Hillary is Poison!

McGentrix wrote:

You must have me confused for someone else. You almost seem to think I care about what you think of me.

You accuse me of lying, yet fail to demonstrate any lies. All you can do is avoid the question and turn to the time honored liberal tradition of throwing mud...

I will accuse you of being a hypocrite and a big one. You repeat these vicious things and you defend yourself by saying, "I heard". Then you turn around and tell us you're an American and you believe in the presumption of innocence.

And this, "the time honored liberal tradition of throwing mud". Is this not hypocrisy, McG?

Now to the mendacity. I pointed out that you HAVE stated how you were a middle of the road type of guy, a guy who can see all sides. This type of trash clearly calls that into question. I reviewed the PBS thread; very interesting indeed [more on this later].

You aren't interested in the truth because the more than typical reaction from you is a knee-jerk dismissal of the facts and all too often a weak injection of trash and/or uniformed opinion to lead the discussion astray,[correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't it you who posted the Coulter article in the PBS thread?]

Dissembling illustrates a clear tendency towards mendacity. I've included the definition here for you. Numbers 1 & 2 clearly reflect your behavior. Definition #3 may as well say, "McGentrix".

==========
M-W online:
dissemble
1 : to hide under a false appearance
2 : to put on the appearance of : SIMULATE
intransitive senses : to put on a false appearance : conceal facts, intentions, or feelings under some pretense
============

0 Replies

JTT will just have to wait for the book by Mr. Klein which will give us some facts concerning Hillary Rodham Clinton.

I am sure that Klein will tell us that the proficiency of one of the "brightest" women in the world was enough to enable her to make $100,000 from an initial investment of $1,000 in one year trading cattle futures.

I also await Klein's recounting of Hillary's summer internship with a law firm headed by a certain Robert Treuhaft. Now, as a Yale Law School graduate, I am certain that Hillary was very very bright. Why she did not discern that working for a man who had been the attorney for the Communist Party USA for years might not look good on her resume, I will never figure out.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Of course she would say that. Do you think she would admit to something like that?

Well, McGentrix, let me put it this way. Bill and Hillary were there. Klein was not. Drudge was not. Nobody Klein talked to was there either.

No eyewitnesses at the scene, the husband and wife both say it never happened. Only one conclusion can be drawn-the story is preposterous.

By the way, what I think is hilarious is this: for all these years, Starr, McGentrix, chiczaira, etc have been showing an unnatural interest in the sex Clinton has outside of marriage.

Clinton's out of office five years, and these guys are so strung out on new things to examine about Clinton's personal life that they have taken to claiming outrage that he has the nerve to have sex inside of marriage.

You guys are beyond help.

McGentrix wrote:

We know Bill has a propensity of lying about his sexual deviance, perhaps it has rubbed off on Miss Hillary?

I haven't seen any credible evidence of deviance, unless you count taking a lady up on an offer of free nookie deviant.

In which case you need to modify your definition of deviance.

0 Replies

chiczaira wrote:

I am sure that Klein will tell us that the proficiency of one of the "brightest" women in the world was enough to enable her to make $100,000 from an initial investment of $1,000 in one year trading cattle futures.

Anybody who wanted to invest in cattle futures could have done it.

I have a two part question for you:
A) What percentage of people lose money in the commodities market as opposed to make money there? If the answer is that many more times you lose money, does it not stand to reason that big scores must then be relatively commonn in that market or else nobody would ever invest there?

B) Is there the slightest indication that anyone who invested in cattle futures at that time would not have also made huge money?

If making a big score in the market automatically opens one to suspicion, then why hasn't everyone who invested in Genentech at the beginning been investigated?

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

In which case you need to modify your definition of deviance.

That should present no problem whatsoever for this group, KW. They can generate BS with an aplomb that is truly astonishing. This is something that can only be learned from those more gifted and in the R party, there is no shortage of those folks.

Entire websites are dedicated to chronicling their mendacity. This is done very effectively in a step by step fashion using facts from the public record.

