Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
16.5 said:
A quick search shows that zooterkin used it as early as 11/2012. I am not representing that he invented it, but it has been around a long time.

Did you search it on this site? Of course you did, you are a "skeptic."
Click to expand...

No. Some of us actually start with a base of knowledge. I recall the poster in question explaining how it came about, or how he/she thought it developed. My interpretation is slightly different... people wanted a new "Eeeeww! That's logical fallacy #######!" argument. And this was fresh and new and sounded authoritative. It's just another in the numerous gambits that the "sea lions" play in order to win internet debate points and it's based on one poster's observation and not really researched.
 
Foolmewunz said:
No. Some of us actually start with a base of knowledge. I recall the poster in question explaining how it came about, or how he/she thought it developed. My interpretation is slightly different... people wanted a new "Eeeeww! That's logical fallacy #######!" argument. And this was fresh and new and sounded authoritative. It's just another in the numerous gambits that the "sea lions" play in order to win internet debate points and it's based on one poster's observation and not really researched.
Click to expand...

That is amazing, because you sure as hell made it seem like I had made it up... Well, whatever your response, foolmewunz, the post to which I was replying was, by an skeptics analysis, a *********** straw man.

I mean other than whining about my using a well established (yep, pretty well established on this site, despite your... Apologetics) term for fallacious thinking, you could have explained why it was not a straw man.

You did not do that. Hmmmmm ....
 
sunmaster14 said:
I've actually argued in detail that Hillary has broken the law in many ways. Of course her crimes have not been proven, since she would actually have to be indicted first, and Obama's politicized Department of Justice won't go that route (it recently decided not to prosecute Lois Lerner for contempt of Congress on the basis of a deliberate misreading of the case law concerning waiver of 5th Amendment protections). But it is wrong to imply that she scooted through a legal loophole. She has only managed to scoot through a political loophole created by the corruption of our justice system, which provides for, in effect, one set of rules for hoi polloi and another set for the political elite (particularly of the Democratic variety). If a drone from sector 7G had done what Hillary did, he would have earned himself a nice long vacation in a federal penitentiary.
Click to expand...

I have my views on the DOJ being crooked trying to take advantage of some of the race relations crap in cases such as the Ferguson incident where they looked very hard to try and make a case that wasn't there... but in this one.... it's policy all the way. Hillary exploited it, Bush exploited it. The only difference between them is Bush made a political strategy to voluntarily release some of them. And this is also effective of numerous staff members.

Her actions impede FOIA requirements, for sure but it seems policy, as I've mentioned before has enabled a lot of this. It's why I'm seeing it more as a politics maneuver on her part than a criminal one. Election-wise it's not changing much for me... I find her to be a corrupt politician period. But the key to dealing with this is to deal with the internal policies appropriately... because as long as the venue exists, Hillary's neither the first, nor the last one in line to do something like this with the same impacts of FOIA's and government record keeping. Charging her with criminal misconduct might satisfy a few egos, but the base problem will still be there if not addressed.
 
Last edited:
Shalamar said:
All Democrats are coming for the gunz! I wonder why they never actually do...
Click to expand...

Because the good, God-fearing conservative Republicans keep those evil "gun grabbers" in check!

Except for Reagan. He was all for the Brady Bill and supported assault weapon bans. Except mentioning that is ether hypocrisy, tu quoque or a personal attack!

But hey, whatever helps conservatives seep better at night.

Now back to our regularly-scheduled Hillary! poutrage.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Her actions impede FOIA requirements, for sure but it seems policy, as I've mentioned before has enabled a lot of this. It's why I'm seeing it more as a politics maneuver on her part than a criminal one. Election-wise it's not changing much for me... I find her to be a corrupt politician period. But the key to dealing with this is to deal with the internal policies appropriately... because as long as the venue exists, Hillary's neither the first, nor the last one in line to do something like this with the same impacts of FOIA's and government record keeping. Charging her with criminal misconduct might satisfy a few egos, but the base problem will still be there if not addressed.
Click to expand...

With Hillary, of course, it seems apparent that she intentionally set up the server so she could have sole and exclusive control of the information.

