidates are discussing "aliens," the Daily Mail has a story about a candidate talking about aliens from potentially much farther away. According to the Daily Mail, Hillary Clinton has made a campaign promise to 'get to the bottom' of Area 51 if she should be elected President of the United States of America. Specifically, Clinton said that she would reveal the UFO truth:

"one way or another. Maybe we could have, like, a task force to go to Area 51."

"I think we may have been [visited already]. We don't know for sure."

The Daily Mail story is based on the report of an interview with the candidate published in the Conway Daily Sun newspaper of Conway, New Hampshire.

Do the contributors here think that extraterrestrials are a promising and important campaign topic? Or is there skepticism?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 10 2016, @05:29PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 10 2016, @05:29PM (#287658)

    People who are so preoccupied with their own obsessions, they have no idea what a failure she has been in every endeavor she has ever been involved in.

    It is so weird when you talk about yourself in the third person.

    Who remembers that she was fired from the Watergate investigation, with cause?

    That depends. Is it possible to 'remember' a lie? [snopes.com]

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 10 2016, @07:29PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 10 2016, @07:29PM (#287722) Homepage Journal

    You quote your sources, I'll take this source as more reliable.

    http://jacksonville.com/reason/fact-check/2014-03-08/story/fact-check-was-hillary-clinton-fired-watergate-investigation [jacksonville.com]

    --
    Our first six presidents were educated men. Then, along came a Democrat.
    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 10 2016, @08:22PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 10 2016, @08:22PM (#287747)

      That entire article is a non-story. It makes no conclusions at all. That you find it convincing is just odd. In character for a credulous boob though.

      Meanwhile the snopes article quotes the origin of the smear contradicting himself on this very topic:

      1998: "If I had the power to fire her, I would have fired her,"

      2008: "I terminated her, along with some other staff members who were — we no longer needed, and advised her that I would not — could not recommend her for any further positions."

      It even cites his own book published in 1995 where he says she remained on the watergate investigation right up until nixon resigned.

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 10 2016, @08:44PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 10 2016, @08:44PM (#287765)

      I'm no fan of Clinton but your source is a sensationalist bit of lame journalism trying to sway public opinion.

      Title: Fact Check: Was Hillary Clinton fired from Watergate investigation?

      After the Nixon impeachment investigation was finished, Zeifman fired Rodham and said he refused to give her a letter of recommendation.

      The article itself states that she was there to the impeachment.

      But there is nothing to out-and-out confirm Zeifman’s rendition. That doesn’t mean it couldn’t be true, but it makes it difficult to arrive at the truth.

      Fact check indeed...
      I have no problem with accusing Clinton of unethical behavior, but you should work a little harder on your critical thinking and not accept "facts" as given by obviously biased sources. If it makes you feel any better, I have the same criticisms for most anything that comes from msnbc and other liberally biased articles.

      Redflags from your link besides what I listed already: "Is this true?" Asking a question in a news piece, bad journalism. Every "fact" is hearsay from Zeifman, with the most critical quote at the top coming from "On his now-shuttered website...." However I have seen worse bits of opinion pushing.

    • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday January 10 2016, @09:58PM

      You quote your sources, I'll take this source as more reliable.

      " rel="url2html-5510">http://jacksonville.com/reason/fact-check/2014-03-08/story/fact-check-was-hillary-clinton-fired-watergate-investigation

      You should. Well, you should at least read the whole article. From the above link:

      Calabrese’s interview with Zeifman has been published around the Internet and repeated by pundits such as Rush Limbaugh and Neil Boortz. But there is nothing to out-and-out confirm Zeifman’s rendition. [emphasis added]

      Whereas the Snopes article [snopes.com] quotes Zeifman (with attribution):

      And again in 1998, Zeifman was quoted in a Scripps Howard News Service article [cloudfront.net] as unambiguously confirming that not only did he not "fire" Hillary, but that it was not even within his power to do so:
      Jerome Zeifman, chief Democratic counsel on the House Judiciary Committee in 1974 ... does not have flattering memories of Rodham's work on the committee. "If I had the power to fire her, I would have fired her," he said. [emphasis added]

      What's more,

      Zeifman made no bones about having an ax to grind with Hillary Clinton (putting out the anti-Clinton paperback Hillary's Pursuit of Power in 2006), and as its blade grew sharper over the years, he quite obviously shifted his recollections of events from the 1973-74 timeframe to conform to his current point of view rather than the other way around.

