• We will be taking the forum down for maintenance at [5:15 am CDT] - in 15 minutes. We should be down less than 1 hour.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does Chris Matthews have LOCD or what?

eohrnberger said:
I'm not arguing whether Zeifman was able to fire Hillary or not, which is the only part that MM or Snopes are raising as a means for deflection.

I'm of the position that Zeifman's assertion that "she was a liar. She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer, she conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the Committee, and the rules of confidentiality." is completely accurate, especially the last part, rules of confidentiality, considering her current ever growing and ever worsening email scandal.

Perhaps, as one of Hillary's most argent defenders here on this board, you'd defend that, what I would consider as a legitimate assertion, if you can, or if you dare.

How is it that Hillary isn't an unethical, dishonest lawyer?
How is it that she hasn't conspired to violate the Constitution?
How is it that she hasn't conspired to violate the rules of the House?
How is that that she hasn't violated the rules of the Committee?
How is that that she hasn't violated the rules of confidentiality?

I see nothing BUT these things in her colored and colorful history?

And yet, there are people, such as yourself, that believe she's the perfect candidate for this most powerful elected office on Earth. How is that?
Click to expand...
Sorry, its not worth my time and energy. Why is it you believe this guy? There have been so many stories about the Clinton's over the years it's hard to keep track of them all. Most of them are false.
 
pbrauer said:
Sorry, its not worth my time and energy. Why is it you believe this guy? There have been so many stories about the Clinton's over the years it's hard to keep track of them all. Most of them are false.
Click to expand...

(waves hands) "Don't pay attention to that man behind the curtain!"

Sure Pete. Sure.

It's not a surprise to me that Hillary is all those things. It'd be really bad for her even if only 1/2 of them are true.

What's a surprise to me is that you suspend disbelief as if it's some sort of movie in a theater.
 
eohrnberger said:
(waves hands) "Don't pay attention to that man behind the curtain!"

Sure Pete. Sure.

It's not a surprise to me that Hillary is all those things. It'd be really bad for her even if only 1/2 of them are true.

What's a surprise to me is that you suspend disbelief as if it's some sort of movie in a theater.
Click to expand...

Why don't you stop with the condescension, face it you don't like Hillary so you are willing to believe anything that is negative about her. You've advanced some the crapola yourself. The fact is you don't know if any of it true. Making up stories about the Clinton's has become a cottage industry. In my book she's innocent until proven guilty and that is that.
 
Grim17 said:
It's no surprize that you skipped the sentence that followed:

"If you disagree, then by all means test me on that claim."​


It's what I expect from the left.
Click to expand...

Test you Grim???? You've got to be kidding me, you can't tell when James O'Keefe is scamming you. You can't see the 14-year-old girl should have never been touched by the deranged cop as she was leaving the pool in Texas.

What would we use to score this test of yours?
 
pbrauer said:
Why don't you stop with the condescension, face it you don't like Hillary so you are willing to believe anything that is negative about her. You've advanced some the crapola yourself. The fact is you don't know if any of it true. Making up stories about the Clinton's has become a cottage industry. In my book she's innocent until proven guilty and that is that.
Click to expand...

There's innocent until proven guilty and there's willful denial. I see you and many other Hillary supporters as being in the latter. How much benefit of the doubt would be extended to any non-liberals and non-progressives in similar situation? Not much, I'd wager, so that's pretty clearly hypocritical.

Given Hillary's long and corruption ridden history of alleged public service it seems impossible that former applies, just a far far far too shady and suspicious clouds surround her, as if it's a manifestation of the alleged, yet to be proven, and baseless 'right wing conspiracy' so often claimed.
 
Grim17 said:
It's no surprize that you skipped the sentence that followed:

"If you disagree, then by all means test me on that claim."​


It's what I expect from the left.
Click to expand...

Yes the intelligence to strike at the core, it's what we do. The river in Egypt beckons you.
 
Top Cat said:
Yes the intelligence to strike at the core, it's what we do. The river in Egypt beckons you.
Click to expand...

Those who shoot their mouths off and can't back up their BS is more like it.
 
eohrnberger said:
There's innocent until proven guilty and there's willful denial. I see you and many other Hillary supporters as being in the latter. How much benefit of the doubt would be extended to any non-liberals and non-progressives in similar situation? Not much, I'd wager, so that's pretty clearly hypocritical.

Given Hillary's long and corruption ridden history of alleged public service it seems impossible that former applies, just a far far far too shady and suspicious clouds surround her, as if it's a manifestation of the alleged, yet to be proven, and baseless 'right wing conspiracy' so often claimed.
Click to expand...

You make great strawman arguments. Tell you what, you vote for who you want to vote for and I will vote for the person I want. Deal???
 
Grim17 said:
This guy is such a partisan joke...

Click to expand...


why are people so upset over benghazi is such a non-issue where were these people when 9/11 happened? nobody ever questioned the bush administration over that, like they did over this non-issue, yellow rag, witchhunt, of a goose chase, called benghazi
 
eohrnberger said:
I this pretty much means that Snopes is in the tank for liberals. Of course, that's really not news.


Not sure if that's a legitimate unbiased source anymore, if it ever was, and appears they have a mean streak in them, putting people with whom they disagree with at risk.

If you read the Snopes piece on this, it's an attempt at discrediting Zeifman's assertion about Hillary, that "she was a liar. She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer, she conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the Committee, and the rules of confidentiality." on the basis he didn't have power to fire her, and not those assertions themselves.

Check me if I'm wrong, but isn't Zeifman's assertion kinda separate from if he fired her or not, or was able to fire her or not?
Click to expand...

I love it.

"Does Source X contradict my claims? If yes, then Source X is in the tank for liberals and can thus be overridden by my own bull****."

Citing the ****ing Free Republic to debunk Snopes is laughable.
 
When your claim to fame is interrupting your guests as a journalist he is a tragic, biased idiot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom