Clinton helps north korea develop nukes

[createdtoworship]

Legacy: -Last President to be spoken of being Impeached (clinton)
-Gave...GAVE nukes to North Korea who might blast us.
Way to go...
you killed it dude.



sources:

""The North Koreans duped Jimmy Carter — an emissary of Clinton — and the Clinton administration to subsidise the North Korean nuclear program in exchange for the counterfeit promise that North Korea would limit itself to civilian nuclear power.” "Bill Clinton gave North Korea $5 billion and two nuclear reactors in 1994, essentially giving them nukes

(staff edit)
I recommend using phone to navigate this site to avoid the picture links

 

[tulc]

uhmmm...dude...a lot of skin in that site. Got anything where the people are all dressed?
tulc(is just wondering)

 

[createdtoworship]

uhmmm...dude...a lot of skin in that site. Got anything where the people are all dressed?
tulc(is just wondering)

Try keeping on topic for once. I didn't see any of that. Usually ads are based on browsing habits.

 

[tulc]

Try keeping on topic for once. I didn't see any of that. Usually ads are based on browsing habits.

uhmmm they weren't ads, they were the stories listed around the story you posted.
tulc(was just trying to give you a heads up about your link)

 

[Non sequitur]

View attachment 204591

Legacy: -Last President to be spoken of being Impeached (clinton)
-Gave...GAVE nukes to North Korea who might blast us.
Way to go...
you killed it dude.

sources:

""The North Koreans duped Jimmy Carter — an emissary of Clinton — and the Clinton administration to subsidise the North Korean nuclear program in exchange for the counterfeit promise that North Korea would limit itself to civilian nuclear power.” "Bill Clinton gave North Korea $5 billion and two nuclear reactors in 1994, essentially giving them nukes

Did Bill Clinton pave the way for North Korea to develop nuclear weapons?

The Agreed Framework deal failed.

1) It was a $4.6 billion project (Argentina, Australia, Brunei, Canada, the European Union (EU), Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Oman, Peru, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Switzerland, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and the United States contributed to it).

2) $1.56 billion was spent, with South Korean contributions adding up to around $1.13 billion

3) The US sent oil, not cash.

4) The construction on the light-water reactors was halted and was never completed.

Do you look any of this stuff up before you post?

 

[createdtoworship]

The Agreed Framework deal failed.

1) It was a $4.6 billion project (Argentina, Australia, Brunei, Canada, the European Union (EU), Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Oman, Peru, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Switzerland, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and the United States contributed to it).

2) $1.56 billion was spent, with South Korean contributions adding up to around $1.13 billion

3) The US sent oil, not cash.

4) The construction on the light-water reactors was halted and was never completed.

Do you look any of this stuff up before you post?

Hearsay is anything not said underoath.

 

[Desk trauma]

Hearsay is anything not said underoath.

hearsay

n. 1) second-hand evidence in which the witness is not telling what he/she knows personally, but what others have said to him/her. 2) a common objection made by the opposing lawyer to testimony when it appears the witness has violated the hearsay rule. 3) scuttlebutt or gossip.

 

[createdtoworship]

hearsay

n. 1) second-hand evidence in which the witness is not telling what he/she knows personally, but what others have said to him/her. 2) a common objection made by the opposing lawyer to testimony when it appears the witness has violated the hearsay rule. 3) scuttlebutt or gossip.

I apologize I am cracking down on not adressing blocked users, as they just come back and expect replies. So you are not targeted personally, it's just that something was said in the past that was inflamatory or rude, and blocking occured.

 

[Desk trauma]

I apologize I am cracking down on not adressing blocked users, as they just come back and expect replies. So you are not targeted personally, it's just that something was said in the past that was inflamatory or rude, and blocking occured.

That's nice.

Please use legal terminology correctly.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

uhmmm they weren't ads, they were the stories listed around the story you posted.
tulc(was just trying to give you a heads up about your link)

I agree, there should be a not safe for work disclaimer on that borderline inappropriate contentography site.

 

[Rion]

uhmmm they weren't ads, they were the stories listed around the story you posted.
tulc(was just trying to give you a heads up about your link)

Just admit it, we now know what you really mean by coffee! DUN DUN DUN

 

[tulc]

Just admit it, we now know what you really mean by coffee! DUN DUN DUN

You got me: when I say "coffee" what I really mean is..."COFFEE!!!" as black as night as hot as the sun and filled with caffeine!
tulc(with an extra shot of "never decaff" on the side!)

 

[createdtoworship]

I agree, there should be a not safe for work disclaimer on that borderline inappropriate contentography site.

Doesn't show up on phone, so my recommendation is to use phone obviously, unless you like inappropriate content. Then you just need to repent.

 

[Non sequitur]

Hearsay is anything not said underoath.

Then maybe you should stop doing it...

 

[tulc]

Doesn't show up on phone, so my recommendation is to use phone obviously, unless you like inappropriate content. Then you just need to repent.

Or I can just wait for you to explain why you post links to a inappropriate content site?
tulc(is sort of interested in that explanation)

 

[MrSpikey]

Do you look any of this stuff up before you post?

I think it's obvious from gradyII's posts that they diligently devote the same amount of effort into researching each claim before they make a post about it.

This appears to be a rule they adhere to unfailingly.

I think many of us here who, with the best will in the world, can only manage to partially research the vast array of sources available before forming an opinion could achieve a much more consistent level of honesty if we only adopted the same approach.