• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Shepard Smith Ignores Damning Facts in Uranium One Scandal

bubbabgone said:
So either Shep needs a new research team or he decided superficiality would more likely bring him the love he craved from those from whom it was pretty much guaranteed.
Click to expand...

Ooooo bubba, I see you “decided superficiality posting a conservative editorial would more likely bring you the love you craved from those from whom it was pretty much guaranteed." Your blogatorial simply rehashes all the irrelevant facts that we’ve seen before. To question Smith's "research" it would need to explain why anything from 2006 is relevant to Hillary as SoS. It doesn’t explain that. Also your blogatorial conveniently leaves out "some very relevant details" that shred the dishonest conservative narrative. The undersecretary said Hillary didn’t “intervene.” That is just one of the things that shreds the dishonest narrative. so it seems your blogatorial needs a new research team.

Now bubba, lets deal with your posts. As is usually the case when conservatives who "crave love from those from whom it was pretty much guaranteed" you have to cross the integrity line to push your narrative. I’m guessing “craving love “ is more important to conservatives than integrity because you’ve been pretty consistent.

bubbabgone said:
What you posted consists of nothing more than a denial by Hillary that then was used by PolitiFact as corroboration of her story.
What the OP link showed and what I posted included what Politifact said but added much more to give a more complete picture.
Click to expand...
No bubba, it was a denial by Hillary that was corroborated by the Under Secretary. So your statement is false. And again your blogatorial didn’t mention it proving the “OP link gives more complete picture” also false. And look, you’re repeating the false ‘hawk’ narrative

But what makes the CFIUS approval of the U1 deal peculiar is that as Senator and as SofS Hillary was a noted CFIUS hawk (e.g. on national security grounds) and worked as "an outspoken proponent of strengthening CFIUS" - the Hillary 2008 campaign.
Click to expand...

Ooooo, look how you so interpret “strengthening CFIUS” as “she should never approve anything”. This is a vast improvemenmt over your previous dishonesty when you claimed "Hillary blocked the Chinese deal".

bubbabgone said:
When she because SofS she blocked Chinese companies from buying US assets (including a mining business).
Click to expand...
 
Vern said:
Ooooo bubba, I see you “decided superficiality posting a conservative editorial would more likely bring you the love you craved from those from whom it was pretty much guaranteed." Your blogatorial simply rehashes all the irrelevant facts that we’ve seen before. To question Smith's "research" it would need to explain why anything from 2006 is relevant to Hillary as SoS. It doesn’t explain that. Also your blogatorial conveniently leaves out "some very relevant details" that shred the dishonest conservative narrative. The undersecretary said Hillary didn’t “intervene.” That is just one of the things that shreds the dishonest narrative. so it seems your blogatorial needs a new research team.

Now bubba, lets deal with your posts. As is usually the case when conservatives who "crave love from those from whom it was pretty much guaranteed" you have to cross the integrity line to push your narrative. I’m guessing “craving love “ is more important to conservatives than integrity because you’ve been pretty consistent.


No bubba, it was a denial by Hillary that was corroborated by the Under Secretary. So your statement is false. And again your blogatorial didn’t mention it proving the “OP link gives more complete picture” also false. And look, you’re repeating the false ‘hawk’ narrative



Ooooo, look how you so interpret “strengthening CFIUS” as “she should never approve anything”. This is a vast improvemenmt over your previous dishonesty when you claimed "Hillary blocked the Chinese deal".
Click to expand...

Read the NYT piece linked in #24.
 
code1211 said:
Smith is a Swamp Creature.

I'm not sure when the conversion occurred. It seemed like some few years ago he was an impartial arbiter of news.
Click to expand...

Trump is Swamplord.
 
bubbabgone said:
Read the NYT piece linked in #24.
Click to expand...

oh bubba, its not a good sign when you cant reply to my post in a clear and straightforward manner. I don't see where the NYT article explains the relevance between 2006 and when Hillary was SoS. I don't see where the NYT article explains why your blogatorial didn't mention one of the things (Under Secretary confirming Hillary didn't intervene) that shreds the false conservative narrative. I don't see where the NYT article explains your falsehood about poitifact "using Hillary's quote to corroborate Hillary's claim". Nor do I see where it explains your previous falsehood that "Hillary blocked the Chinese deal".

Maybe I missed it. Please cut and paste the parts that address my points. thanks in advance.
 