There are also a number of sites that deal with the slander propagated by the R's. This too is dismantled step by step, again with facts from the public record.

When these are pointed out to them, we get a, "next question" or a trip down memory lane with Bill & Hillary or some other inanity pulled from deep within the pile.

0 Replies

Keltic Wizard either does not read or does not care to read.

He apparently skipped the entry about Clinton from the book by the great jurist, Judge Richard A. Posner in which Posner wrote:

"For those who think that auhority depends on mystery, the shattering of the Presidential Mystique has been a disaster for which Clinton ought of rights to have paid for with his job"

Not a word there about sex.

Posner is clear. He relates the charges against Clinton. Keltic Wizard either had forgotten or has never learned that the charges against Clinton had nothing to do with sex or Fellatio but rather Obstruction of Justice.
Those were the charges approved by the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives on Dec. 11th and 12th.

And, the opprobrium directed at Clinton on his last day of his tenure as president had nothing to do with sex either. President Carter labeled Clinton's pardon of the felon, Marc Rich, "disgraceful".

I really don't think Keltic Wizard has kept up on his reading.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

What we do know is that employment is a lagging indicator. WE KNOW IT.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Nothing you have said in this thread makes me think so.

Quote:

That means that the improvement in the employment picture that began under Bush I was due to economic conditions and policies in place prior to that date.

Oh, so Bush balloons the unemployment rate from 5.5% up to 7.4%, then in the last six months takes it down a little-and you are trying to claim that he is any significant degree responsible for Clinton's record of declining unemployment?

You're nuts.

Take a look a t the chart.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/kelticwizard100/BUnemploymentRateGreenspansTenure.gif

Bush One's entire four year term was one of ballooning unemployment, with a slight relief at the end. He ended up with and unemploymet rate significantly higher than what he inherited. And you think anyone is going to buy the idea that Bush One was so brilliant, he laid the groundwork for EIGHT YEARS of Clinton's unemployment reduction?

Bush One is president for four years, unemployment raged upward. Clinton is president for eight years, unemployment goes down for twice as long as Bush One was president. And you're saying Bush One was significantly responsible for Clinton's unemployment record.

Absurd.

0 Replies

chiczaira wrote:

Keltic Wizard either does not read or does not care to read.

He apparently skipped the entry about Clinton from the book by the great jurist, Judge Richard A. Posner in which Posner wrote:

"For those who think that auhority depends on mystery, the shattering of the Presidential Mystique has been a disaster for which Clinton ought of rights to have paid for with his job"

That's funny. The American people didn't think Clinton should have lost his job.

Compared to the will of the American people, Posner doesn't count for much, I'm sure you will agree.

chiczaira wrote:

Posner is clear.

Yes, but why on earth should we care?

chiczaira wrote:

Keltic Wizard either had forgotten or has never learned that the charges against Clinton had nothing to do with sex or Fellatio but rather Obstruction of Justice.

Now that's simply not true. The obstruction of justice charges were about Clinton's supposed impeding of Starr's investigation of his sexual relationship with Monica. That means it was about sex..

Oh, by the way, since you are such an expert in this case,, would you care to explain to us exactly how Starr was hired to investigate a land deal in Arkansas, and ended up asking questions about Clinton 's affair with Monica in Washington? As far as I know, Monica had never been to Arkansas in her life, and certainly never invested any money there.

Please put the answer in your own words. You should have no difficulty composing your own answer, as you are so versed in the case.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

What we do know is that employment is a lagging indicator. WE KNOW IT.

And apparently, under Clinton it kept on lagging ... and lagging ... a full eight years the unemployment rate kept on going down, throughout his term in fact, thanks to the time-effect of Bush I's great policies in those brief, war-occupied four years...

(For a more seriously-intonated rebuttal, see Thomas's post two pages back.)

0 Replies

DOH!

"Does Keltic Wizard deny that .."
"the great jurist, Judge Richard A. Posner ..."

