• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Clinton to Paultard Twoofer: "You're Nuts!"

ronpaulrevolutionovervg8.jpg
 
beachnut said:
You have that backwards. Are you in the truth movement too?
Click to expand...


This comment is quite funny on the surface, but it's actually much, much cleverer than you realise. Think about it.

Beachnut I salute you.

(In fact I nominate you!)

-Gumboot
 
You know, in some ways now, I'd like to see Ron Paul win; just to see the troofers faces when he doesn't live up to their expectations....
 
"You wanna know what I think?” Clinton said. “You guys who think 9/11 was an inside job are crazy as hell. My wife was the senator from New York when that happened. I was down at Ground Zero. I saw the victims' families. You're nuts."
Click to expand...

Apparently (judging by this thread) that was an effective answer. But just a tiny bit of critical thinking makes me wonder how the hell the answer refutes any nutter theories.

"9/11 was an inside job." - "Couldn't have been an inside job- my wife is a senator from New York."

"9/11 was an inside job." - "Impossible. I saw the victims families."

Huh? Suppose (hard to do, but give a try) that the nutters are right and it was an inside job. What would Clinton have seen at Ground Zero that would be different than what he saw? How would the victims families look different than they did?
 
Bob Klase said:
Apparently (judging by this thread) that was an effective answer. But just a tiny bit of critical thinking makes me wonder how the hell the answer refutes any nutter theories.

"9/11 was an inside job." - "Couldn't have been an inside job- my wife is a senator from New York."

"9/11 was an inside job." - "Impossible. I saw the victims families."

Huh? Suppose (hard to do, but give a try) that the nutters are right and it was an inside job. What would Clinton have seen at Ground Zero that would be different than what he saw? How would the victims families look different than they did?
Click to expand...

Are you kidding? This is yet another example of Clinton's verbal genius. Think about it: there's no way to really argue with a truther any more than you can argue with a barking dog (just pick any thread in this forum for proof). So instead he quickly dismisses him with a pithy "that's nuts," which I'm sure played very well with the crowd. Not only that, in few short words -- and on the fly mind you -- Clinton (1) invokes the universally sympathetic image of the victim's families, and (2) associates it with a mention of his wife (which, after all, is the sole reason he'd ever be walking the frigid streets of Keene NH in January).

Nice to see Bill hasn't lost his touch. I swear, he could be standing right in front of you, and still successfuly persuade you that he wasn't there.
 
Bob Klase said:
Apparently (judging by this thread) that was an effective answer. But just a tiny bit of critical thinking makes me wonder how the hell the answer refutes any nutter theories.

"9/11 was an inside job." - "Couldn't have been an inside job- my wife is a senator from New York."

"9/11 was an inside job." - "Impossible. I saw the victims families."

Huh? Suppose (hard to do, but give a try) that the nutters are right and it was an inside job. What would Clinton have seen at Ground Zero that would be different than what he saw? How would the victims families look different than they did?
Click to expand...

I guess that he mentions Hillary because presumably she would have to be on the inside of any such inside job.

I expect that he mentions the families to remind them of who they are disrespecting.
 
Bob Klase said:
Apparently (judging by this thread) that was an effective answer. But just a tiny bit of critical thinking makes me wonder how the hell the answer refutes any nutter theories.
Click to expand...

I think he probably responded off the cuff, giving it about a second of thought. Which, really, is more attention than these clowns deserve.
 
Stellafane said:
Are you kidding? This is yet another example of Clinton's verbal genius. Think about it: there's no way to really argue with a truther any more than you can argue with a barking dog (just pick any thread in this forum for proof). So instead he quickly dismisses him with a pithy "that's nuts," which I'm sure played very well with the crowd.
Click to expand...

Maybe. But it still strikes me as being at the same level as a theist answering an atheist with answers like "I've seen god's work. You're nuts".

Had he quickly dimissed them with a pithy "that's nuts" I would see it differently than preceding the "that's nuts" with non sequiturs.
 
Last edited:
1337m4n said:
Hasn't Ron Paul repeatedly told the Truthers that he doesn't believe their bunk?
Click to expand...

Yeah but he's the closest thing the twoofers have to a candidate. He appeared on the Alex Jones show, after all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom