100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: I still cant figure this out. | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Why are you guys lobbing this criticism at Igor's post? He is not supporting Hillary, here. He is saying that over-stating one's case often backfires, and he is right about that. This is exactly what happened for many of us with BLM, for example. There are a LOT of people out there like me who care about racism and police violence; but understand that honesty and reason are necessary, more fundamental than fighting racism. We were instinctively sympathetic to the black lives matter movement until we learned that its built mostly on lies; so now we criticize BLM. If the BLM people made their case honestly, they would have a LOT more supporters. I do not like Hillary, do not trust the media, and I have not really investigated many of the claims made against her so I don't have a position on some of the accusations against her...however I have investigated enough to know that some conservatives have really lost their head at times in their eagerness to demonize her (just like BLM protesters are so eager to demonize the police). I think that in the end, sticking to the facts has the most power to sway the most people; and that's my take on Igor's post. The only thing I see as possibly controversial in Igor's post is: whether or not Benghazi is worth discussing. If Hillary is even worse than some of us know, eventually we can be convinced by the facts. That will be the day! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why are you guys lobbing this criticism at Igor's post? He is not supporting Hillary, here. He is saying that over-stating one's case often backfires, and he is right about that. This is exactly what happened for many of us with BLM, for example. There are a LOT of people out there like me who care about racism and police violence; but understand that honesty and reason are necessary, more fundamental than fighting racism. We were instinctively sympathetic to the black lives matter movement until we learned that its built mostly on lies; so now we criticize BLM. If the BLM people made their case honestly, they would have a LOT more supporters. I do not like Hillary, do not trust the media, and I have not really investigated many of the claims made against her so I don't have a position on some of the accusations against her...however I have investigated enough to know that some conservatives have really lost their head at times in their eagerness to demonize her (just like BLM protesters are so eager to demonize the police). I think that in the end, sticking to the facts has the most power to sway the most people; and that's my take on Igor's post. The only thing I see as possibly controversial in Igor's post is: whether or not Benghazi is worth discussing. If Hillary is even worse than some of us know, eventually we can be convinced by the facts. maybe study who exactly is causing the disturbances at the rallies, repubs and dems... (hint - it's not the trump supporters) Liberals are scared of Trump, and they are furious (many because they believe lies told about him), and many are behaving like children. What does this have to do with my post or Igor's? I read Igor to say: If you want to take down Hillary, take her down with the _facts_. Overstating your case will alienate your audience and they will tune you out. I agree with that point. He seemed to also, *maybe*, be saying: "Benghazi isn't important." I would disagree; but I could be wrong. But what does any of that have to do with how terribly various supporters behave? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If Hillary is even worse than some of us know, eventually we can be convinced by the facts. That will be the day!  It would be pretty easy for me to accept data that paints Hillary in a negative light. Its the nature of the world - rarely do people rise to that level without being capable of some seriously scumbaggery.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If Hillary is even worse than some of us know, eventually we can be convinced by the facts. That will be the day! It would be pretty easy for me to accept data that paints Hillary in a negative light. Its the nature of the world - rarely do people rise to that level without being capable of some seriously scumbaggery. but her Scumbaggery is exceptional! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why are you guys lobbing this criticism at Igor's post? He is not supporting Hillary, here. He is saying that over-stating one's case often backfires, and he is right about that. This is exactly what happened for many of us with BLM, for example. There are a LOT of people out there like me who care about racism and police violence; but understand that honesty and reason are necessary, more fundamental than fighting racism. We were instinctively sympathetic to the black lives matter movement until we learned that its built mostly on lies; so now we criticize BLM. If the BLM people made their case honestly, they would have a LOT more supporters. I do not like Hillary, do not trust the media, and I have not really investigated many of the claims made against her so I don't have a position on some of the accusations against her...however I have investigated enough to know that some conservatives have really lost their head at times in their eagerness to demonize her (just like BLM protesters are so eager to demonize the police). I think that in the end, sticking to the facts has the most power to sway the most people; and that's my take on Igor's post. The only thing I see as possibly controversial in Igor's post is: whether or not Benghazi is worth discussing. If Hillary is even worse than some of us know, eventually we can be convinced by the facts. maybe study who exactly is causing the disturbances at the rallies, repubs and dems... (hint - it's not the trump supporters) Liberals are scared of Trump, and they are furious (many because they believe lies told about him), and many are behaving like children. What does this have to do with my post or Igor's? I