Vern said:
oh bubba, its not a good sign when you cant reply to my post in a clear and straightforward manner. I don't see where the NYT article explains the relevance between 2006 and when Hillary was SoS. I don't see where the NYT article explains why your blogatorial didn't mention one of the things (Under Secretary confirming Hillary didn't intervene) that shreds the false conservative narrative. I don't see where the NYT article explains your falsehood about poitifact "using Hillary's quote to corroborate Hillary's claim". Nor do I see where it explains your previous falsehood that "Hillary blocked the Chinese deal".

Maybe I missed it. Please cut and paste the parts that address my points. thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

Read the article and this thread and let me know what doesn't answer your points, such as they are.
 
bubbabgone said:
Read the article and this thread and let me know what doesn't answer your points, such as they are.
Click to expand...

oh bubba, I know you think your "tell me what doesn't answer your point" sounds like a good dodge but it really isn't. Its quite a dishonest and contorted mess. the reason you have to post such a contorted dodge is because you lack the integrity to address my points. Let me repost some of them for you in a list. Maybe that'll be easier for you to understand

I don't see where the NYT article explains the relevance between 2006 and when Hillary was SoS.
I don't see where the NYT article explains why your blogatorial didn't mention one of the things (Under Secretary confirming Hillary didn't intervene) that shreds the false conservative narrative.
I don't see where the NYT article explains your falsehood about poitifact "using Hillary's quote to corroborate Hillary's claim".
Nor do I see where it explains your previous falsehood that "Hillary blocked the Chinese deal"

Sure there were other points like where I mocked your blogatorial because it " completely ignored some very relevant details" as it criticized Smith for that. But you can just focus on the list. thanks in advance.
 
bubbabgone said:
Read the article and this thread and let me know what doesn't answer your points, such as they are.
Click to expand...

Vern said:
oh bubba, I know you think your "tell me what doesn't answer your point" sounds like a good dodge but it really isn't. Its quite a dishonest and contorted mess. the reason you have to post such a contorted dodge is because you lack the integrity to address my points. Let me repost some of them for you in a list. Maybe that'll be easier for you to understand

I don't see where the NYT article explains the relevance between 2006 and when Hillary was SoS.
I don't see where the NYT article explains why your blogatorial didn't mention one of the things (Under Secretary confirming Hillary didn't intervene) that shreds the false conservative narrative.
I don't see where the NYT article explains your falsehood about poitifact "using Hillary's quote to corroborate Hillary's claim".
Nor do I see where it explains your previous falsehood that "Hillary blocked the Chinese deal"

Sure there were other points like where I mocked your blogatorial because it " completely ignored some very relevant details" as it criticized Smith for that. But you can just focus on the list. thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

Read the article and this thread
 
LOL...you Conservatives are too funny. The original fake news hucksters. Oh please stop I can't take it anymore. If reading bull crap and believing it would make you live longer. You guys would live forever.
 
Fraggle Rock said:
LOL...you Conservatives are too funny. The original fake news hucksters. Oh please stop I can't take it anymore. If reading bull crap and believing it would make you live longer. You guys would live forever.
Click to expand...

11/21/2017 will live in infamy - the day Liberals choose Shepard Smith over the New York Times.
 
bubbabgone said:
11/21/2017 will live in infamy - the day Liberals choose Shepard Smith over the New York Times.
Click to expand...

The Uranium One story is a non-story. Watch Joy Reid, a real journalist, destroy this story...

 
dennis31 said:
I would change that to - the only news worth knowing is published in the newspaper. I've never seen Breitbart, and I donno what RT is. Since Hannity is a commentator he's not worth watching. I do see that the claims against Moore are mounting - if he's blocked from the Senate it will quite a good day for the US.
Click to expand...

RT is Russia Times. English version.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
The Uranium One story is a non-story. Watch Joy Reid, a real journalist, destroy this story...

Click to expand...

Joy Reid is a real journalist ... good one.
I saw that days ago. Joy Reid steamrolled a guest. But not with anything useful. She just didn't allow a response. Whooppee. Real journalists don't do that. Hacks do that.
 
Last edited:
bubbabgone said:
Aw that's so touching. You're saying that's what Shep was doing, right?
Click to expand...

It's what ya'll through how many Benghazi hearings? And now you are clinging to another dream.
 
bubbabgone said:
Joy Reid is a real journalist ... good one.
I saw that days ago. Joy Reid steamrolled a guest. But not with anything useful. She just didn't allow a response. Whooppee. Real journalists don't do that. Hacks do that.
Click to expand...

She asked fact based questions. The guest wanted to dodge and go into talking points. She allowed the guest to answer the questions.

The story is just factually full of holes.

I'll ask you one fact-based question. What percentage of the uranium America uses for nuclear power comes FROM Russia?

