Hillary crying poor

[Tsing Tao]

Nahhh... Even that (obviously partisan) entry in snopes states that "She did make the statements reported above, but ..." and then leftist spin, spin, spin. That's who she is, always speaking from both sides of her mouth, obfuscating everything but leaving a solid extra-liberal trail of statements all over that betray her true beliefs, for many years. "Poor" (yeah, right) woman...

Don't forget that when Obama was making similar statements, the leftist apologists were saying "... oh, he doesn't really mean it, he'll strengthen our economy, re-invigorate our image abroad, be open, competent and fair..." etc etc. And now, look where we are

As much as I loathe to do it, I have to side with Ricter on this one. Unless you can prove that the Snopes article is incorrect (in terms of where it is citing those quotes of Hillary), then it would appear it is yet another email/post of comments where a politicians thoughts/statements were taken completely out of context to reinforce a narrative - imagined or otherwise.

Maybe it's a personal thing I have to get over, but I cannot stand when people take things out of context. It's incredibly unfair, and as conservatives, we don't have to do it. We're right on the issues. We should be taking the higher ground. I'd expect liberals to slander and use shady tactics, but something about it irritates me when conservatives do it.

 

[Max E.]

Maybe it's a personal thing I have to get over, but I cannot stand when people take things out of context. It's incredibly unfair, and as conservatives, we don't have to do it. We're right on the issues. We should be taking the higher ground. I'd expect liberals to slander and use shady tactics, but something about it irritates me when conservatives do it.

I agree.

In the age of the google, i dont know why people try to make up false stories, it does more damage to the side of the fake then it does to the person who the story is about, and the only people who buy it arent the ones who are going to change their opinion anyways. If you want to damage an opponent, creating false quotes is literally the worse thing you can do.

 

[Tsing Tao]

I agree.

In the age of the internet i dont know why people try to make up false stories, it does more damage to the side of the fake then it does to the person who the story is about, and the only people who buy it arent the ones who are going to change their opinion anyways. If you want to damage an opponent, creating false stories is literally the worse thing you can do.

Bravo!

You are samurai.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

I agree.

In the age of the google, i dont know why people try to make up false stories, it does more damage to the side of the fake then it does to the person who the story is about, and the only people who buy it arent the ones who are going to change their opinion anyways. If you want to damage an opponent, creating false quotes is literally the worse thing you can do.

I read the snopes entry that supposedly debunks the Hillary quotes. First, the quotes are all accurate. Snopes claims they were taken out of context and thus deliberately distorted. I disagree. I suppose reasonable people could quibble over one, the "free markets have failed" quote, but the rest seemed to me to accurately reflect the spirit of what she was saying. Simple test, would Ronald Reagan have said any of that stuff, out of context or not?

It's the same game these other "fact checkers" play. Any republican's utterances are examined under a microscope and anything that is not 100% literally accurate comes in for scathing criticism, even if it's obvious parody or hyperbole. With democrats, every nuance must be considered to give them the benefit of the doubt. Opinions or obviously politicized assumptions are treated as factual if given by democrats and any disagree with them is considered lying.

Unlike Obama, whose actual radical views and hatred of our country were hidden from voters by the media and the republicans, we all know exactly what we would be getting with Hillary. She is an angry feminist who enthusiasitically supports every tenet of radical liberalism. She would be Obama with an angry scowl and possibly competent people pushing her radicalism.

 

[fhl]

Nahhh... Even that (obviously partisan) entry in snopes states that "She did make the statements reported above, but ..." and then leftist spin, spin, spin. That's who she is, always speaking from both sides of her mouth, obfuscating everything but leaving a solid extra-liberal trail of statements all over that betray her true beliefs, for many years. "Poor" (yeah, right) woman...

Don't forget that when Obama was making similar statements, the leftist apologists were saying "... oh, he doesn't really mean it, he'll strengthen our economy, re-invigorate our image abroad, be open, competent and fair..." etc etc. And now, look where we are

I agree with you 100% Yannis. Snopes did not prove to me that those statements were taken out of context. She wants the gov't to take our resources and run our lives.

 

[Tsing Tao]

I read the snopes entry that supposedly debunks the Hillary quotes. First, the quotes are all accurate. Snopes claims they were taken out of context and thus deliberately distorted. I disagree. I suppose reasonable people could quibble over one, the "free markets have failed" quote, but the rest seemed to me to accurately reflect the spirit of what she was saying. Simple test, would Ronald Reagan have said any of that stuff, out of context or not?

It's the same game these other "fact checkers" play. Any republican's utterances are examined under a microscope and anything that is not 100% literally accurate comes in for scathing criticism, even if it's obvious parody or hyperbole. With democrats, every nuance must be considered to give them the benefit of the doubt. Opinions or obviously politicized assumptions are treated as factual if given by democrats and any disagree with them is considered lying.

Unlike Obama, whose actual radical views and hatred of our country were hidden from voters by the media and the republicans, we all know exactly what we would be getting with Hillary. She is an angry feminist who enthusiasitically supports every tenet of radical liberalism. She would be Obama with an angry scowl and possibly competent people pushing her radicalism.

To say Reagan would not have made those quotes isn't relevant. Reagan wasn't Clinton, not even the same political party. What has that got to do with it?

I'm not saying I want to vote for Clinton. I'm just saying that it's not right to take things out of context just to score a point.

 

[Yannis]

Bravo!

You are samurai.

Well, I disagree with both of you on both counts.

First, the original post was a humorous collection of Hillary's statements. Even the snopes entry agrees with that. So, it stands on its own. What does it mean? You decide, based on your preferences, experiences, knowledge, etc. I believe that that's exactly how Hillary thinks, it's my choice.

Second, what I hear is the typical aristocratic Republican position (I am a conservative Independent) that states that you guys want a "clean" fight. And then you wander in the dark alley. Yeah, good luck. That's how both McCain and Romney lost to that charismatic street fighter who's sitting in the Oval Office as we speak. We all knew how clean and above reproach Romney is, how honest and hardworking and creative and successful he is. They told the public that he was exactly the opposite, and the public believed them.

You don't want to fight according to the de facto rules of political struggle? I would say, stay home. I also believe that Newt would have wiped the floor with his opponent had he got the nomination, but the other, super-genteel and "I want a clean fight" side had so much more money and looked so much more "civilized" to the Republican base.

How are the ISIS fighters taking over Iraq? How did Obama get OBL? They used all means at their disposal, that's how. Freedom of speech is there for a reason, including politics. Oh well.

 

[Max E.]

Admittedly i didnt really pay attention to the quotes in this particular scenario, but what Tsing said was accurate. And i was talking mostly about those mass emails in general

I read the snopes entry that supposedly debunks the Hillary quotes. First, the quotes are all accurate. Snopes claims they were taken out of context and thus deliberately distorted. I disagree. I suppose reasonable people could quibble over one, the "free markets have failed" quote, but the rest seemed to me to accurately reflect the spirit of what she was saying. Simple test, would Ronald Reagan have said any of that stuff, out of context or not?

It's the same game these other "fact checkers" play. Any republican's utterances are examined under a microscope and anything that is not 100% literally accurate comes in for scathing criticism, even if it's obvious parody or hyperbole. With democrats, every nuance must be considered to give them the benefit of the doubt. Opinions or obviously politicized assumptions are treated as factual if given by democrats and any disagree with them is considered lying.

Unlike Obama, whose actual radical views and hatred of our country were hidden from voters by the media and the republicans, we all know exactly what we would be getting with Hillary. She is an angry feminist who enthusiasitically supports every tenet of radical liberalism. She would be Obama with an angry scowl and possibly competent people pushing her radicalism.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

To say Reagan would not have made those quotes isn't relevant. Reagan wasn't Clinton, not even the same political party. What has that got to do with it?

I'm not saying I want to vote for Clinton. I'm just saying that it's not right to take things out of context just to score a point.

The point is that a politician's words define them. Reagan would not have said anything that could have possibly be construed as marxist or socialist because those ideas were anathema to him. With Hillary by contrast, there has to be this enormous effport to scrub her off the cuff comments. Which is a truer reflection of her, off the cuff comments or carefully scripted speeches and talking points?

I don't really get your comments about taking things "out of context." You can't quote an entire speech or debate. It's only unfair if the quotation misrepresents her true position, like NBC did with their infamous Zimmerman edited quote. I don;t thnk the quotes unfairly characterize her or what she was trying to say at the time.

 

[Tsing Tao]

The point is that a politician's words define them. Reagan would not have said anything that could have possibly be construed as marxist or socialist because those ideas were anathema to him. With Hillary by contrast, there has to be this enormous effport to scrub her off the cuff comments. Which is a truer reflection of her, off the cuff comments or carefully scripted speeches and talking points?

Off the cuff comments should, all things being equal, be truer. But that's not what I'm debating here. I'm debating the email that was posted showing comments that clearly take Hillary's words to mean something she may or may not have intended them to mean. A reasonable (in my opinion) person who is not letting their personal feelings of Hillary influence their interpretation of the commentary should be able to go "I see how that comment is - by itself - taken a bit out of context. I don't think she meant it that way."

I don't really get your comments about taking things "out of context." You can't quote an entire speech or debate. It's only unfair if the quotation misrepresents her true position, like NBC did with their infamous Zimmerman edited quote. I don;t thnk the quotes unfairly characterize her or what she was trying to say at the time.

I'm glad you brought up the Zimmerman edited quote. That's precisely what I was talking about. You can't go after NBC on one side because it appeals to your political alignment, and then use Hillary's comments in exactly the same manner when it doesn't.

I think there's a word for that type of behavior.