Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[The Big Dog]

Yet just one page back ...

You are laboring under a profound misapprehension here.

There is literally nothing I omitted that is going to make my statement false, you understand that right? Nor am I evading a question or giving a misleading answer.

"the only Candidate to vote for the Iraq War Resolutions was.... wait for it..... HILLARY CLINTON!"

Good god, everytime I read that it gets more poetic.

Add your rationalizations all you want, but it ain't gonna change the fact that Hillary is warmonger.

ps: thanks for bumping the thread!

 

[The Big Dog]

So, I suppose, are these fallacies you posted in this very same thread ... yes ??

LOLOL! tu quoque?

Walk off GRAND SLAM! 16.5 rounds bases, blows kisses to the crowd.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

LOLOL! tu quoque?

Walk off GRAND SLAM! 16.5 rounds bases, blows kisses to the crowd.

LOLOL!!1! ... it's not a tu quoque to point out your hypocrisy.

 

[The Big Dog]

LOLOL!!1! ... it's not a tu quoque to point out your hypocrisy.

HAHA!! Good one!

/oh man, there is no way he was serious about that, was he? he did not really mean it was not an appeal to hypocrisy to call someone a hypocrite....

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

No way, he has to be kidding, right?.... right?

 

[jhunter1163]

I've interacted with 16.5 in the 9/11 threads, and whatever else he is, he isn't stupid. He's been called on his lie of omission and just continues gleefully on. He's either adopted 9/11 Truther tactics, is trolling, or is running an elaborate Poe.

Must be a slow day for news on the e-mail front.

 

[The Big Dog]

I've interacted with 16.5 in the 9/11 threads, and whatever else he is, he isn't stupid. He's been called on his lie of omission and just continues gleefully on. He's either adopted 9/11 Truther tactics, is trolling, or is running an elaborate Poe.

Must be a slow day for news on the e-mail front.

That is utterly ridiculous. My statement cannot be falsified, at all.

The alleged omissions are irrelevant and their addition does nothing to render my statement false in any way.

My stars, it takes a special level of apologetics to deem an objectively and subjectively true statement false:

Hillary is the only candidate for President who is a woman. Is that a lie, folks because I did not add "of the currently declared batch"?

Of course it is not a lie, and to suggest that it is a lie by omission is utterly absurd. C'mon man.....

 

[Foolmewunz]

That is utterly ridiculous. My statement cannot be falsified, at all.

The alleged omissions are irrelevant and their addition does nothing to render my statement false in any way.

My stars, it takes a special level of apologetics to deem an objectively and subjectively true statement false:

Hillary is the only candidate for President who is a woman. Is that a lie, folks because I did not add "of the currently declared batch"?

Of course it is not a lie, and to suggest that it is a lie by omission is utterly absurd. C'mon man.....

This isn't Fox News. Constant repetition that your lie of omission was not a lie is not going to turn it into truth. You were playing gamesmanship. You got caught out. High five yourself until your palms get sore. It matters not.

You may now return to casting your leaky nets over the waters in the hopes that someone says something bad about Hillary that you can repeat here to give this thread the appearance of relevance. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the GOP are sharpening their Bowie knives and getting the circular firing squad ready.

 

[The Big Dog]

This isn't Fox News. Constant repetition that your lie of omission was not a lie is not going to turn it into truth. You were playing gamesmanship. You got caught out. High five yourself until your palms get sore. It matters not.

You may now return to casting your leaky nets over the waters in the hopes that someone says something bad about Hillary that you can repeat here to give this thread the appearance of relevance. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the GOP are sharpening their Bowie knives and getting the circular firing squad ready.

You mean how that absolutely true thing I said was a lie? ok.

And actually, it appears that it was in fact you who are misleading people, because it seems that of the likely candidates (declared or undeclared) that Hillary will indeed be the only candidate that voted for the Iraq war resolution. In fact the only exception might be smokin Joe Biden and if he decides to run, I will cheerfully amend my statement.

 

[sunmaster14]

Oh please. It wasn't a lie of omission. First of all, it was blindingly obvious that the reason 16.5's statement was true was that none of the Republican candidates had the opportunity to vote for the Iraq war. That was part of why it was a clever little dig. It was done to remind people (and they certainly need reminding here) that Hillary was and is a hawk when it comes to national security issues, and her current opposition to the Iraq War is a combination of 20/20 hindsight and pandering to the left. Second, and more importantly from the standpoint of lie assessment, the fact that some or all of the Republican candidates may have voted for the Iraq War if they had had the opportunity is irrelevant. They didn't vote for it, and therefore they shoulder zero responsibility for it. You can play the "what if" hypothetical game all you want, but you cannot impose any moral responsibility on somebody for an action that they may have taken or even would have taken if they had the opportunity, but actually didn't take. Under certain circumstances, I might have murdered somebody, but I can't be convicted for murder if I didn't actually do it.

 

[DavidJames]

Clever dig, lie by omission, Republican, Democrat, tomayto, tomahto,

 

[The Big Dog]

Oh please. It wasn't a lie of omission. First of all, it was blindingly obvious that the reason 16.5's statement was true was that none of the Republican candidates had the opportunity to vote for the Iraq war. That was part of why it was a clever little dig. It was done to remind people (and they certainly need reminding here) that Hillary was and is a hawk when it comes to national security issues, and her current opposition to the Iraq War is a combination of 20/20 hindsight and pandering to the left. Second, and more importantly from the standpoint of lie assessment, the fact that some or all of the Republican candidates may have voted for the Iraq War if they had had the opportunity is irrelevant. They didn't vote for it, and therefore they shoulder zero responsibility for it. You can play the "what if" hypothetical game all you want, but you cannot impose any moral responsibility on somebody for an action that they may have taken or even would have taken if they had the opportunity, but actually didn't take. Under certain circumstances, I might have murdered somebody, but I can't be convicted for murder if I didn't actually do it.

