Letters to the Editor
-
xrandadu Hutman
"What is your point? What's the difference if they wrote "similar" or "same"? Why do you need me to go fetch quotes from different articles when you can do a simple Google News search and find examples for yourself?
If you're going to fetch quotes, you can at least fetch ones that support your claims. Do you have short-term memory loss? I've never said the "running" part wasn't false or claimed. There are a slew of people jumping up and down screaming about 'actual sniper fire" as an indicator of how low she'll go, how she's trying to trump up her "heroism" etc. None of your quotes support her saying repeatedly that she met actual sniper fire. The moved indoor one is a false quote--she said moved indoors due to "possible" sniper fire. The March 17th one is the one misspeak. If you're going to get all huffy, it helps if you're actually right about the matter. The point is that all of you saying she has been going around telling the country she took actual sniper fire are wrong.
"You keep trying to misdirect to something else."
Yes, silly me. I "misdirectdirect" to the truth. What is your phobia against telling the whole story? She's talking about a roughly 15 minute period from putting on a flak jacket to going inside. It takes all of 4-6 sentences to tell the whole thing. It's the same story. The same event. But you must, must, limit the telling to the last sentence and last two minutes. Why? Because the rest undermines the whole HIllary is a liar liar pants on fire and that's all she is or does meme.
any statements that anybody else might have made (and that you haven't established or quoted anybody else as having made)."
so long as you completely ignore the quotes in the posting. are you responding indignantly to a post you aren't even reading or is your brain shutting out all evidence that conflicts?
"We're not talking about possible implications, or feelings, we're talking about the facts of what she said."
You can't actually be this obtuse. The facts are meant to imply. You tell a story, yes, even a factual one. for a purpose. Not to simply state facts.
"More bullshit argument from you. Nothing is being omitted. I'm talking about the parts of Clinton's statements that are demonstrably false. The rest of the statements are not being disputed"
clearly you aren't getting this. I'll move on from the teaching moment
" Who are you quoting? You're not quoting me. I can't speak on behalf of what anybody else might have said -- especially not the phantoms whom you quote but don't attribute.
The quotes, oh indignant stomping foot one, are from this very forum. Guess you haven't been reading the forum you're posting in. I know this will hurt your feelings, but you are not the sum of my world. I know, I know. It hurts. I've been posting about how Obama "supporters" are over the top on this. Those quotes support my position. they're there because when I did say Obama supporters have been implying the whole Bosnia story was false, you said you hadn't seen it. I provided the evidence. So I make a statement. You say it's wrong cuz you haven't seen it. I provide evidence I'm right. And now you're once more all obtuse (that isn't me) or don't care (can't say anything about something I haven't said) or suspicious (phantoms). Way to keep moving those goalposts. Way to show how your mind can shift due to actual argument or fact.
"Why don't you go argue with "they" instead of me, if you're so perturbed by what "they" are saying?"
That's what I was doing when you butted in, ya putz. If you were the only one saying stupid things, I'd just ignore you. I respond to mass concepts, not some idiot saying a single thing.
"When did you lend Obama any respect or courtesy? I must have missed it."
Ok, may as well just stop here. Cuz here is where your idiocy begins to show. When did I lend Obama any respect or courtesy? I don't know. Maybe when I gave him the respect of sending him money three times in the past year. Maybe when I actually pulled a lever for him here in NY. Maybe when I'll actually send him more money, work for him, and vote for him as the nominee. Maybe when I defend him on the Wright matter. Ooops, there goes the whole I'm just defending Hillary because I don't like Obama argument. Or I just bring up Wright cuz I don't like Obama.
here's the difference. I'm not blinded by bias like you are. I can change my mind based on facts. I can look at a big picture, accept context. I don't need my candidate to be perfect or never wrong (Obama "more than make up" for his "technically not a lie", "spectacularly". Of course. He's Obama!) and I don't need the opponent of my candidate to be some big scary always wrong target of my scorn. Here's where your own bullshit is showing. Hilary bad. Obama spectacular. Obama yummyliscious. Obama no lie, he only "vague". Obama no lie, he only "technically" not tell truth. In case Obama do bad thing, he do something "spectacular' to "more than make up for" bad thing he couldn't ever have done. And if that sounds patronizing and disgusted, it's because your whole double-standard on this has earned both.
-
xrandadu Hutman
one last item before signing off on this as it's gotten more heated than I wanted/like
I do find it interesting that when presented with Obama supporters saying factually incorrect things about Hillary on this matter--that she repeatedly says she took sniper fire, that the whole story is false--your first reaction isn't to agree they're wrong, or to decry them, or say they shouldn't be doing that. It isn't even your second or third reaction. You never do. You simply say "that isn't my argument", without even making a judgment on those clearly wrong (or lying) statements. In the interest of again, respect, courtesy, fairness, one would think you'd say something like--"well, those people are wrong" or "they're idiots". In your own self interest as an Obama supporter, you'd think you'd acknowledge that. In the interest of allegedly "unifying the party", you'd think you'd do that. But instead you let them hang out there as unchallenged so long as you didn't say them. Anyway, I find that unwillingness or blindness to be, as I said, telling, in terms of where you're coming from on this. My apologies on the close of my last posting--the frustration was showing clearly.
Bill