Hillary Goes After Obama In Virginia Speech

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2013 10:11 PM GMT
    She took a couple verbal shots at him today. Here's one of the best ones:

    "... if it’s only about you wanting to get a job and get the perks that go with it and, you know, have people stand up when you come into a room, that’s not enough..."

    So apparently the Emperor has no clothes!

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/19/Hillary-takes-veiled-shots-at-Obama-in-McAuliffe-endorsement-speech
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2013 11:31 PM GMT
    While I can't find a transcript of the speech, judging from the non-partisan site, Politico, her comments were directed at the GOP.

    Also worth noting is that the recent shutdown added 4 points to the Dem's margin over the GOP in the Va. Governor's race to be decided next month.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2013 11:47 PM GMT
    Aristoshark saidCute. But of course, she wasn't talking about the President, and you know that.

    Merely linking to the breitbart site tells you this post is a fraud. Guess we have to endure several weeks of southbeach spamming of every kind of sensational anti-Obama and anti-Democrat falsehood he can dream up, before he gets booted once again. How many times is it now? icon_razz.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2013 11:48 PM GMT
    Leave it to Breitbart to make up some stuff out of thin air like that. If you want to talk infighting, talk about Senate Conservatives endorsing a primary challenger against the Republican leader of the Senate, that is real infighting.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2013 11:55 PM GMT
    ART_DECO saidGuess we have to endure several weeks of southbeach spamming of every kind of sensational anti-Obama and anti-Democrat falsehood he can dream up, before he gets booted once again.


    Weeks? His worn out socks are going to be bitching until the end of Hillary's second term (and beyond).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2013 12:01 AM GMT
    Ex_Mil8 said
    ART_DECO saidGuess we have to endure several weeks of southbeach spamming of every kind of sensational anti-Obama and anti-Democrat falsehood he can dream up, before he gets booted once again.

    Weeks? His worn out socks are going to be bitching until the end of Hillary's second term (and beyond).

    Oh, you're absolutely right. I meant our having to endure several weeks of THIS current reincarnation of his sockhood, before it gets banned like its predecessors.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2013 12:03 AM GMT
    ART_DECO said
    Aristoshark saidCute. But of course, she wasn't talking about the President, and you know that.

    Merely linking to the breitbart site tells you this post is a fraud. Guess we have to endure several weeks of southbeach spamming of every kind of sensational anti-Obama and anti-Democrat falsehood he can dream up, before he gets booted once again. How many times is it now? icon_razz.gif


    So she never said it? It was a direct quote. Tell me again that she didn't say it and my suspicions about you will be confirmed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2013 2:33 AM GMT
    neuergriff1 saidWhile I can't find a transcript of the speech, judging from the non-partisan site, Politico, her comments were directed at the GOP.

    Also worth noting is that the recent shutdown added 4 points to the Dem's margin over the GOP in the Va. Governor's race to be decided next month.


    Let's examine this together.

    Hillary is a partisan Democrat, ne c'est pas?

    So which is more likely from her:
    A). an unnecessary attack on a fellow Democrat

    B). an attack against Republicans with whom she has begun her battle for the presidency

    Take a guess.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2013 3:40 AM GMT
    Carpescrotum said
    neuergriff1 saidWhile I can't find a transcript of the speech, judging from the non-partisan site, Politico, her comments were directed at the GOP.

    Also worth noting is that the recent shutdown added 4 points to the Dem's margin over the GOP in the Va. Governor's race to be decided next month.


    Let's examine this together.

    Hillary is a partisan Democrat, ne c'est pas?

    So which is more likely from her:
    A). an unnecessary attack on a fellow Democrat

    B). an attack against Republicans with whom she has begun her battle for the presidency

    Take a guess.


    C). She is beginning the process of distancing herself from the disaster that is the Obama regime.

    Why do you keep changing your account name and keeping it hidden? It's not like you actually ARE hidden. icon_wink.gif
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Oct 20, 2013 4:00 AM GMT
    MisterOrally said
    Carpescrotum said
    neuergriff1 said

    Take a guess.


    C). She is beginning the process of distancing herself from the disaster that is the Obama regime.

    Why do you keep changing your account name and keeping it hidden? It's not like you actually ARE hidden. icon_wink.gif


    The clinton of 2008 was not in lock step with Obama the president.

    Sec State is a apolitical job, so consider her as being in suspended animation since 2008.

