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.

Originally Posted by Guest

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".

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

Originally Posted by Guest

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.

Originally Posted by Guest

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

.....

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

Originally Posted by Guest

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

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.

Originally Posted by Guest

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

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?

Originally Posted by Guest

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Guest

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?

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

Originally Posted by Guest

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?

No, her facts do not bother me.

As I said in post #25, I would not have used the same words that she used to make her point and I would never have advised her to use that kind of language.

While she is not my spokesperson I DO happen to agree with her conclusion as to the quality of person that Clinton is. She has a right to express herself as she likes, which she has done.

The video was intended to show the "author's" point of view on Clinton. That was done with precision. I complement the gal for her clarity.

Nobody has said anything about this young lady being anybody's spokespaerson or representative. Another re-statement of intent for the sake of a position.

While I do not condone her language and references she is on target with the message.

and I have a hard time listening to all the prudish commentary in this permissive, anything goes society of ours.

As an aside I tell my grandkids they cannot watch R rated movies while in our home. They come back and advise me there is nothing they can see or hear that that they haven't heard or seen in school.
They all know that does not cut it with me.

Back to the subject....the young ladies message....ON TARGET!

Originally Posted by Guest

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

And if Bernie made a speech using the same words wouldn't he called be a porno writer pervert?

"A look at Clinton’s political career provides a tougher explanation. Those younger voters who doubt her trustworthiness likely have no memory, or even casual acquaintance with, a 25-year history that includes cattle-futures trading, law firm billing records, muddled sniper fire recollections and the countless other charges of widely varying credibility aimed at her. They may even have suspended judgment about whether her e-mail use was a matter of bad judgment or worse.
But when you look at the positions she has taken on some of the most significant public policy questions of her time, you cannot escape noticing one key pattern: She has always embraced the politically popular stand—indeed, she has gone out of her way to reinforce that stand—and she has shifted her ground in a way that perfectly correlates with the shifts in public opinion."

Isn't this the same message? Can you see how "countless other charges of widely varying credibility" are the opinions of others and not the facts? What crimes have Hillary have been charged and convicted on? Give me a link.

The girl is wearing a beautiful crucifix. Does the irony escape you?


Read more: Hillary Clinton 2016: What’s Wrong with Hillary? - POLITICO Magazine
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

Originally Posted by Guest

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

"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, okay, and I wouldn't lose any voters, okay?" Trump said at a rally in Sioux Center, Iowa as the audience laughed. "It's, like, incredible."

It's incredible.

Originally Posted by Guest

"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, okay, and I wouldn't lose any voters, okay?" Trump said at a rally in Sioux Center, Iowa as the audience laughed. "It's, like, incredible."

It's incredible.

Small potatoes. Does the word "analogy" elude your intellect?