Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Foolmewunz said:
Look, we all get caught up in the argument. I hate the word liar/lying so I never use it. So we concur on that. I've sometimes said "that's a lie" when I know someone is intentionally repeating something that they've been repeatedly corrected on. But "that's a lie", while negative, and "that post is wrong" or even "that's one of the stupidest things I've ever read", are not blanket accusations of a whole group.

More important is the sophistry (perhaps unintended, offering you an out here) that in a thread that's been going on for a year and a half and which has Hillary Clinton as the topic, the implication is that your fellow posters are stupid. (Many of us may be, but that has nought to do with the topic and is crossing the line to attacking the arguer.)
Click to expand...

I don't like the word either and I don't call people liars. But of course when I say some members of a group are dumb, you throw a fit, and when I'm personally called a liar, it's par for the course.

And I notice you still haven't condemned the personal attack on me and offered the other person an "out" (by apologizing, maybe)? It wasn't "that's a lie" or "that's a stupid comment". It was a direct accusation that I'm a liar. Which went totally ignored. So if that's going to be tolerated, don't complain when I throw it back at people. I call it as I see it. If personal insults against me are OK, and nobody complains when they happen, what do you expect from me? I'm not a saint.
 
PhantomWolf said:
If you keep saying the same thing even after having had it pointed out multiple times why your claim is wrong, then the only thing left to assume is that you are deliberately lying about it. If the shoe fits and all.
Click to expand...

The people pointing out "wrong claims" tend to make quite a few themselves, as well as mischaracterizing posts, strawmen, and arguments that are really pathetic, so forgive me if I'm not bowled over by their logic, and remain unconvinced that my position is wrong.

When I fail to convince someone, and I think I'm right, I don't assume they're liars. I just assume they're wrong and haven't been convinced. You, on the other hand, assume I'm lying.

A) it's a personal attack and shouldn't be tolerated
B) if it is tolerated, then the obvious conclusion is personal attacks are OK now. Open the floodgates.
 
Dems ‘Who Prophesy A Hillary Landslide Over Trump Are Blowing Smoke’

"Hillary is a stodgily predictable product of the voluminous briefing books handed to her by a vast palace staff of researchers and pollsters—a staggeringly expensive luxury not enjoyed by her frugal, unmaterialistic opponent, Bernie Sanders (my candidate). Trump, in contrast, is his own publicist, a quick-draw scrapper and go-for-the-jugular brawler. He is a master of the unexpected…

"The massive size of Hillary’s imperialist operation makes her seem slow and heavy. Trump is like a raffish buccaneer, leaping about the rigging like the breezy Douglas Fairbanks or Errol Flynn, while Hillary is the stiff, sequestered admiral of a bullion-laden armada of Spanish galleons, a low-in-the-water easy mark as they creak and sway amid the rolling swells."

-- Camille Paglia writing at Salon
​

http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/19/f...llary-landslide-over-trump-are-blowing-smoke/ (May 19, 2016)
Click to expand...


With her notorious flair for colorful language, Paglia draws a scintillating yet apt contrast between the two presumptive candidates.

Donald Trump, "a quick-draw scrapper and go-for-the-jugular brawler" vs. Crooked Hillary, "a slow and heavy, stodgily predictable easy mark".

Yeah, that's it in a nutshell.
 
Last edited:
Weakend at Bernie’s

Hopeful acceptance of Hillary has shifted to amazed disbelief that she can’t put away Bernie. Given dynasty fatigue and Hillary’s age, many Democrats assumed that their front-runner would come out of the gate with a vision for the future that gave her campaign a fresh hue, instead of white papers tinkering around the edges. She should have been far over her husband’s bridge to the 21st century and way down the highway by now.

Instead, her big new idea is to put Bill in charge of the economy again (hopefully, with less Wall Street deregulation). Again with the two for the price of one. And please don’t deny us the pleasure of seeing Bill choose the china patterns.

(Op-Ed Columnist Maureen Dowd)
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/o...at-bernies.html?smid=tw-nytimesdowd&smtyp=cur (May 21, 2016)
Click to expand...


So, what will Crooked Hillary be doing while her husband Bill is busy running the country's economy?

Rather than just sit idle, she can always spend the time "baking cookies, and holding teas."
 
Last edited:
Fudbucker said:
As well as being duplicitous, some of the Clinton supporters I'm come across are just kind of stupid. Anyone else have this experience?
Click to expand...

Slings and Arrows said:
So, what will Crooked Hillary be doing while her husband Bill is busy running the country's economy?

Rather than just sit idle, she can always spend the time "baking cookies, and holding teas."
Click to expand...
Could there be some kind of cancellation going on?
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
Whereas you rely on Hillary's push polls? The Dems push polls?....
Click to expand...
So no quote and no admission you're wrong here?

Sounds like Republican tactics, make a false accusations and wait for people to remember the accusation and not remember it was false.
 
WildCat said:
Why sometimes it got so bad for them that Bill would have to go out at night to give a speech for a paltry $500,000, just like normal people!
Click to expand...


Worse still, things got so bad that out of necessity Bill was forced to send his lovely wife out into the workforce taking menial jobs with a meager salary -- $225,000 per speech courtesy of Goldman Sachs and other criminals.
 
Slings and Arrows said:
Worse still, things got so bad that out of necessity Bill was forced to send his lovely wife out into the workforce taking menial jobs with a meager salary -- $225,000 per speech courtesy of Goldman Sachs and other criminals.
Click to expand...

Demonstrating once again how she is a victim of sexism, making less than half what her husband makes for the same work.
 
WildCat said:
Demonstrating once again how she is a victim of sexism, making less than half what her husband makes for the same work.
Click to expand...
Earth to WC: being accused of being overpaid when you are making the going rate had you been a male is just the flip side of wage inequality.

And of course, lower wages are the only thing sexism is about. :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom