Guest Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 Why weirdly? Why would anyone with any memory at all trust a republican witchhunt against the Clintons after the last dozen? We been down this road before. I'll believe it when there's something concrete. It depends what you mean. If your point is that there's no good reason yet to think that this derails Clinton's campaign, I'd agree. But if you think this doesn't have some "where there's smoke there's fire" potential, I'd disagree. It is a problematic sign at the least. And I think if you reverse the parties it would seem shady as fuck. It absolutely smacks to me of a sense of entitlement and complacency that is even more bizarre considering that she's obviously known she's been running since forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 It depends what you mean. If your point is that there's no good reason yet to think that this derails Clinton's campaign, I'd agree. But if you think this doesn't have some "where there's smoke there's fire" potential, I'd disagree. It is a problematic sign at the least. And I think if you reverse the parties it would seem shady as fuck. It absolutely smacks to me of a sense of entitlement and complacency that is even more bizarre considering that she's obviously known she's been running since forever. I don't think there's any "where there's smoke there's fire" going on here because the GOP has been pointing at any random cloud in the sky yelling "SMOKE!!!!" over the Clintons for over 2 decades now. Sorry, there are no benefits in my doubts for this shit anymore. Generally, this doesn't smack of entitlement or complacency, it smacks of "this is normal" (which is true as far as we know) and a certain level of per-emptive defence (which is totally understandable and justified given history). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Once and Future King Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 I'm no lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn.I think the whole email thing is bad business. Even if there's nothing incriminating, why get rid of them? I'm not as upset about the personal server. What I find harder to believe is that no one knew about her private email and server. I think people knew and it just wasn't that big of a deal.I love that entry. I agree. I dont even need to read it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castel Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 I don't think there's any "where there's smoke there's fire" going on here because the GOP has been pointing at any random cloud in the sky yelling "SMOKE!!!!" over the Clintons for over 2 decades now. Sorry, there are no benefits in my doubts for this shit anymore. Generally, this doesn't smack of entitlement or complacency, it smacks of "this is normal" (which is true as far as we know) and a certain level of per-emptive defence (which is totally understandable and justified given history). Pre-emptive defense in what sense? The GOP will slam me therefore I should get rid of official emails? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 Pre-emptive defense in what sense? The GOP will slam me therefore I should get rid of official emails? Pre-emptive defence in the sense of making sure you have control over the security of your own communications. And there's not yet any hard evidence she got rid of any official emails since her ... camp I guess claims that they turned over everything to the state department like they were supposed to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 Commodore - I think there's something to this Clinton email stuff as I touched on before, and I think some of my liberal compadres are being weirdly dismissive of it. But switching gears, I have another question for you. Do you like Mark Levin? This Mark Levin? It's such a stupid tactic by the left. "Hey, you often agree with what this guy says, now answer for this other outrageous thing this guy said!" Conor Friedersdorf is part of a cottage industry of "conservatives" that get paid by left media to trash their own side (David Brooks, Kathleen Parker, Michael Gerson, etc). Useful idiots for the left to quote and interview (Fox News has a few of these stooges for the other side). Writing an article about Ted Cruz and then trying to tar him with what some radio host said is a pathetic attempt at guilt by association. He wouldn't dare let Cruz's words stand on their own. Should we start attaching Ed "multiple suspensions" Schultz transcripts to articles about Elizabeth Warren? I like Levin's books. I like what his legal foundation has done for the cause of individual liberty. I don't care for his personality or his radio show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Once and Future King Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 Its more like, Ted Cruz yells. Mark Levin yells. If you like Cruz defend Levin. Also defend Lucy Ricardo and the woman from Psyco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ormond Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 Its more like, Ted Cruz yells. Mark Levin yells. If you like Cruz defend Levin. Also defend Lucy Ricardo and the woman from Psyco You're comparing Ted Cruz (or almost any politician) to one of the greatest comic characters of all time? What an insult to the one with red hair. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigima Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 It's such a stupid tactic by the left. "Hey, you often agree with what this guy says, now answer for this other outrageous thing this guy said!" Conor Friedersdorf is part of a cottage industry of "conservatives" that get paid by left media to trash their own side (David Brooks, Kathleen Parker, Michael Gerson, etc). Useful idiots for the left to quote and interview (Fox News has a few of these stooges for the other side). I know it's confusing, since you are normally sold a false bill of goods, but Friedersdorf is what someone who actually cares about individual civil rights looks like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Once and Future King Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 You're comparing Ted Cruz (or almost any politician) to one of the greatest comic characters of all time? What an insult to the one with red hair. :)Im a big enough man to know when I went to far. Sorry Lucy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 Levin's thing seems to be to try to make Rush look like a cuddly, carnival barker by comparison. Mark Levin is for the white, usually Christian, American male who is angry as Hell and not going to take it anymore. The it doesn't matter. In fact, the outrage itself seems to be the thing. Tribal rage packaged as con-con stuff. And the only thing that could possibly make the Levin listener more angry would be to suggest to them that maybe they shouldn't be so angry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 Its more like, Ted Cruz yells. Mark Levin yells. If you like Cruz defend Levin. Also defend Lucy Ricardo and the woman from Psyco Clearly, you never have actually seen psycho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 It's such a stupid tactic by the left. "Hey, you often agree with what this guy says, now answer for this other outrageous thing this guy said!" Conor Friedersdorf is part of a cottage industry of "conservatives" that get paid by left media to trash their own side (David Brooks, Kathleen Parker, Michael Gerson, etc). Useful idiots for the left to quote and interview (Fox News has a few of these stooges for the other side). Writing an article about Ted Cruz and then trying to tar him with what some radio host said is a pathetic attempt at guilt by association. He wouldn't dare let Cruz's words stand on their own. Should we start attaching Ed "multiple suspensions" Schultz transcripts to articles about Elizabeth Warren? I like Levin's books. I like what his legal foundation has done for the cause of individual liberty. I don't care for his personality or his radio show. I like Friedersdorf, but you are spot-on here. Concern trolling seems to be his main function Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 hmmm... http://www.isidewith.com/political-quiz?utm_source=outbrain&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=q_us_ob5 Dratted thing told me I was a member of the Green Party...though its not exactly a strong fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Durckad Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 hmmm... http://www.isidewith.com/political-quiz?utm_source=outbrain&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=q_us_ob5 Dratted thing told me I was a member of the Green Party...though its not exactly a strong fit. Got the Green Party as well. No real surprise there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 I got 96% green 88% dem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 Libertarians 96% Shocking, I know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
all swedes are racist Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 Lets Party! 94%Rad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prince of the North Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 95% Green, 89% Blue :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galactus Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 Green Party 87% Socialist 71%, Dems 69%, Reps 23%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.