read Igor to say: If you want to take down Hillary, take her down with the _facts_. Overstating your case will alienate your audience and they will tune you out. I agree with that point. He seemed to also, *maybe*, be saying: "Benghazi isn't important." I would disagree; but I could be wrong. But what does any of that have to do with how terribly various supporters behave? part of the many, many, many many lies that hillary has instilled in people... she's looking to get the uneducated vote, the lowest class of people that only care about what the government can give them... does that show she cares about the people or the "health" of our nation? if all she can do is lie, cheat and steal to get votes, she is a prime example of whats wrong with our country and what needs to change... educated people will see for themselves about what people are saying, and make an educated decision, while others will believe anything she says to get their free food and rent from the government... when trump says he wants to stop this, she turns it around and tries to make trump look like the evil, racist woman hater that no one should support... i think igor is on hillarys payroll, paid to spread her lies... simple as that |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i think igor is on hillarys payroll, paid to spread her lies... simple as that Am I understanding correctly that its not a matter of you disagreeing strongly with the specific claims he made in that one post... ... but rather you being opposed to his overall position/goals, which you see as blatantly pro-Hillary? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
RebelArcher
on
Thu 05/19/16 12:05 PM
|
|
I read Igor to say: If you want to take down Hillary, take her down with the _facts_. What if those facts get constantly swept under the rug? What if two sets of "facts" are presented and you have to figure out the truth on your own? Kind of like the O.J. case....do you believe he is innocent just because Cochran proclaimed "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit"? There's plenty of evidence out there for me to make a decision about her. Hillary is the epitome of " career politician"...the utter poster child for what repubs AND dems have said they despise. And she has zero problem slinging mud herself. If you think SHE would stick to so called facts, you're living with in a dream world. As far as my posts...if you REALLY have to know...my first was a suggestion.... to make it to ALL msg boards....and see what happens. The second was a joke...note the laughing emote....posted because another user made an post about paid trolls...to which, as my link shows, there IS smoke to that possible fire...just as there is a ton of smoke to all the Hillary accusations. And where there's smoke, well...you know the rest. But keep waiting on those "facts".... just be wary/of the flames lapping at your rear
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i think igor is on hillarys payroll, paid to spread her lies... simple as that Am I understanding correctly that its not a matter of you disagreeing strongly with the specific claims he made in that one post... ... but rather you being opposed to his overall position/goals, which you see as blatantly pro-Hillary? correct... a little to pro hillary, IMO.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why are you guys lobbing this criticism at Igor's post? He is not supporting Hillary, here. He is saying that over-stating one's case often backfires, and he is right about that. This is exactly what happened for many of us with BLM, for example. There are a LOT of people out there like me who care about racism and police violence; but understand that honesty and reason are necessary, more fundamental than fighting racism. We were instinctively sympathetic to the black lives matter movement until we learned that its built mostly on lies; so now we criticize BLM. If the BLM people made their case honestly, they would have a LOT more supporters. I do not like Hillary, do not trust the media, and I have not really investigated many of the claims made against her so I don't have a position on some of the accusations against her...however I have investigated enough to know that some conservatives have really lost their head at times in their eagerness to demonize her (just like BLM protesters are so eager to demonize the police). I think that in the end, sticking to the facts has the most power to sway the most people; and that's my take on Igor's post. The only thing I see as possibly controversial in Igor's post is: whether or not Benghazi is worth discussing. If Hillary is even worse than some of us know, eventually we can be convinced by the facts. maybe study who exactly is causing the disturbances at the rallies, repubs and dems... (hint - it's not the trump supporters) It depends on which messes and which rallies you look at. Trump supporters have misbehaved. So have Sanders supporters. More than anything else though, how a few people at political rallies misbehave, has nothing at all to do with whether a given politician did, or did not commit an illegal act. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Robxbox73
on
Thu 05/19/16 01:26 PM
|
|