      The Jacksonville.com link you provide also states that

      In addition, neither www.TruthOrFiction.com nor we could find any response from Hillary Clinton to Zeifman’s book or to his accusations.

      However,

      Back in April 2008, Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign site responded to Zeifman's claims by asserting:

      In a column circulating on the internet Jerry Zeifman alleges that Hillary was fired from her job on the House Judiciary Committee in the 1970s.

      This is false. Hillary was not fired.

      This is confirmed here [truthorfiction.com], the very site that jacksonville.com claims can't verify the 2008 Clinton campaign's response. Sigh.

      Now, I'm not a huge fan of Hillary Clinton. At the same time, I'm even less of a fan of mendacity [youtube.com]. There are plenty of unflattering true things that can be said about Hillary Clinton without relying on both unsubstantiated claims and outright lies.

      By the way, it took me less than five minutes to determine the truth/falsity of these claims. You, apparently can't even spare that before spewing falsehoods. That smacks of laziness and intellectual dishonesty.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Sunday January 10 2016, @10:40PM

      Hey Runaway. I'm beginning to think that you're an (American) left-wing (which means center-right everywhere else) plant, attempting some sort of false-flag to make the right seem like a bunch of complete morons.

      You continue to post easily refutable and wholly anti-democratic (small d) rants and then seem completely unable (or unwilling) to logically (or factually) support your positions.

      So. Who signs your paycheck? The DNC? George Soros?

      Or am I giving you way too much credit? Please advise.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 10 2016, @11:52PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 10 2016, @11:52PM (#287872)

        Hey Runaway. I'm beginning to think that you're an (American) left-wing (which means center-right everywhere else) plant, attempting some sort of false-flag to make the right seem like a bunch of complete morons.

        No way, not even Runaway could make the American right seem to be a bunch of complete morons! I don't thing he is a false flag, I just think he is the real thing.

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Monday January 11 2016, @12:43AM

          Hey Runaway. I'm beginning to think that you're an (American) left-wing (which means center-right everywhere else) plant, attempting some sort of false-flag to make the right seem like a bunch of complete morons.

          No way, not even Runaway could make the American right seem to be a bunch of complete morons! I don't thing he is a false flag, I just think he is the real thing.

          tl;dr: There are both morons and intelligent/thoughtful persons of every stripe.

          An interesting (if divisive and short-sighted) point. However, I'd point out that The Mighty Buzzard [soylentnews.org] and Frojack [soylentnews.org] among others here also espouse right-wing ideas, and while I may disagree with some of those ideas, they actually attempt to back up their positions with logic and/or fact.

          That's the essence of free, honest discourse IMHO.

          Runaway1956, on the other hand, generally doesn't back up his claims with anything approaching logic or evidence.

          I suggested that Runaway might be a (American) left-wing plant as an alternative to the idea that he is, in fact, that dumb -- essentially giving him the benefit of the doubt.

          What is more, our beliefs are usually much more nuanced than left/right or Libertarian/Collectivist. Our views are guided by our life experiences and the information we both take to heart and reject. This blurs the lines pretty significantly.

          I believe that all ideas, from the coherent to the dotty should be espoused, examined and debated, creating what William O. Douglas called the Marketplace of Ideas [wikipedia.org].

          As an example, I am (WRT social issues) strongly libertarian and believe that we should have the right to think and speak without restriction. I also believe that we should be able to act without restriction, unless those actions impinge on the rights of others [quoteinvestigator.com].

          At the same time, I also believe that, as a society, we have an obligation to assist those who are less fortunate and, that government is an appropriate mechanism for doing so. E Pluribus Unum [wikipedia.org] has strong meaning for me and I believe that we are stronger together as a society than we are as individuals.

          This isn't cognitive dissonance [wikipedia.org], rather it's the result of my life experiences. I try hard (and usually succeed) not to negatively judge those with whom I disagree, nor do I attempt to silence them. I'd much prefer to find areas of agreement (of which there are many on all sides, IMHO), while engaging (without rancor) others in healthy debate the ideas over which we disagree.

          --
          No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2016, @02:16AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2016, @02:16AM (#287908)

            It is weird how you made your conspiracy theory critique of runaway all about you.