Letters to the Editor
-
Why?
Why is it that every single time it turns out that Hillary lied or made some indefensible vote (such as the Iraq authorization, the PATRIOT Act, the bankrupcty bill, or the Iran "terrorist" vote) Hillary supporters ALWAYS come back with an attack on Obama?
Why is that the only way they ever try to defend their candidate? I'd really like to know. As a life-long Democrat, it bothers the hell out of me that I've been in the same party with people who are perfectly happy to mindlessly throw feces at their enemy rather than respond substantively. I thought Democrats were supposed to be the smart and honorable ones!
-
@billcap
billcap: "And again, you're proving my point. What I list are simple facts. That's it."
You didn't just list facts, you used them to make various points and arguments.
billcap: "What I'm doing is presenting the whole story."
....to suit your argument.
billcap: "But as I said, and as you, sadly now typically, ignore, there is some question as to whether the planned ceremony itself was canceled."
Silly. She said there was no ceremony at all, that they just ran to their vehicles because there was a threat. Instead, it turns out people were casually standing around.
billcap: "So in remembering back 12 years, is it possible that if the planned ceremony was canceled that somehow she doesn't remember..."
It isn't about *not* remembering something. It's about stating a firm memory of something that is completely off the mark from what actually occurred. And she didn't just misspeak, this stuff was in her prepared notes.
You're doing mental backflips to try to defend a lie. You should give up now, it isn't working.
billcap: "If it weren't Hillary, it'd be a no-brainer."
People go after others who lie or who make embarrassing gaffes all the time. McCain proved his lack of understanding of Middle East politics just last week, with Joe Lieberman having to whisper corrections in his ear.
billcap: ""false" does not equal a lie."
Then you're trying to raise the threshold so high for "lie" that nothing could ever qualify as a lie. But you have to do mental backflips to deny that Hillary is lying when she says something that is so far off the mark from reality, especially when she has a very obvious motive for lying. Really -- who would remember ducking and running under threat of sniper fire, if it had not happened? You don't just "misremember" such a thing. It's either a willful fabrication, or somebody implanted false memories into her brain ala Sean Young in "Blade Runner."
-
subs
"people who are perfectly happy to mindlessly throw feces at their enemy rather than respond substantively."
you mean like "liar liar your pants are on fire"? That sort of substantive response that litters this whole thread? It's hardly a one-sided problem
"Hillary supporters ALWAYS come back with an attack on Obama?
Why is that the only way they ever try to defend their candidate? I'd really like to know. "
well, my "attack" on Obama came at the end of 3 or 4 lengthy (I'm sure overly lengthy to those they were in response to) substantive defenses of Hillary and/or explanation of the triviality and dishonesty of this whole "debate". So I guess I'm left with the question, since this is the second time in 24 hours the same thing has happened, why do Obama supporters always ignore the postings that conflict with what they want to say?
-
xrandadu Hutman
"You didn't just list facts, you used them to make various points and arguments"
well, yes, the various point being you weren't telling the whole story. I'm not sure how to prove you aren't telling the whole story without, you know, telling the whole story.
"What I'm doing is presenting the whole story."
....to suit your argument"
So in a side-by-side taste test, you choose telling half a story to suit an argument as the more honest way of doing things than telling a whole story an argument? And this in an analysis of honesty? Perhaps you should change your posting name to Irony Man
"It isn't about *not* remembering something. It's about stating a firm memory of something that is completely off the mark from what actually occurred."
speaking of "silly". This is just semantics. Stating an incorrect firm memory is "not remembering"--by which I meant not remembering everything correctly. She got at least half the trip right--you know--the part you choose to ignore. So she isn't completely "off the mark"--she's only such because you selectively choose the start and stop. Guess what--Tiger Woods is a loser. I know that is "true" because he lost this weekend. Oh, that whole X number of wins in a row that came before? I don't count those. It's the "whole story" but that would just be me making the point that he isn't a loser, so I can't count them.
"You're doing mental backflips to try to defend a lie"
I'm doing no backflips but merely assuming a level of common sense, common human nature, past experience with people not running for President, and a willingness to not assume every thing someone does is evil. On the other hand, you're performing some Nadia-like (I know, I know, dated reference. Retton-like? Still dated. Who the hell is a gymnast nowadays?) to defend telling half-a-story as honesty.
"Then you're trying to raise the threshold so high for "lie" that nothing could ever qualify as a lie"
No, I'm trying to apply the same standard I'd apply to most people, which isn't jumping to an assumption that every thing they say that turns out to be untrue is a conscious manipulative lie to benefit themselves in some fashion. Perhaps I move in a lighter, more naive world.
Nice job on skipping the last part of my post, by the way
-
@billcap
billcap: "well, yes, the various point being you weren't telling the whole story."
I told the part of the story where Clinton lied, but then again, there are accounts of the story all over the media now, and they all provide the full context, which still doesn't mitigate the "lying" part of the whole story.
billcap: "She got at least half the trip right--you know--the part you choose to ignore."
I didn't ignore anything. The point remains: If a person makes 5 true statements, then 2 false statements, those 5 true statements don't magically make the 2 false statements less false. Nor is there any dispute about them. The focus is on the 2 statements that are false. I have no obligation to discuss the other 5 statements because I am not contending that every part of the story was a lie, only that some parts were. The parts of the story that are true are irrelevant.
Clinton's false statements are pretty obviously exaggerations for effect (also known as "lying"). The motive? To make an element of her international experience sound more impressive by juicing up the story.