So General Patraeus a highly decorated war hero who was compared to the likes of General Eisenhower and General Patton had his life ruined, lost his job, career, damn near lost his military benefits and was charged criminally and sentenced to probation for a minor, trivial incident of mishandling classified information. This all happened in less then a year. Now you have Hillary Clinton who the investigation has shown has done a lot worse and created one of the biggest breaches of national security in the history of the country. Does she lose her job? Nope. Her pension? Nope. Plus they are dragging this out as long as they can! The kicker is that she still has the chance to be President of the United States when a man who they were going to nominate to be the first 5 Star General since the 1950's lost his career and has a criminal conviction for the same type of thing but on a lot smaller scale!  WTF is wrong with people, WAKE UP! If this would have been anyone else they would be facing a lifetime prison sentence for this. We are also now finding out that a Romanian hacker breached her unauthorized and illegal private server and access classified documents. WTF! This isn't just a Republican rant. If it was I would be defending General Patraeus, since he is a Republican as well but he screwed up and he had to pay for his crimes which I fully agreed with! Well Republicans have a trick for tripping up fellow republicans. Women. I know what happened. It's sad, I liked the guy. Now well never know. It's the reason why we have a nut like Trump running as a "Republican" when he is obviously a liberal. Washington is so ****ed up, it doesn't even know what is right anymore. I was hoping he could run as president on day. Hey if Trump can run,, I don't see why Patreas could not run as a true conservative. Not this crap these politicos on this site are hailing as a conservative. WAKE UP PENDEJOS. BTW, Patraeus can not become President. He has been convicted of a Felony charge.  That's what I'm saying. A true conservative comes up, Washington sucker punches him. If you agree with not rasing the minimum wage, removing rights from the constitution, attacking churches and people of faith, disolving the middle class, supporting only the 1%ers, then you are Washingtons guy. If you support the God given rights in the constitution, raising the minimum wage to help the middle class, removing the power the elites have given themselves since 911, removing the nanny government, then your not. They will let you fall to some weird sex, drug, internet, or whatever scandal so you can't come into their game of destroying our countries. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I read Igor to say: If you want to take down Hillary, take her down with the _facts_. What if those facts get constantly swept under the rug? Powerful people abuse their positions. Loyal lemmings work tirelessly to promote their leaders' agendas. Life is unfair. I still think you get the best results in the long run if you try to stick to the facts. I'm not saying that you are _not_ doing so, I just didn't understand why you guys were responding the way you did to Igor's post, which seemed reasonable to me. What if two sets of "facts" are presented and you have to figure out the truth on your own? I know, right? And in this case, there are people motivated to lie and distort on all sides. One question I ask myself is "how easy would it be for this person to cover up a lie, and how much trouble would they get in if they are exposed?". Too often its very easy, and they wont' get in enough trouble. Usually a court of law is our best chance to find out the truth. Kind of like the O.J. case....do you believe he is innocent just because Cochran proclaimed "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit"? Hell, no. Hands swell and change shape. The material of the glove can shrink over time. Not saying he was guilty, just saying that this lawyer succeeded in promoting a stupid slogan over careful reasoning. Hillary is the epitome of " career politician"...the utter poster child for what repubs AND dems have said they despise. And she has zero problem slinging mud herself. All true. Check this out: There are actually many Bernie supporters that say they will vote for Trump for this very reason! If you think SHE would stick to so called facts, ROFLMAO No, I think she asks herself "How much damage will I suffer if I'm caught in this lie." But I'd rather be on the side of people who want to find out the truth, not those that will say anything that serves their agenda, because their agenda is the 'right' one. (Which is why I brought BLM into the conversation, for comparison). As far as my posts...if you REALLY have to know... Thanks. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i think igor is on hillarys payroll, paid to spread her lies... simple as that Am I understanding correctly that its not a matter of you disagreeing strongly with the specific claims he made in that one post... ... but rather you being opposed to his overall position/goals, which you see as blatantly pro-Hillary? correct... a little to pro hillary, IMO.. Okay, I misunderstood, thank you for clarifying. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I read Igor to say: If you want to take down Hillary, take her down with the _facts_. What if those facts get constantly swept under the rug? What if two sets of "facts" are presented and you have to figure out the truth on your own? Kind of like the O.J. case....do you believe he is innocent just because Cochran proclaimed "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit"? There's plenty of evidence out there for me to make a decision about her. Hillary is the epitome of " career politician"...the utter poster child for what repubs AND dems have said they despise. And she has zero problem slinging mud herself. If you think SHE would stick to so called facts, you're living with in a dream world. As far as my posts...if you REALLY have to know...my first was a suggestion.... to make it to ALL msg boards....and see what happens. The second was a joke...note the laughing emote....posted because another user made an post about paid trolls...to which, as my link shows, there IS smoke to that possible fire...just as there is a ton of smoke to all the Hillary accusations. And where there's smoke, well...you know the rest. But keep waiting on those "facts".... just be wary/of the flames lapping at your rear Again, I am NOT defending or supporting Hillary Clinton. I am supporting the rule of law, and making decisions based on facts (NOT ACCUSATIONS, NOT ALLEGATIONS, NOT IMAGINATIONS), and logical reasoning. You CLAIM that "facts are being swept under a rug." If they have, how do you know that? Can you see through rugs? I'm not trying to be facetious following up your simile, I'm trying to point out that your use of that old idiomatic phrase, is blinding YOU to what is and is not a proper use of factual information. You want to compare it to the mess that