    I would take a Hilary as 44/45 any day over what we have now.
  • PIccadilly

    Posts: 240

    Oct 20, 2013 5:12 AM GMT
    Carpescrotum saidLet's examine this together.

    Hillary is a partisan Democrat, ne c'est pas?

    So which is more likely from her:
    A). an unnecessary attack on a fellow Democrat

    B). an attack against Republicans with whom she has begun her battle for the presidency

    Take a guess.


    It's spelled n'est-ce pas.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2013 12:39 PM GMT
    Fascinating interpretation of what Hillary said.

    Republicans want to believe that Hillary is the Anti-Obama they need.

    Republicans are trying to con themselves into believing that Hillary is really a Republican since Hillary is as close to the White House as they will get in 2016.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2013 1:02 PM GMT
    Piccadilly said
    Carpescrotum saidLet's examine this together.

    Hillary is a partisan Democrat, ne c'est pas?

    So which is more likely from her:
    A). an unnecessary attack on a fellow Democrat

    B). an attack against Republicans with whom she has begun her battle for the presidency

    Take a guess.

    It's spelled n'est-ce pas.

    True, but I gotta be indulgent with a guy whose SN in Latin can be loosely read as "grab the balls" (or "seize" or even "pluck" but I prefer grab in this context).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2013 1:31 PM GMT
    I love partial quotes that are taken out of context because you can say they were directed at whomever you like. Such fun.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2013 1:43 PM GMT
    Ah, what a year to have the Dems doing well in a VA gubernatorial race. I really despise McAuliffe. I wish another good Dem would have run there.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2013 2:09 PM GMT
    Scruffypup saidI love partial quotes that are taken out of context because you can say they were directed at whomever you like. Such fun.

    A fun game the socks here often play. And when you challenge them they'll counter with essentially a straw man argument, accusing you of doubting the accuracy of the quotes. They conveniently omit the issue of the context from which those remarks were extracted, so that the words may be technically true, but the meaning is totally false.

    Breitbart himself did that several times in the past (and the site from which this originates), even causing the resignation of an Obama Administration official, over taped remarks she made that were edited down to produce the opposite meaning of what she actually intended, as was subsequently realized by the legitimate press.

    So that when you see anything with the "Breitbart" name on it, you can immediately dismiss its veracity and the person citing from it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2013 2:16 PM GMT
    ART_DECO said
    Scruffypup saidI love partial quotes that are taken out of context because you can say they were directed at whomever you like. Such fun.

    A fun game the socks here often play. And when you challenge them they'll counter with essentially a straw man argument, accusing you of doubting the accuracy of the quotes. They conveniently omit the issue of the context from which those remarks were extracted, so that the words may be technically true, but the meaning is totally false.

    Breitbart himself did that several times in the past (and the site from which this originates), even causing the resignation of an Obama Administration official, over taped remarks she made that were edited down to produce the opposite meaning of what she actually intended, as was subsequently realized by the legitimate press.

    So that when you see anything with the "Breitbart" name on it, you can immediately dismiss its veracity and the person citing from it.


    "over taped remarks she made that were edited down to produce the opposite meaning of what he/she actually intended,"

    Sounds just like something MSNBC, Moveon, Daily Koz, etc., would do and has done.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2013 2:34 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    Sounds just like something MSNBC, Moveon, Daily Koz, etc., would do and has done.

    Well here's what the late Andrew Breitbart actually did do:

    Resignation of Shirley Sherrod
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2013 2:40 PM GMT
    ART_DECO said
    freedomisntfree said
    Sounds just like something MSNBC, Moveon, Daily Koz, etc., would do and has done.

    Well here's what the late Andrew Breitbart actually did do:

    Resignation of Shirley Sherrod


    I'm aware of that. Once again, plenty of this on both sides. I've ever heard Sean Hannity do it. Simply shocking isn't it?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2013 2:44 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    ART_DECO said
    freedomisntfree said
    Sounds just like something MSNBC, Moveon, Daily Koz, etc., would do and has done.

    Well here's what the late Andrew Breitbart actually did do:

    Resignation of Shirley Sherrod

    I'm aware of that. Once again, plenty of this on both sides.

    But that's not what we're discussing in THIS thread, is it? It's the dishonesty of using misrepresentations from the Breitbart site here, and basing an anti-Hillary Clinton thread on them.

    Or are you saying that because you claim it "sounds just like something MSNBC..." would do it's perfectly fine to do it here? Sort of a tit-for-tat, if your side cheats then my side can cheat, too?

