Hillary as seen by a young female realist
 

How can a clear thinker argue with this?https://www.talkofthevillages.com/fo...lies/super.gif


tq

Dear Hillary Clinton: pay attention | NCRenegade

Tell me about the 7 circles of hell. Make it quick. I got study hall in 15 minutes.

Wow! They should put her on TV to let the whole country applaud her. I don't know if she wrote that, but she did it right. After hearing that, there is nothing that anyone could add to it. Thanks for sharing that.

Google "7 circles of hell"

Good Advice.
Turns out there are "9 Circles of Hell (Dante's Inferno)"
9 Circles of Hell (Dante's Inferno) - History Lists


That's inflation for you. I'm not sure how, but I'll bet Obama or Hillary has something to do with it. Connect the dots for me, I got lunch coming up.

So out of everything that this young lady articulated the only thing you want addressed is for someone else to explain to you what the "7 circles of hell" are? Is that your way of ignoring the truth so that you can continue to pretend that the facts are not the facts?

To my knowledge denial has never worked as a solution to a problem.

Keep this in mind: "you can ignore the truth but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring the truth".

tq

I hope she has sent a copy to Trump.

Finally someone has summarized all the bits and pieces we all know and or hear about the person called Clinton.

Even though I do not approve of the public use of the four letter expletive.....this was the most appropriate end to a speech I have ever heard.

:clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2:

Sounds and looks like she has blood coming out of whatever!

Poor thing!

Before I answer is this the real tq?

:thumbup:

I also thought frontal lobe was an interesting choice of acceptance in science. Apparently she believes in evolution. That's a big step, isn't it?

You need help. Another Hillary voter, I presume?

You would know. You seem to have that same problem.

NC Renegade.... here's their policy:

About NC Renegade.com

"NC Renegade presents commentary concerning issues affecting North Carolina. We have a policy of being “morally correct” when a controversial issue is presented. Comments are always welcome but we reserve the right to use our discretion on the validity of the comment’s intent. Comments which are intended to incite or provoke readers will not be posted."


Or maybe they will.

My question is where does Ted find this stuff?

I don't know, Chi. But, he has my vote.

It is fairly obvious that the girl has an abusive father and it is the Stockholm Syndrome that we see. Or she is my ex wife reincarnated. Either way it was entertaining to watch.

Apparently this subject is catching on.

"You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes. Blood coming out of her wherever."

Some people are saying that if you have no shame it's easy say anything and never give it a second thought. That's why we hear all the hate on the threads now. Trump gave the green light to say and do anything and call it passion and correctness that is not political.

Has decency disappeared?

Turn on your TV during prime time and you will see worst language, as well as teen sex situations and alcohol consumption. Hollywood seems to have a warped view of our kids, and now kids seem to think that this behavior is endorsed by adults. Why else would it be on TV?

Here's a man with a heart and decency:

What happened? Please don't blame the TV for the values of today.

Seems like a bunch of crap.

This is the real tq.

The truth is that I only could listen for 2 minutes.

I encouraged my children to think for themselves and to challenge my beliefs. But they had to be respectful. She was not.

On more then one occasion my children changed my mind. They turned out to be pretty smart.

I am still shocked and quite honored when my children tell me they still value my opinion. Before making important decisions they consult me even though they have far more education then me.

That's good enough for me.

The girl needs to know that what she said will be forever remembered. She will not be excused for being young and trying to sort things out. Look at how we judge people now.

Why be respectful to someone who is pretty much accurately described by the young lady?

If you don't understand by now, unless you are a child, I can't explain it to you.

I learned as a youngster that “sticks and stones may break my bones but words they never hurt me”. That has not changed. There are times when the only words that have any real impact are the words that may seem to be extreme. She has the right to speak as clearly and succinctly as she can to make her point. She spoke with clarity and her feelings are clearly understood. I also happen to agree with them.

I would not use the same words that she used because we are two different people, just as you and she are two different people. You have the right to explain your positions with the words that you choose. May you never regret the words you speak.

tq

Your position confuses me.
Are you encouraging children to speak their mind using any words they choose?
That's not my position. I think words matter and it's important to respect your elders. When they are older they will understand that life is a rite of passage and until you are of a certain age, until you have met many people that are different than you and until you have seen other places than your home you will not understand the meaning of "putting yourself into someone else,s shoes".

The question is how could a clear thinker think this isn't arguable? No need to answer tq. Send another video.

Isn't amusing how liberals can condemn this video of a young lady speaking a bit crass, and yet they swear by Freedom of Speech and have no problem with sex, vulgar language, and drinking being portrayed by teenagers on prime time TV? Does that not spell Hypocrite to anyone? If this young lady was speaking of Trump, the liberals on here would be applauding her. LIBERALS are at fault here for any degeneration or the younger generation.

This is put up as a serious discussion of Hillary Clinton's various legal problems. It just looks like some fouled mouthed young lady who is letting steam out.

Check the unbiased resources on just who is making the most factual statements in this campaign. It is almost never Donald Trump who is making factual statements.

As to shows on TV, the market drives those shows and not morality. I do believe that Donald Trump though makes full use of the kind of language, attitudes and morality you see in some of the worst sit-coms and reality shows as far as values are concerned.

The question is how could a clear thinker think this isn't arguable?
The question is difficult for me to understand. I'll try.

1]This question is for everyone and not just clear thinkers. Foggy thinkers have an opinion about clear thinkers too. You go to the doctor, the doctor knows more then you,
you act on his judgement because on the subject of medicine the doctor thinks more clearly then you. He knows more facts then you do so you believe in his opinion or you get a second opinion.

2] For a statement to be "not arguable" means the statement must be a fact. i.e. 2+3=5 is a fact, water freezes at 32 degrees is a fact, the moon revolves around the earth is a fact, evolution is a fact, global warming is a fact

This is where it gets sticky. Some opinions just look like facts.

Some of the statements expressed in the video are just that, opinions not facts.

To answer a poorly worded question. Yes
Clear thinkers can argue with the opinions expressed by the young woman.

As soon as the girl stated an opinion, you could stop the tape.
Even if you agree with here.

The FACT is that Hillary is a scumbag criminal that should be executed for treason. Wait, you want facts only. Fact, Hillary is a criminal. Opinion, Hillary is a scumbag that should be executed for treason. You can argue with my opinion, but you can't dispute the fact that she is a criminal.

Children at home should answer to their parent’s rules. Once they leave home they become responsible for choosing their own words. While I would not have chosen the same words that she did, she chose those words for whatever reason. If she speaks that way in her everyday life she will be handicapped and will ultimately end up learning the hard way. But that is her burden to carry.

Why are these attacks being directed at the messenger instead of the message? Are you unable to critique the message so you must attack the messenger? Everyone who has responded should be able to understand what her message was. And BTW, isn’t the purpose of communication (the use of words) to transmit a thought or idea? She clearly did it very well. While you may not like the words that she used, how about the message that she presented?

tq

Somehow they continually prefer to not adress the message. I think they only have so much they are allowed to address....follow the talking points and try to make everything fit. When they can't they go after the messenger, which is most of the time.

Must be terrible to be allowed such a narrow scope.

:thumbup:.....:agree:

A general response to a couple other posts but first a question: why are you afraid to acknowledge who you are? From what or whom are you hiding?

Back to the video -- The young lady sited a number of facts and then presented her thoughts and yes, those are her opinions, but the facts that she stated are still the facts. I played golf earlier today with a proud-to-be liberal who is a strong supporter of Obama as well as Hillary.

Following his statement that the economy was strong, with his evidence being a near 5% unemployment rate, and I pointed out (along with a couple other facts, one of which was that 5% is an outright lie) that the worker participation rate is at 63%, which is as lowest it has been since around 1977 his response was akin to “you are talking about some things that I know very little about”. His response to Benghazi was “that’s 3 years old now”. His response to the hundreds of emails found to be top secret and higher, was “they weren’t top secret when they were sent” ignoring the fact that all who received or sent those emails should have known that based on the content that they would be classified as such.

So once again, facts are facts, but they are seen through different filters.

A brief aside: evolution is not a fact and global warming is not a fact. “Darwin’s Theory of Evolution” is a theory. If you want to change “global warming” to “climate change” I will agree because climate has been changing over the last 4.9 billion years and it will continue to change long after mankind has exited the earth. How much influence man has on the current change is up for debate regardless of what some current pundits have to say. If I am remembering correctly, carbon dioxide was substantially higher 50,000 years ago than it is today. While I’m trusting memory to that statement I have added a quote from an introduction to “Carbon Dioxide through Geologic Time”.

Since of the Earth's atmosphere is out-of-balance with the conditions expected from simple chemical equilibrium, it is very hard to say what precisely sets the level of the carbon dioxide content in the air throughout geologic time. While scientists are fairly certain that a 100 million years ago carbon dioxide values were many times higher than now, the exact value is in doubt. In very general terms, long-term reconstructions of atmospheric CO2 levels going back in time show that 500 million years ago atmospheric CO2 was some 20 times higher than present values. It dropped, then rose again some 200 million years ago to 4-5 times present levels--a period that saw the rise of giant fern forests--and then continued a slow decline until recent pre-industrial time. (This was before mankind).

The above suggests to me that scientists still do not know for sure what affects the levels of CO2. I find it interesting that in the 70s it was global cooling, then it became global warming and then approximately 20 years ago (when it began to cool again) it was changed to “climate change”. In all three cases the solution has been the same, more government control.

That’s all for now.

tq

So if she said "In my opinion Hillary Clinton is dishonest and in fact my be a criminal. I do not respect her as a person and believe she should not be in politics." Isn't the message the same?

Do you see the difference?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton

Check out what Wikipedia has about Hillary Clinton.

Do her facts bother you?

if you are voting for Hillary because her vagina fits your incessant need for vagina....stick a thumb up your vagina and wiggle it around and see if you have a brain up there, Hillary you are a bag of fecal matter [that's her father's quote] his other quote is "if only your mother would have swallowed", the girls last last advise for Hillary is go **** yourself

Are you sure you want this person as your spokesperson?

Obviously you are not the person I thought you were.

Is she being passionate?

In my opinion Hillary has been a part of politics for many years, at least 40. She has strived to help the unfortunate throughout her entire life. Do read her bio in Wikipedia. She is not perfect but I do respect her as a person, realize that she is very educated and do believe she should be in politics.

The girl and I can agree to disagree on opposing viewpoints. I wish there was someone like Buckly to make your argument rather then that girl or the person who just keeps repeating that Hillary is a scumbag criminal. You and your party or the we the people group would get more respect from the liberals you and your's choose to call retarded and the moderates on both sides.

If she had said that do you think this post would have had any response to it at all?

You see, there IS a difference.

tq