RE: MSNBC's Chelsea comment angers Clinton

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: MSNBC's Chelsea comment angers Clinton

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: MSNBC's Chelsea comment angers Clinton

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: MSNBC's Chelsea comment angers Clinton - 2/11/2008 9:14:43 PM

Alumbrado

Posts: 5560
Status: offline

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...

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.

< Message edited by Alumbrado -- 2/11/2008 9:15:09 PM >

(in reply to DomKen)

Profile

Post #: 41

RE: MSNBC's Chelsea comment angers Clinton - 2/11/2008 9:21:49 PM

Zensee

Posts: 1564
Joined: 9/4/2004
Status: offline

And just what did you intend when you asserted she was being "pimped out"? Hide behind humour if you must but I didn't read anything in to your post you did not put there.

I certainly didn't miss the sarcasm of your original post but apparently you missed the (perhaps tooo) obvious humour in mine. Amazement at the density of others is not your sovereign domain.

Z.

< Message edited by Zensee -- 2/11/2008 9:23:56 PM >

_____________________________

"Before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water." (proverb)

(in reply to Alumbrado)

Profile

Post #: 42

RE: MSNBC's Chelsea comment angers Clinton - 2/11/2008 9:30:37 PM

Owner59

Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee

A picture of Ms. Clinton in a white shirt and cardigan does not "dress(ing) up like a schhool girl" make. Nor does the article support you assertion that she was pimped out. You twist the article and image out of all proportion.

You can read what you like into that bland account and image but if that equates to school-girl porn in your estimation, your tastes are rather tame.

Z.

Nowhere do I make the claim that she was performing sex for money, or posing for pornography.

Those bizzarre connotations came totally from your mind, nowhere else.

Perhaps those for whom partisan zealotry has atrophied their ability to grasp sarcasm and use vocabulary in a rational manner, should stay in the shallow end, safely away from things that are over their heads.

You`re so full of it,it`s oozing from your mouth.

Your post was as ugly as they come.Hiding behind supposed sarcasm and humor is typically what cowards do.

Bit of advice.Don`t ever use "Chris Rock" type humor with black folks,you don`t have the finesse or intelligence to pull it off.

(in reply to Alumbrado)

Profile

Post #: 43

RE: MSNBC's Chelsea comment angers Clinton - 2/11/2008 10:48:33 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

Trying to insert words into my mouth again? Bad move.

quote:

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...

Find in any of my responses anything indicating I didn't see the photo the first time I read the article. I however was quite able to tell the difference between a photo clearly indicating what she was wearing on a Friday, that showed a demurely dressed young woman, and a claim by you of a school girl outfit she supposedly wore on a Monday. You either flat out lied or you were too incompetent to read the article and caption and understand that fact. You claim to be smart so you lied or you can admit to being unable to understand the difference between Monday and Friday and then we'll get on to discussing which of us should stay in the shallow end.

quote:

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.

Once again a lie. A simple lie. I never claimed to be reading your mind. I read what you wrote and the implication was clear and intentional.

quote:

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.

You made unsupported assertions i called you on them and will do so again.

quote:

OK, now I'm confused...if they aren't 'pimping her out' what else do you call having your 28 year old daughter dress up like a little school girl, and going out on dates with superdelegates, when the superdelegates (like Dad and cronies), are going to be the deciding factor in keeping Obama down?

You assert:
1) Her parents forced her to dress up as a little school girl
No such evidence is in the article you linked to.
2) Going out on dates with superdelegates
A single instance of a breakfast witha single superdelegate not dates or even the conventional meaning of date. Certainly nothing pimped out about it.
3) Connected the superdelegate involved with Bill Clinton and his "cronies."
Pretty clearly shown not to be the case in the article.
4) Superdelegates will be the deciding factor in keeping Obama down.
A prediction so not untrue at this time but based on a fairly weak line of conjecture where neither candidate wins a true majority of regular delegates.

3 assertions flat out wrong and one prediction without a terribly good chance of coming true.

You may claim dislike for both but I've only encountered you simply making up anti Democrat stuff.

(in reply to Alumbrado)

Profile

Post #: 44