    But then you're admitting that your side is cheating, with misleading articles like this Hillary speech. Do you really want to take that approach?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2013 2:47 PM GMT
    ART_DECO said
    freedomisntfree said
    ART_DECO said
    freedomisntfree said
    Sounds just like something MSNBC, Moveon, Daily Koz, etc., would do and has done.

    Well here's what the late Andrew Breitbart actually did do:

    Resignation of Shirley Sherrod

    I'm aware of that. Once again, plenty of this on both sides.

    But that's not what we're discussing in THIS thread, is it? It's the dishonesty of using misquotes from the Breitbart site here, and basing an anti-Hillary Clinton thread on them.

    Or are you saying that because you claim it "sounds just like something MSNBC..." would do it's perfectly fine to do it here? Sort of a tit-for-tat, if your side cheats then my side can cheat, too?

    But then you're admitting that your side is cheating, with misleading articles like this Hillary speech. Do you really want to take that approach?


    yes

    "Sort of a tit-for-tat"

    yes

    "But then you're admitting that your side is cheating"

    I'm aware of that. Once again, plenty of this on both sides. I've ever heard Sean Hannity do it. Simply shocking isn't it?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2013 3:01 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    yes

    "Sort of a tit-for-tat"

    yes

    "But then you're admitting that your side is cheating"

    I'm aware of that. Once again, plenty of this on both sides. I've ever heard Sean Hannity do it. Simply shocking isn't it?

    Shocking that you admit to deliberate falsehoods and cheating. And use such an immature childish defense of these tactics. "Well, the other guys do it, too!"

    Reminds me of the child who gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar by Mom. "But Susie stole something last week!" comes the whiney defense. Yeah, but this is YOUR hand in THIS cookie jar, and we'll deal with each infraction as it happens.

    What next, a captured bank robber whose defense is that bank executives have stolen far more than he ever attempted? Well, that's a true statement, so do we just let him keep the loot?

    This thread was started with a fraudulent claim from the Breitbart site, a haven for fraudulent claims. That and the truth is all we need to know to debunk this lie. Citing alleged MSNBC untruths does not make the Breitbart claim true. No more than counter allegations mean a kid's hand was never in the cookie jar, or a bank robber never held up the place.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2013 3:14 PM GMT
    I am guessing MisterOrally sock lasts less than two weeks. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2013 3:18 PM GMT
    ART_DECO said
    Piccadilly said
    Carpescrotum saidLet's examine this together.

    Hillary is a partisan Democrat, ne c'est pas?

    So which is more likely from her:
    A). an unnecessary attack on a fellow Democrat

    B). an attack against Republicans with whom she has begun her battle for the presidency

    Take a guess.

    It's spelled n'est-ce pas.

    True, but I gotta be indulgent with a guy whose SN in Latin can be loosely read as "grab the balls" (or "seize" or even "pluck" but I prefer grab in this context).


    He keeps changing his screen name. And why is he "hidden" when we can see who he is by just quoting whatever he posts?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2013 3:22 PM GMT
    ART_DECO said
    freedomisntfree said
    yes

    "Sort of a tit-for-tat"

    yes

    "But then you're admitting that your side is cheating"

    I'm aware of that. Once again, plenty of this on both sides. I've ever heard Sean Hannity do it. Simply shocking isn't it?

    Shocking that you admit to deliberate falsehoods and cheating. And use such an immature childish defense of these tactics. "Well, the other guys do it, too!"

    Reminds me of the child who gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar by Mom. "But Susie stole something last week!" comes the whiney defense. Yeah, but this is YOUR hand in THIS cookie jar, and we'll deal with each infraction as it happens.

    What next, a captured bank robber whose defense is that bank executives have stolen far more than he ever attempted? Well, that's a true statement, so do we just let him keep the loot?

    This thread was started with a fraudulent claim from the Breitbart site, a haven for fraudulent claims. That and the truth is all we need to know to debunk this lie. Citing alleged MSNBC untruths does not make the Breitbart claim true. No more than counter allegations mean a kid's hand was never in the cookie jar, or a bank robber never held up the place.


    "Shocking that you admit to deliberate falsehoods and cheating. And use such an immature childish defense of these tactics. "Well, the other guys do it, too!"
    "

    At least I admit that BOTH sides do it. Childish huh ... maybe, but at least I'll admit that we do it on our side too. Something I don't ever recall seeing you do. So which is more childish?