Hillary Clinton is Done: part 3

[catsmate]

Now there's a headline.

If only there was actual evidence...

 

[The Big Dog]

I read that whole link. You did not. You only read the headline.

I know that because the actual content of the link contains NOTHING. NADA. DIDDLY-SQUAT. to do with the headline.

Gawd, TBD, that was pathetic. Here, have a cookie. You'll feel better.

The headline to the actual article written by the author of the article has nothing to do with the content of the article?

'K, if you say so, afterall you used big red font!

Very truther like!

Lolz

 

[varwoche]

I read that whole link. You did not. You only read the headline.

I know that because the actual content of the link contains NOTHING. NADA. DIDDLY-SQUAT. to do with the headline.

Spot on.

The headline to the actual article written by the author of the article has nothing to do with the content of the article?

'K, if you say so, afterall you used big red font!

Very truther like!

Lolz

Indeed, the article doesn't come even vaguely close to delivering the bs headline. I too assume that you didn't actually read the article.

Assuming it's true that the author wrote the headline, that merely informs us that the author is a rank propagandist who employs techniques similar to, well, you.

Cue up that Bugs Bunny cartoon.

 

[plague311]

The headline to the actual article written by the author of the article has nothing to do with the content of the article?

'K, if you say so, afterall you used big red font!

Very truther like!
Lolz

Coming from the guy who has implied everyone from the FBI to the State Dept to the POTUS has been involved in Hillary's fiasco. Yeah...truther like indeed.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Proof Positive of the Second Coming

The headline to the actual article written by the author of the article has nothing to do with the content of the article?

'K, if you say so, afterall you used big red font!

Very truther like!

Lolz

Whether or not the author wrote the headline is a distraction. The point is that whether they wrote it or not, their article does not support it.

I wrote this post and its headline/title.

 

[pgwenthold]

Spot on.

Indeed, the article doesn't come even vaguely close to delivering the bs headline. I too assume that you didn't actually read the article.

Assuming it's true that the author wrote the headline, that merely informs us that the author is a rank propagandist who employs techniques similar to, well, you.

Cue up that Bugs Bunny cartoon.

As you wish

I'll probably do that twice a day until the election, right?

 

[The Big Dog]

Spot on.

Indeed, the article doesn't come even vaguely close to delivering the bs headline. I too assume that you didn't actually read the article.

Assuming it's true that the author wrote the headline, that merely informs us that the author is a rank propagandist who employs techniques similar to, well, you.

Cue up that Bugs Bunny cartoon.

Oh gee, well if you say so.

Golly, does anyone else remember the day when people made actual arguments supported by facts instead of bare assertions? Like if someone was to say that the article I linked did not support the headline and give a reason other a Bugs Bunny Cartoon?

It would appear absolutely clear that the author was very derisive of the fact that Hillary's supporters were afraid to do anything to assist the poor lest it hit her poll numbers.

Lets take a deeper dive, shall we:

Say the article contains actual quotes from actual emails:

We need something that works in primary and general. Obama got killed for this in 2012 for making some of these suggestions.

Will send thoughts back in an hour.

It also contains analysis along with cites to other articles:

As the Washington Post’s Max Ehrenfreund points out, the reference to Barack Obama having gotten “killed for this in 2012” likely refers to then-Republican nominee Mitt Romney deriding Obama for giving away “free stuff” to voters. The problem here, of course, is that not only did Obama not get “killed” for that stuff—you might recall that Romney actually is not the president of the United States right now—but the person who did get killed for it was ... Mitt **** Romney!

and a summary:

The bare fact that they were even having that conversation should have made this self-evident, even to this collection of meritocratic centrist androids: Here they were, being challenged hard and unexpectedly from the left by a septuagenarian garden gnome with no party backing, operating pretty much entirely out of a playbook of democratic-socialist domestic policy, while the Republican primary campaign was being thrown into chaos by a nativist ham ogre, and the consensus in the top levels of the Clinton braintrust was, Hmm probably we should not signal too much intent to improve the lives of poor and working-class Americans right now, or our opponents might have to shoot their own **** off like Mitt Romney did in 2012.

Thanks, tho, for letting me quote the article in detail!

Now type how you are "unimpressed" and post a cartoon.

 

[The Big Dog]

As you wish

[qimg]http://i.giphy.com/wAqAtPWs5hQ7S.gif[/qimg]

I'll probably do that twice a day until the election, right?

yep, you probably will.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Oh gee, well if you say so.