Well it is a little more clever than that, of course. There was a Republican Senator who is now a Democrat and is now holding Hillary's feet to the fire on the Vote!

Take a gander folks

Hee hee!

 

[sunmaster14]

Well it is a little more clever than that, of course. There was a Republican Senator who is now a Democrat and is now holding Hillary's feet to the fire on the Vote!

Take a gander folks

Hee hee!

That is interesting, although I have to say that there are few people who served in the Senate who are dumber than Lincoln Chafee.

 

[12AX7]

This is a site for skeptics, you know that? Therefore, false dichotomy and other fallacies like your post are heavily frowned on.

Well, if anyone is an expert on fallacies, it's you.

...and avid readers will note that I hit that softball right out of the damn park!

We must be watching a different game; from my seat (near the dugout), you've yet to even make contact with the ball.

In fact, that "swooshing" sound is getting old.

Keep swingin' though.

 

[The Big Dog]

That is interesting, although I have to say that there are few people who served in the Senate who are dumber than Lincoln Chafee.

The hilarious thing is that is that someone brought up the Iraq War in a thread about Hillary Clinton, and then after having been reminded that she voted for it, instead of having the good sense to immediately drop it, people still engage me in a fiddling while Rome burns discussion regarding whether she is the "only" candidate who for voted for the Iraq war, or the only declared candidate who for voted for the Iraq war.

These folks should look up the Striesand effect!

 

[12AX7]

I doubt that you will ever understand that, but as a thought experiment you might try imagining that your LEAST favorite Republican candidate had done something similar. Do you think you reaction would have been remotely similar to what it has been about what Clinton did?

this should be fascinating.....

Oh nOes! Tu Quoques!

 

[12AX7]

LoL didn't Bush jr. do the exact same thing only times about 1,000? They deleted or lost like 5 million emails didn't they?

So she's not even next level, she's amateur hour.

He knows. He doesn't care about that.

LOLOL!!1! ... it's not a tu quoque to point out your hypocrisy.

He knows. He doesn't care about that either.

I've interacted with 16.5 in the 9/11 threads, and whatever else he is, he isn't stupid. He's been called on his lie of omission and just continues gleefully on. He's either adopted 9/11 Truther tactics, is trolling, or is running an elaborate Poe.

Must be a slow day for news on the e-mail front.

I'm gonna bet he's genuinely embracing this. And it's scary; he's not stupid, he's not POEing, he's not trolling.

He really believes the Republican/conservative/Fox narratives.

 

[johnny karate]

If you look back at the Chris Christie traffic jam thread, you can see that I fully supported an investigation, and in fact I actually believe that he knew about the whole thing and that he is a vindictive bastard.

Well, I looked back at the thread...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=271595&highlight=christie

...and perhaps I missed it, but I don't see where you posted in it.

At all.

 

[mgidm86]

The hilarious thing is that is that someone brought up the Iraq War in a thread about Hillary Clinton, and then after having been reminded that she voted for it, instead of having the good sense to immediately drop it, people still engage me in a fiddling while Rome burns discussion regarding whether she is the "only" candidate who for voted for the Iraq war, or the only declared candidate who for voted for the Iraq war.

Haven't checked this thread in awhile, but he's right. His statement was not a lie. We all know what he meant by "candidate".

I didn't initially realize that he specifically said "candidate" until it was pointed out. Perhaps others made the same mistake and are trying to argue their way out of it rather than admitting it and moving on.

 

[sunmaster14]

Well, I looked back at the thread...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=271595&highlight=christie

...and perhaps I missed it, but I don't see where you posted in it.

At all.

My mistake. It was a different thread where it was referenced and a side discussion started. I'll try to find it. The Chris Christie thread was going strong when I was still enamored with Amanda Knox and MH370.

 

[davefoc]

Oh please. It wasn't a lie of omission. First of all, it was blindingly obvious that the reason 16.5's statement was true was that none of the Republican candidates had the opportunity to vote for the Iraq war. That was part of why it was a clever little dig. It was done to remind people (and they certainly need reminding here) that Hillary was and is a hawk when it comes to national security issues, and her current opposition to the Iraq War is a combination of 20/20 hindsight and pandering to the left. ...

I agree with sunmaster a bit here. It was a lie of omission, maybe, but the lie was obvious and I took it as a joke.

I think the truth behind the joke is important as well. A lot of Democrats besides Clinton went along with the president (or at least Cheney who was calling the shots at this point in time). There are at least four possible reasons.
1. They were as well informed as Cheney about the very shaky nature of the information that was being used to tout the case for war and thought a war was a good idea even with that knowledge.
2. They tended to believe the bogus case for war that was being made by the Cheney group and voted for the war because in their view it was in the best interests of the country and it was a moral thing to do.
3. They voted for the war because they didn't want to be seen as doves and if the war worked out they didn't want to be seen as some sort of weird peacenik.
4. They voted for the war because it was a way of getting some pork for their district that the Bush administration was passing around.

I don't know which reasons apply to Clinton. I doubt that item 1 was true though. I also see Clinton as somewhat sleazy and politically driven so I wouldn't be surprised that she voted for war for some kind of political reasons instead of some kind of genuine view that the war was a good idea. Do politicians ever tell the truth about this kind of thing? And how would you recognize it if they did?