Sorry for finally catching up on who chiczaira is ... I'm so slow sometimes.

0 Replies

Chiczaira wrote:

He apparently skipped the entry about Clinton from the book by the great jurist, Judge Richard A. Posner in which Posner wrote:

"For those who think that auhority depends on mystery, the shattering of the Presidential Mystique has been a disaster for which Clinton ought of rights to have paid for with his job"

Two points of clarification here. 1) Chic's quote does not go far enough to tell if Posner thinks that a president's mystique is important to him, and whether it does indeed depend on Mystery. Based on other stuff I have read by Posner, I guess the answer is "no" to both.

2) If I remember correctly, Chic's quote is from Richard Posner: An affair of the state: the investigation, impeachment, and trial of President Clinton. Harvard University Press (2000). The book, while highly critical of Clinton, is at least as critical of his investiagion, impeachment and trial by zealous Republicans, if not more critical. As best I remember from reading the book 4 years ago, Chic's quote does not do justice to its overall tenor, and his lack of a citation makes this difficult for his readers to check and find out for themselves.

Speaking as someone who reads and appreciates Posner's work, I think Chic's frequent invocations and selective quotations are giving a remarkable jurist an undeserved bad name.

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

You must have me confused for someone else. You almost seem to think I care about what you think of me.

You accuse me of lying, yet fail to demonstrate any lies. All you can do is avoid the question and turn to the time honored liberal tradition of throwing mud...

I will accuse you of being a hypocrite and a big one. You repeat these vicious things and you defend yourself by saying, "I heard". Then you turn around and tell us you're an American and you believe in the presumption of innocence.

And this, "the time honored liberal tradition of throwing mud". Is this not hypocrisy, McG?

Now to the mendacity. I pointed out that you HAVE stated how you were a middle of the road type of guy, a guy who can see all sides. This type of trash clearly calls that into question. I reviewed the PBS thread; very interesting indeed [more on this later].

You aren't interested in the truth because the more than typical reaction from you is a knee-jerk dismissal of the facts and all too often a weak injection of trash and/or uniformed opinion to lead the discussion astray,[correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't it you who posted the Coulter article in the PBS thread?]

Dissembling illustrates a clear tendency towards mendacity. I've included the definition here for you. Numbers 1 & 2 clearly reflect your behavior. Definition #3 may as well say, "McGentrix".

==========
M-W online:
dissemble
1 : to hide under a false appearance
2 : to put on the appearance of : SIMULATE
intransitive senses : to put on a false appearance : conceal facts, intentions, or feelings under some pretense
============

So many words, so little to say.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Scrat wrote:
What we do know is that employment is a lagging indicator. WE KNOW IT.

And apparently, under Clinton it kept on lagging ... and lagging ... a full eight years the unemployment rate kept on going down, throughout his term in fact, thanks to the time-effect of Bush I's great policies in those brief, war-occupied four years...

And now you're pretending that the policies of an administration cease to have an effect on the economy the day the administration leaves office. I'm afraid it doesn't work that way.

You can pretend ignorance of the facts, but they are there in front of you. When did unemployment start to go down? Under Bush I. When did it start to go back up? Under Clinton. IF YOU WANT TO CREDIT THE SITTING PRESIDENT FOR THESE THINGS, THAT'S WHERE YOU HAVE TO LAY THE CREDIT.

0 Replies

Scrat, in your judgment of economic history, what would be a typical timespan for unemployment to lag the other important economic indicators?

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Scrat, in your judgment of economic history, what would be a typical timespan for unemployment to lag the other important economic indicators?

For argument's sake, let's say it lags by 1 day. Why a day? BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MATTER TO THE POINT I MADE. All that matters is that it lags changes in the economy, which lag economic policies. Those who want to credit Clinton policies with the improving employment picture are at odds with the fact that it began improving before Clinton took office. Those who want to blame Bush II for the downturn in same are likewise out of luck for the same reason; the economy began its freefall under Clinton, not Bush II.