Golly, does anyone else remember the day when people made actual arguments supported by facts instead of bare assertions? Like if someone was to say that the article I linked did not support the headline and give a reason other a Bugs Bunny Cartoon?

It would appear absolutely clear that the author was very derisive of the fact that Hillary's supporters were afraid to do anything to assist the poor lest it hit her poll numbers.

Lets take a deeper dive, shall we:

Say the article contains actual quotes from actual emails:



It also contains analysis along with cites to other articles:



and a summary:



Thanks, tho, for letting me quote the article in detail!

Now type how you are "unimpressed" and post a cartoon.

It would have been more impressive if the email quote had something to do with the headline, right ?

Quote:
We need something that works in primary and general. Obama got killed for this in 2012 for making some of these suggestions.

Will send thoughts back in an hour.

Headline:
WikiLeaks Emails Show Clinton Aides Cowering In Fear Of Seeming To Care About The Poor

Maybe you can show us a Venn diagram with the intersection of those two quotes ?

 

[Belz...]

Quote:
We need something that works in primary and general. Obama got killed for this in 2012 for making some of these suggestions.

Will send thoughts back in an hour.

Headline:
Obama killed in 2012. Democratic Party implicated in massive cover-up.

 

[The Big Dog]

Maybe you can show us a Venn diagram with the intersection of those two quotes ?

Golly, I sure as hell can!:

From the article:

the consensus in the top levels of the Clinton braintrust was, Hmm probably we should not signal too much intent to improve the lives of poor and working-class Americans right now, or our opponents might have to shoot their own **** off like Mitt Romney did in 2012.

I feel extremely good about the fact that these clueless, cynical, spineless chicken ***** will probably be running the United States government in a few months. All of this is working out super great.

If anything the headline went easy on the clueless cynical spineless meritocratic centrist android *********** cowards, don'tcha think?

Jeepers, don't make me quote the article again, and again, and again.

Fantastic

 

[acbytesla]

I've looked at maps from 300 years ago (I love geography) and I'll be damned if I can find a one with USA written on it.

I missed the line in Genesis where God said " that in the West shall be the USA".

 

[varwoche]

Golly, I sure as hell can!:

From the article:

If anything the headline went easy on the clueless cynical spineless meritocratic centrist android *********** cowards, don'tcha think?

Jeepers, don't make me quote the article again, and again, and again.

Fantastic

OMG do you reallly think that readers won't notice that you're quoting the author/propagandist here?

This is so weak it makes weak tea seem like toxic sludge.

 

[acbytesla]

Golly, I sure as hell can!:

From the article:



If anything the headline went easy on the clueless cynical spineless meritocratic centrist android *********** cowards, don'tcha think?

Jeepers, don't make me quote the article again, and again, and again.

Fantastic

You know, your translation is crap. I welcome honest differences of opinion. But piles of stinky horsey feces is not appreciated. Either you don't speak English or you're simply never interested in the truth. I wish it was the former, but I'm highly doubtful.

 

[The Big Dog]

OMG do you reallly think that readers won't notice that you're quoting the author/propagandist here?

This is so weak it makes weak tea seem like toxic sludge.

Wait, you claim that "Indeed, the article doesn't come even vaguely close to delivering the bs headline. I too assume that you didn't actually read the article."

And i respond by showing that the body of the article delivers in spades and your reply is:

"OMG do you reallly think that readers won't notice that you're quoting the author/propagandist here?"

OH EMM GEE that was exactly the entire point!

LOLZ! You guys really tickle my funny bone!

 

[The Big Dog]

You know, your translation is crap. I welcome honest differences of opinion. But piles of stinky horsey feces is not appreciated. Either you don't speak English or you're simply never interested in the truth. I wish it was the former, but I'm highly doubtful.

Oh dear... my "translation" is "crap"....

Huh, so that just happened.

 

[Slowvehicle]

OMG do you reallly think that readers won't notice that you're quoting the author/propagandist here?

This is so weak it makes weak tea seem like toxic sludge.

But, but...it's all about resisting She Whose Many Names the Cats Scream in the Night Alleyways of Hell...!

 

[jimbob]

The Big Dog admits their translation is crap

Oh dear... my "translation" is "crap"....

Huh, so that just happened.

Unlike the article, that is a direct quote

 

[The Big Dog]

Unlike the article, that is a direct quote

Oh dear... do you not understand what the word "translation" is either?

We certainly know that the bare assertion of the word "crap" is the type of "argument" that "skeptics" use.

 

[jimbob]

It would have been more accurate to have said that Clinton claimed her hovercraft was full of eels