|
|
Post by rem5152 on Jun 10, 2003 10:22:13 GMT -5
Hillary on Larry King
Q: Are you considering running for office in the future?
Hillary: No, no.
Q: At all?
Hillary: No.
Q: No circumstance under which you would?
Hillary: Not that I can imagine. That is not anything I have ever thought of for myself...
Yes, Senator Clinton...I hear you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ramadayan on Jun 12, 2003 10:45:22 GMT -5
Oh my! A politician not being 100% forthright in order to further their own political ambitions? Certainly a conservative politician would never stoop so low!
Ram N.
|
|
|
|
Post by USA50 on Aug 26, 2003 11:54:26 GMT -5
God at the Golden Gate: george, was Iraq a clear and present danger to the US?
george: Well, no.
God: Did they have chemical plants and uranium for bombs and facilities for producing weapons to use against you?
george: Well, no.
God: Were they aligned and working with Bin Laden?
george: no.
God: How many people got killed because you goaded your Congress and country into this unecessary war with these stories?
geoge: Ten Thousand?
God: and US soldiers are still dying there because you screwed up?
george: let me ask D-ck real quick.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheSerf on Aug 26, 2003 12:52:01 GMT -5
God at the Golden Gate: george, was Iraq a clear and present danger to the US? george: Well, no. God: Did they have chemical plants and uranium for bombs and facilities for producing weapons to use against you? george: Well, no. God: Were they aligned and working with Bin Laden? george: no. God: How many people got killed because you goaded your Congress and country into this unecessary war with these stories? geoge: Ten Thousand? God: and US soldiers are still dying there because you screwed up? george: let me ask D-ck real quick. |
|
|
|
Post by USA50 on Aug 26, 2003 13:02:13 GMT -5
God likes Red Herrings. Or was your comment related to the relativity of lies juxtaposed between george and Hillary?
|
|
|
|
Post by TheSerf on Aug 26, 2003 13:14:23 GMT -5
God likes Red Herrings. Or was your comment related to the relativity of lies juxtaposed between george and Hillary? To quote my philosophy friend Strawman, "Red Herring: to commit the fallacy of red herring in an argument is to draw attention away from an issue by raising some other, seemingly related issue." I am calling attention to the fact your argument is fallicious and, thus, should be ignored. |
|
|
|
Post by USA50 on Aug 26, 2003 13:18:20 GMT -5
Seems like you may have a point....that the original post on this thread was a red herring worthy of at least a 12 point red font.
So why is my argument fallacious? Let us count the ways...
|
|
|
|
Post by TheSerf on Aug 26, 2003 13:41:27 GMT -5
Seems like you may have a point....that the original post on this thread was a red herring worthy of at least a 12 point red font. So why is my argument fallacious? Let us count the ways... The issue is "Is Hillary Running for President." and the use of sarcasm to further the point. You switched the point of the post from Hillary to GWB. I just noticed Ramadayan and you also committed a Ad hominem tu quoque (You Too Fallacy). Again, from my good friend Strawman (another favorite fallacy of us all), "Ad hominem tu quoque (You Too Fallacy): an argument that attempts to offer a defense by accusing the accuser of a similar wrongdoing. (i.e. 'Sarah cheated' says Steve. 'So what, you cheated too?' says Sarah)." |
|
|
|
Post by USA50 on Aug 26, 2003 13:46:25 GMT -5
S A R C A S M
You noticed. It wasn't so much a red herring (wow, there MUST be a better word for that), as like the farmer who walked into the barn and straightaway hit his mule up the side of the head with a 2x4. His son said, "Paw! Why'd you do that?" Paw said, "First I have to get his attention."
With some of these conserve wingnuts coming out of the woodworkd to rant about the slightest little thing, sometimes you have to get their attention. When someone makes a real good argument, I do, too. When they don't, they're fair game.
Red Herrings are sometimes relative. Some things are just dead fish before they leave the market.....like the head of this thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldweasel1 on Aug 28, 2003 20:00:23 GMT -5
Chillery Sodom Clinton is a red in the soviet sense and a cold fish, but I'm not sure if I'd call her a "herring"; more of a flounder from the waist down.
How can you tell if Sillery is lying?
Her lips are moving.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldweasel1 on Aug 28, 2003 20:32:49 GMT -5
Hillary and her advisers will meet shortly after Labor Day, I hear, to discuss whether or not she should go for it.
Senator Clinton is in the same high-stakes dilemma as one of her predecessors was 35 years ago. In 1968, New York Senator Robert F. Kennedy was the most celebrated Democrat in the country after President Lyndon Johnson announced he would not run -- after almost being defeated in New Hampshire by a critic of the war in Vietnam, Senator Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota. Kennedy threw caution and old non-candidate promises to the wind and entered the contest against McCarthy and Hubert Humphrey.
There are great similarities between then and now, and between New York’s carpetbagger senators -- Bobby from Massachusetts, Hillary from Arkansas -- beginning with their name recognition, their armies of admirers and enemies and their dominating position in polls.
And polling could drive Hillary’s decision, beginning with Bush’s popularity ratings. On her own side, Democratic polls right now show Kerry, Senator Joseph Lieberman, House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt and former Vermont Governor Howard Dean as the Democratic leaders, each of them with 15 or 20-percent of the Democratic vote nationally. Throw Hillary’s name into those polls and she gets between 37-percent of the vote (ABC News poll) and 48-percent (Quinnipac Institute).
Kerry and the rest drop to single digits. Unfair? Of course. If Bush is in trouble, Kerry and Dean could be the Gene McCarthys of their generation if Hillary decides to be Bobby.
Richardreeves.com
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Aug 29, 2003 4:39:14 GMT -5
"I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president." --Hillary Clinton commenting on the release of subpoenaed documents.
She could win the nomination but not the general election.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldweasel1 on Aug 29, 2003 13:20:30 GMT -5
"I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president." --Hillary Clinton commenting on the release of subpoenaed documents. She could win the nomination but not the general election. Absolutely true. She would get the moron vote, the offendminist vote and the couric vote and that's it> |
|