For my part, I'm not trying to credit anyone with anything; I'm just showing what's wrong with the argument offered by someone who is trying to make such a claim.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

For argument's sake, let's say it lags by 1 day. Why a day? BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MATTER TO THE POINT I MADE. All that matters is that it lags changes in the economy, which lag economic policies. Those who want to credit Clinton policies with the improving employment picture are at odds with the fact that it began improving before Clinton took office.

Of course it matters to the point you made.

Say unemployment rates lag, indirectly, economic policies by 2 years. That means that Bush I gets the credit for the fall in unemployment until 1994. But the thing is, unemployment kept falling. For almost six more years. One reduction followed another followed another. At some point in time, some number of years after the end of Bush I's term, that would refer back to Clinton-era policies instead, right? Unemployment fell in 1999; that would lag economic policies from 1998, or 1996, or even 1994 - but can it all still reasonably be credited to the policies of eight years earlier?

Moreover, if Clinton's economic policies were bad enough to have caused the surge in unemployment at the very end and immediately following his term, why didnt they once disturb the continuing fall and fall of unemployment in the previous seven years?

Change the definition of the lag to 1 year or 3 years, it doesn't make any difference. After some number of years, the "lagging" argument loses its force. The equivalent of saying that even the further fall in unemployment in, say, 1996 or 1998 was still all thanks to the policies of 1992 under Bush I would be that the current fall in unemployment is still thanks to Clinton.

Oh and could you stop shouting? I'm glad you're back and stuff, but there's no need to get that loud about it ;-)

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

You have used all these words to elude answering my question. Was it too hard for you? Let me make it easier for you...

Question: Would Hillary Clinton admit to being raped by her husband?

Question: Has Bill Clinton lied about his sexual history?

You accuse me of lying, yet fail to demonstrate any lies. All you can do is avoid the question and turn to the time honored liberal tradition of throwing mud...

Hmmm ...

I've lied about my sexual history.

My partner* would not publicly admit having been raped by me.

Ergo - there's nothing unreasonable or indecent about someone going about telling how they've "heard" that I raped my wife.

That how it works?

*hypothetical

0 Replies

Yeah, that's the kind of guy nimh is. Ask him if he is still beating his wife, and the man just won't give you a straight yes-or-no answer. However, it is nice of McGentrix. to worry so much about Hillary Clinton's reproductive health. Unlike nimh, McGentrix is a gentleman who really cares about victimized women. Confused

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Yeah, that's the kind of guy nimh is. Ask him if he is still beating his wife, and the man just won't give you a straight yes-or-no answer. However, it is nice of McGentrix. to worry so much about Hillary Clinton's reproductive health. Unlike nimh, McGentrix is a gentleman who really cares about victimized women.

Please stop with the silly generalizations. We are discussing Hillary Clinton and her first lady, Bill... Not victimized women. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Say unemployment rates lag, indirectly, economic policies by 2 years. That means that Bush I gets the credit for the fall in unemployment until 1994. But the thing is, unemployment kept falling. For almost six more years. One reduction followed another followed another.

"One reduction followed by another", or a trend instigated by conditions in existence at some prior point?

The economy is like a boat, push it in one direction, and it's going to turn in that direction--slowly, as in with a lag--and then it is going to tend to keep going in that direction absent any push in some other direction. Your argument, while not impossible, presumes that Clinton managed to craft policies (which I'd love to see citations of) that managed to push the economy in exactly the direction it was already going. Possible? Sure. Probable? I don't know.

Of course, the reality is that the economic policies of a given administration are only part of what drives the economy. The trends I see suggest that conditions and policies under Reagan and Bush set the stage for a robust economy under Clinton, and that conditions and policies under Clinton eventually set the stage for that economy to falter. (How much was caused by policies and how much by other conditions? I have no idea. That's why I'm not here arguing that anybody gets credit for anything. I'm here arguing against that argument.)

0 Replies

Hillary is Poison!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know