was the OJ Simpson trial? Okay. Then no, you are ENTIRELY wrong, that Cochran's trick phrases is what got Simpson off. What let Simpson get away with murder, was a series of incompetent actions and decisions by the California law enforcement people, and the prosecutors in that case. They ALLOWED mishandling of the crime scene, they ignored the racism of their officers to taint testimony, and they allowed second rate prosecutors who clearly did't know how to present evidence properly, to grandstand for personal publicity, instead of conducting the trial properly. I suggest that what you consider to be "evidence" against Clinton, might not qualify as such at all. You also obliquely mention the "where there's smoke there's fire" witticism. The problem with using that old notion, is that it completely ignores the related saying about how people "blow smoke" in others faces to obscure facts, and other such nonsense. So far, all of the "smoke" from around Clinton, has a Republican standing next to where it is, fanning it. That doesn't mean Clinton is innocent, it just means that we can't trust that the "smoke" is actually from Clinton, and not from the Republican. I'm not interested in trying to change your mind. You appear to be the kind of person who depends on being certain in advance of facts, in order to feel secure about yourself. People like that don't listen to alternate facts or logic, so there's no point in illuminating anything for them. But I am interested in pointing out the mistakes in reasoning people like you are making, because until we decide these things according to the law, and according to an ACCURATE use of all the facts, we will continue to weaken the United States, by placing it under the control of greedy self interested liars, or of idealistic fools. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I read Igor to say: If you want to take down Hillary, take her down with the _facts_. What if those facts get constantly swept under the rug? What if two sets of "facts" are presented and you have to figure out the truth on your own? Kind of like the O.J. case....do you believe he is innocent just because Cochran proclaimed "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit"? There's plenty of evidence out there for me to make a decision about her. Hillary is the epitome of " career politician"...the utter poster child for what repubs AND dems have said they despise. And she has zero problem slinging mud herself. If you think SHE would stick to so called facts, you're living with in a dream world. As far as my posts...if you REALLY have to know...my first was a suggestion.... to make it to ALL msg boards....and see what happens. The second was a joke...note the laughing emote....posted because another user made an post about paid trolls...to which, as my link shows, there IS smoke to that possible fire...just as there is a ton of smoke to all the Hillary accusations. And where there's smoke, well...you know the rest. But keep waiting on those "facts".... just be wary/of the flames lapping at your rear Again, I am NOT defending or supporting Hillary Clinton. I am supporting the rule of law, and making decisions based on facts (NOT ACCUSATIONS, NOT ALLEGATIONS, NOT IMAGINATIONS), and logical reasoning. You CLAIM that "facts are being swept under a rug." If they have, how do you know that? Can you see through rugs? I'm not trying to be facetious following up your simile, I'm trying to point out that your use of that old idiomatic phrase, is blinding YOU to what is and is not a proper use of factual information. You want to compare it to the mess that was the OJ Simpson trial? Okay. Then no, you are ENTIRELY wrong, that Cochran's trick phrases is what got Simpson off. What let Simpson get away with murder, was a series of incompetent actions and decisions by the California law enforcement people, and the prosecutors in that case. They ALLOWED mishandling of the crime scene, they ignored the racism of their officers to taint testimony, and they allowed second rate prosecutors who clearly did't know how to present evidence properly, to grandstand for personal publicity, instead of conducting the trial properly. I suggest that what you consider to be "evidence" against Clinton, might not qualify as such at all. You also obliquely mention the "where there's smoke there's fire" witticism. The problem with using that old notion, is that it completely ignores the related saying about how people "blow smoke" in others faces to obscure facts, and other such nonsense. So far, all of the "smoke" from around Clinton, has a Republican standing next to where it is, fanning it. That doesn't mean Clinton is innocent, it just means that we can't trust that the "smoke" is actually from Clinton, and not from the Republican. I'm not interested in trying to change your mind. You appear to be the kind of person who depends on being certain in advance of facts, in order to feel secure about yourself. People like that don't listen to alternate facts or logic, so there's no point in illuminating anything for them. But I am interested in pointing out the mistakes in reasoning people like you are making, because until we decide these things according to the law, and according to an ACCURATE use of all the facts, we will continue to weaken the United States, by placing it under the control of greedy self interested liars, or of idealistic fools. what Rule of what Law? Only one would apply is Libel-Law,if she has the Gumption to sue! The Facts are out there plain for anyone to see,unless they put on Blinkers,or are too myopic to see! Johnny Public isn't held to the same Standards of evidence required in a criminal prosecution! And saying that discussing the Facts of Hillary's Transgressions will weaken the United States is patently absurd! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes I do want a plea deal like that offered to Hillary. Having to pay for her actions should be the main goal. Not to mention if she pled out to a Felony she cant become President. Actually she could, nowhere in the constitution does it provide that limitation. |
|
|
|
|