I'll give you a hint

Owners and operators of U.S. nuclear power reactors purchased the equivalent of 50.6 million pounds of uranium in 2016. About 11% of the uranium delivered to U.S. reactors in 2016 was produced in the United States and 89% came from other countries.

Sources and shares of purchases of uranium produced in foreign countries in 2016:

Canada–25%
Kazakhstan–24%
Australia–20%
Russia–14%
Uzbekistan–4%
Malawi, Namibia, Niger, and South Africa–10%
Brazil, Bulgaria, China, Czech Republic, Germany, and Ukraine–2%
Click to expand...

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=nuclear_where

This Uranium One story is nonsense based on that one fact alone. Russia sends us more Uranium than we produce.

Shephard Smith was just being a real journalist. and Joy Reid is being a real journalist by pointing out facts. This Uranium One story is full of holes.

Do you disagree?
 
bubbabgone said:
11/21/2017 will live in infamy - the day Liberals choose Shepard Smith over the New York Times.
Click to expand...

No bubba, as we do everyday we choose the facts. What facts in the NYT article dispute the facts of Shepard Smith? What facts in the NYT article show the relevance of 2006 to 2010? Since you cant address the facts in an honest and straightforward way you always have to resort to such contortions. "you choose smith over the nyt" is one of those contortions. I would really like you to explain the relevance of 2006 to 2010. Not that you'd add any insight, it would just be funny to read.
 
The selling of uranium is not that big of a deal, since to be useful, uranium ore needs to be processed. To make weapons grade U235, you need a very sophisticated process, that few countries in world can do. In terms of what most countries can do with uranium is make armor piecing bullets. Uranium metal is very heavy, dense and hard. Uranium bullets can be shot from a gun, and can penetrate heavy armor; tank buster. That only takes smelting and fabrication processes, that are one can buy off the shelf.

The real crime was connected to public assets being sold for private gain. Only the Clinton Foundation and Massage Parlor made money. The sale would be like me selling a rich Arab, Yellowstone National Park, and me getting rich. It is not mine to sell. If I was able to do this, the US citizens would not be too happy, even if it was made legal and binding by the power hierarchy. Scammers, like the Clintons, are lawyers, and know how to hide behind the technicalities of the law. It does not have to be right to be legal.

My guess is President Obama was also in on this deal, and will get a cut of the proceeds. His cooperation was essential. However, he wanted no direct ties to himself. His golden parachute will show up, in the future, in other ways, and will look legitimate. This is how the game is played in Washington. High level thieves do not steal, directly. They sub contract others and create a buffer for themselves, so they have room to deny.

We need an investigation to get through the web of intrigue. My guess is the body of evidence was not buried too deep. The plan was to dig a final deeper grave, after Hillary won the presidency. This plan was foiled and the body is starting to smell and attract animals.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
She asked fact based questions. The guest wanted to dodge and go into talking points. She allowed the guest to answer the questions.

The story is just factually full of holes.

I'll ask you one fact-based question. What percentage of the uranium America uses for nuclear power comes FROM Russia?

I'll give you a hint



https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=nuclear_where

This Uranium One story is nonsense based on that one fact alone. Russia sends us more Uranium than we produce.

Shephard Smith was just being a real journalist. and Joy Reid is being a real journalist by pointing out facts. This Uranium One story is full of holes.

Do you disagree?
Click to expand...

Yes. I disagree ... assuming I even understand whatever point you're making.
Whatever country is the source of Uranium matters little.
The control of the mines is what matters.
Uranium One is now fully owned by Russia through Rosatom.
Uranium One owns mines in Kazakhstan ... the world's largest producer.
How did that happen?
Years ago Putin had decided he would work to control the Uranium market.
It started in Kazakhstan with UrAsia acquiring mines, UrAsia merging with Uranium One, keeping the Uranium One name, which then started acquiring uranium assets here in the USA.
That brings us to the Uranium One sale to Russian interests.
The UrAsia deal was made with Frank Giustra, who was a friend and donor to the Clinton Foundation.
Bill was with Giustra in Kazakhstan when he met the Kazakhstan president and showed his support for the deal despite USA foreign policy toward Kazakhstan. And of course we know Bill met with Vlad before the U1 deal.

There are other facts that Smith and Reid didn't mention too.
Those would be the holes in the story and it's their story.
 
bubbabgone said:
There are other facts that Smith and Reid didn't mention too.
Those would be the holes in the story and it's their story.
Click to expand...

yes bubba, we know what you believe. You started a thread because you think Smith "left something out". Tell us what you think Smith left out and then explain how is it relevant to when Hillary was SOS. You keep not doing that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom