|
Alumbrado -> RE: MSNBC's Chelsea comment angers Clinton (2/11/2008 9:14:43 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
So you didn't like having someone point out the truth so you tried to smear me. How totally unoriginal.
responding to your points.
1) you claim your post was sarcastic. I quoted it unedited so as to maintain proof of exactly of what you wrote. No signals of any kind that it was supposed to be a joke. No smileys or other signs that you were joking. I'm going to have to say I simply don't believe your claim. No factual assertion except for your admission that "dates" was not supported so no factual rebuttal is possible.
2) Let's examine that photo's caption.
quote:
Chelsea Clinton speaks to supporters Friday, Feb. 8, 2008 after a campaign event for her mother, Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., at Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Maine. (Joel Page/AP Photo)
Now a pertinent two paragraphs from the article:
quote:
He spends several hours a day in class at Marquette University in Wisconsin where he is majoring in history and political science. He is closely following the Marquette basketball team and has the Golden Eagles' schedule memorized.
But not many 21-year-olds start their Monday with a personal breakfast with Chelsea Clinton, as Rae did this morning at the student union at the nearby University of Milwaukee.
Now oddly you're claiming the outfit she wore on Friday the 8th in Maine is what she wore to a breakfast on a Monday in Wisconsin.
So you had no basis for the claim and your defense was more lies.
3) You tried to make it sound as if the superdelegate in question was one of the Clinton's "cronies." Your claim was based on the link provided as that was the only source you refered to. On that basis I determined you were slurring this young man and Chelsea. I called you on it and you have now tried to squirm away. Too late.
4) You posted a link to an artile after making a series of assertions not supported by the article. You apparently thought no one would check your supposed source. Now that you've been shown to be lieing you claim not to have an agenda. With overwhelming evidence of your complete lack of objectivity on all things Democratic and complete pass on all things Republican your claim is ludicrous and to think you could pull it off shows a contempt for the intelligence of the rest of us on this forum.
Next time post something that actually says what you say it says or expect to be called on it again.
1) If you need smileys to detect sarcasm, kindly heed my advice about staying in the shallow end... there is too much going over your head.
2) How are you going to 'examine' a photograph that earlier you couldn't even see? Oh, wait. let me guess,I must have magically caused it to appear 'later' like the article...[8|]
3) If your amazing mind reading powers tell you that a phrase means the exact opposite of what it's author knows he meant, , you need to show us the JREF million, or put up with being proven false once again...and I'm betting you don't have the million.
4) "You posted a link to an artile after making a series of assertions not supported by the article." Now you are flat out lying. You've already been exposed as making up my so called assertions that appeared nowhere in print until you typed them... if there was no link to the article how could you have checked what is actually said against them as you are on record claiming? Simple fact is, the link was there all along, not posted 'after', and my question remains in print... the assertions are figments of your imagination.
5) "With overwhelming evidence of your complete lack of objectivity on all things Democratic and complete pass on all things Republican your claim is ludicrous and to think you could pull it off shows a contempt for the intelligence of the rest of us on this forum."
You are the one openly saying that people here are too gullible to remember or go back and check my many times repeated mantra that politicians on both sides are lying scum, and that blind partisan zealots of either party are the sycophants who grease the skids for all the worlds evils.
If you think the big lie tactic will work here, keep using it, I'm not interested in changing the idololatry of those who cannot think for themselves, and who let bigoted cheerleaders whip them up into a frenzy against anyone who dares laugh at the heros of the status quo ... they are a lost cause.
But I know better than you... I know that there are people out there who can use critical thinking, and who will determine for themselves whether both parties are venal, rich, bigoted, warmongering, partial psychopaths.
|
|
|
|
