Subject: Your bias re: Hillary
When other liberals & democrats say something
that is twisted or misquoted by the neocon sympathetic
brain dead idiots - you blame the misquoted party
for saying something that was so easily misquoted, etc.
She's running for president, talking about the
single most important issue of our times,
not trying to be a comedian making jokes about
using one square of toilet paper.
You can't always equate "A" with any "B" you
When Hillary says "the change in tactics is working"
- it's a very small stretch
to say that she actually meant the "surge" is
A famous porcine Facsist once said, "Words mean
I guess you could make the point that it's the
enemy's job to distort her words,
but should we allow the Hillary-haters to distort
a Republican into the White House?
What other tactics have been changed?
I hate asking this, but do you know what you're
The thing that's "working" is the new US-Sunni
alliance in Al Anbar
that has the US military and ther Sunnis working
together against Al Qaeda..
Bush's "surge" didn't make it to Al Anbar, they're
in Baghdad, so making the false claim
that Hillary told the VFW that "the
surge is working" is just a flat-out lie.
You call that "a
very small stretch?"
And if you have to stretch what she said to score
a point against Her,
does that mean she's untouchable if you stick
to the facts?
Is it the responsibility of everyone (but Hillary)
to quote her correctly, in context & assume
she is not helping the Bush administration continue
this failed war in some way.
It would appear she has three options:
Tell the truth about what's
happening in Iraq.
Tell lies about what's happening
in Iraq. (Haven't we had enough of that?)
Which of those three options would you suggest for Hillary?
I see a similar vein in your desperate attempts
to understand the "hatred" aimed at Paris Hilton.
Instead of seeing her as a spoiled bitch that
may have deserved some jail time for her offenses,
you see "haters" just wanting her scarred for
life during her stay in jail.
I don't like it when people refuse to admit the
The important fact here is that EVERY lawyer
who practices in Los Angeles said that
what the judge did to to Paris had never happened
to any defendent in their memory.
I cornered people again and again with that cold,
hard fact, and what I got back was,
"Drunk driving is wrong, and she's a nasty
c*nt, so she deserved to be treated unfairly."
In other words, to "win" that argument, they
had to forget the facts and refuse to answer simple questions.
That proves their position was based on personal
hate and not the law or the facts in the case.
I also happen to think Lindsay Lohan should spend
some time in jail & I don't hate her either.
I look at Lindsay's case the way I looked at the
Boulder cops bumbling Jon Benet's case.
AFTER Paris has all her troubles, LiLo decided
to screw-up BIG time.
If LL was too stupid to learn from Paris's ordeal,
jail might do her some good.
BTW, have you heard LL's defense on the drug charge?
"I picked up someone's pants, put them on
and ran out the door.
I had no idea there was cocaine on these
pants I was wearing."
She needs to be taught a lesson.
Then you reference the Stella Awards for frivolous
lawsuits, which is named after the woman
that won the judgement against McDonalds for
sustaining HOT coffee injuries (because everyone
knows coffee should be hot but not like so hot)
and you say McDonalds deserved to lose.
Why do you hate McDonalds?
McDonalds put a few pennies of profit ahead of
the safety of their customers.
Plus, being burned by that coffee while driving
could conceivably result in a
chain-reaction accident that could've killed
a dozen people.
Your bias shows through in each of these examples.
I have an opinion about each situation.
If my positions are inconsistent, show me where.
It is a staple of the right wing to use these
tactics in a debate or argument.
Build the straw man & knock it down.
Oh, you mean like fabricating quotes?
Yeah, don't you hate it when people have to resort
to such cheap shots to try to win?
Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy your site and respect
your right to have your own opinion
and to express it, but it is your tactics in
arguing these types of issues that may need changing.
If my positions are inconsistent, show me where.
If I "hate" McDonalds for injuring their customers
and give Burger King
a pass for injuring theirs, then I'd say you
have a valid complaint.
Being open to admit flaws in people that you admire
(or lust after), whichever the case may be.
Jim in Seattle
There you go again, ignoring the facts.
If you get thrown in jail and every lawyer says you should be out,
would you want me to stand up for you or should I remain quiet?
However, you may have stumbled onto something.
Hillary should've known that anything she says will be distorted by
Arianna and the HHs.
She should probably dumb down her rhetoric and speak in short sentences
with simple words
so democracy-hating opportunists like Arianna can't nuance a fake quote
from her speeches.
Poor Mike Gravel - he believed something he read on Huffingtonpost.com.
Think he learned his lesson?
to Bart | Discuss
it on The BartCop Forum | Comment
on it at the BartBlog