From 2000:

Senator CLINTON: (From home video) As much as I’ve been investigated and all of that, you know, why would I—I don’t even want—why would I ever want to do e-mail?

Mr. PAUL: (From home video) No, no.

Senator CLINTON: (From home video) Can you imagine?

She figured out a way to use email and avoid investigations, or so she thought.
 
Here's a stunner. The NRA opposes Evil Hillary! Never saw that coming.

At NRA conference, Hillary Clinton jabs make easy applause lines

I think I understand this thread now. "Cowboy" and "Homebrew" refer to cowboys and beer. Cowboys carried guns! Guns good! Hillary bad!

Got it. Gotta know your audience and all that.

"I vow on this day the NRA will stand shoulder to shoulder with you and good, honest decent Americans and we will stand and fight with everything we've got and in 2016, by God, we will elect the next great president of the United States of America and it will not be Hillary Rodham Clinton," NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre said at the event.
Click to expand...

And conservatives wonder why the "clutching their Bible and their guns" comment was so spot-on.
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
I suspect most people just rolled their eyes at this nonsense, but I believe it is a real teaching opportunity.

First. I know we talked about it before, but this is a fantastic example of the rule of so: where a response starts out with the word so, 99 times out of 100 what follows is a ridiculous strawman. Zipr's post nails that rule!

Second, not only did I admit nothing, that post had nothing at all to do with Benghazi. What did we learn? That the power of imagination is a powerful thing!

Great example of what not to do Zipr!
Click to expand...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10580570&postcount=94

Another great example.
 
wareyin said:
It's amusing how a poster with only one singular ally in this thread boasts of knowing how most people agree with him. I think most conspiracy theorists convince themselves that even though almost no one publicly agrees with them, there is either some vast group of lurkers who silently agree, or even their opponents secretly agree.
Click to expand...

'Avid Readers'
 
wareyin said:
conspiracy theory
Click to expand...

wareyin said:
.Conspiracy theorists.... conspiracy theory du jour.
Click to expand...

wareyin said:
conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...

wareyin said:
conspiracy theorists.
Click to expand...

wareyin said:
conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...

wareyin said:
conspiracy theorists
Click to expand...

wareyin said:
conspiracy theory.......rinse, repeat
Click to expand...

wareyin said:
conspiracy theory
Click to expand...

wareyin said:
conspiracy theorists
Click to expand...

wareyin said:
Moar conspiracy theory!
Click to expand...

wareyin said:
conspiracy theory
Click to expand...

wareyin said:
Your conspiracy theory .
Click to expand...

wareyin said:
conspiracy theorists
Click to expand...

That, folks is the very definition of got nothin.

/assuming he can read my sig, it seems pretty clear he doesn't understand it!:D
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
Ah, I see. You edited your post 12 minutes after I replied.

You fix it and then accuse me of a sloppy dodge.

unbelievable....

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen. Talk about pathetic.

To be clear, that post you see now is not remotely what it looked like when I responded. What a *********** joke.
Click to expand...

You want ridiculous? Pathetic? I got your ridiculous and pathetic right here in the post I quoted. I DID NOT edit my post. At all. I screwed up the quoting in that post so I reported it myself, asking a mod to fix the quote so it would be clear and accurate. All jfisher did was add a "]" to the end of the quote so it would be processed correctly. NO CHANGES TO THE ACTUAL CONTENT of my post were made. NONE.

Now that we have your double dodge on the table for all to see, you want to respond to my original request.
 
SezMe said:
You want ridiculous? Pathetic? I got your ridiculous and pathetic right here in the post I quoted. I DID NOT edit my post. At all. I screwed up the quoting in that post so I reported it myself, asking a mod to fix the quote so it would be clear and accurate. All jfisher did was add a "]" to the end of the quote so it would be processed correctly. NO CHANGES TO THE ACTUAL CONTENT of my post were made. NONE.

Now that we have your double dodge on the table for all to see, you want to respond to my original request.
Click to expand...

an honest person would have admitted that the original post was completely screwed up, would have acknowledged that I responded before the post was edited, and would have politely "re-asked" the question.

Instead You fraudulently attacked me.

and now you have done it again.

With all due respect, sezme, never mind you ain't worth it

*********** pathetic
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom