Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[NullForceOmega]

You drop the hypocrisy first.  You've been the one resorting to personal attacks.  You've been the one posting snarky shit.  You lose the 'tude, then I will.

[Wolfhunter107]

Stop acting like someone is kicking your dog, there are people who don't like Hillary, get over it.

Drop the ridiculous hypocrisy and say the same thing to Redking?

It's not exactly brave of you to pass judgement on people you disagree with, dude.

Why should he system the same to Redking? He isn't the one who's going into passive-aggressive mode the moment anyone says anything that even sounds like it's negative towards Clinton.

[RedKing]

When people call Cameron a failure they are referring to a tangible outcome with clear results, the Brexit.  When they talk about Trump they are referring to the real policies he advocates.

Good point -- Trump is getting an unfair shake because he's being attacked for hypothetical failures of policies that haven't been enacted (or indeed, even properly detailed).



Seriously though....I think you're taking far too much umbrage at what was pretty obviously a joke about the Clinton Conspiracy mill.
Though we've had this line of argument ad nauseum and it's been the source of two thread lockages. So maybe best to just move on?

[mainiac]

Same bullshit every time.  Someone says shitty things about Clinton, I call them out on it and people pile on. 

[NullForceOmega]

Same bullshit every time.  Someone says something I don't agree with, I post snarky passive-aggressive crap and people pile on.   

Edit: You know the worst part about this go-round is that when you aren't posting on the subject of Clinton, I find you to have very solid insight and meaningful input on things.

[RedKing]

Same bullshit every time.  Someone says shitty things about Clinton, I call them out on it and people pile on. 

And you call them out on it when it's shitty things about Trump? When it was Cruz? Rubio? Bush? Sanders? Stein? Johnson?

I get that impugning Mrs. Clinton's honor is your berserk button, and that's why I've taken to avoiding it. But you can't get on a moral high horse and call others hypocrites over it. The Ameripol thread has always been a panoply of unflattering caricatures of major political figures, as is the norm for discussion of politics, well....pretty much everywhere since the dawn of human society.

Now...I politely suggest we move on. Especially since the two of us were asked to not even show our faces in here to begin with.

[Strife26]

Same bullshit every time.  Someone says shitty things about Clinton, I call them out on it and people pile on. 

You imagine someone says something shitty about Clinton, respond strongly, and then act like you're the world's saltiest martyr.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

[FLASHes Internally]

[Sergarr]

Looks like a good time to say shitty things about our candidate-in-white:

- She has terrible foreign policy judgment and has never met a war she didn't like - she's practically a female John McCain. Further, her record as Secretary of State is decidedly unimpressive and in some aspects totally abhorrent (refer to supporting the 2009 coup in Honduras);
- Her long defence of her Iraq War vote is a huge black mark against her. Again, bad judgment;
- She has said single payer health care will 'never, ever come to pass', which is an unacceptable capitulation to the worst aspects of America's public health debacle. America's healthcare system still sucks even with Obamacare, and this state of affairs should not be allowed to continue;
- She's unprincipled and opportunistic on some of the easiest moral/ethical questions there are - refer to her gay marriage stance, which only changed when public opinion did. And when called out on it, she refused to admit it; and
- This leads to her trustworthiness. She's a depressingly conventional politician in that regard and is given to bouts of dishonesty, like refusing to admit she 'evolved' on gay marriage (she totally did) or stupid lies like saying she was under sniper fire in Bosnia (she totally wasn't).

I mean, we can't just cite Trump all day 24/7, we have to adhere to the principle of equality, right?

[mainiac]

Redking I didn't imagine anything. You said bullshit. You just called  Clinton and Merkel the same as actual scumbags.

The thing about other candidates is y'all don't give them this level of unfounded bullshit usually. Occasionally you do and I do protest if I am checking the forum at that time. Have you not noticed my contdarian wet towel nature?


Sergarr if you think she has never seen a war she doesn't like then I ask you to read the senate speech she gave during the Iraq war vote.  There was no liking there.

If you don't like her giving an honest assessment of political reality why the fuck do you go and complain she is dishonest?

Clinton is a very honest politician. People are just bad at telling the difference between shitty politician and corruption.  You don't need to find corruption just find something else to investigate. So sadly predictable.

[RedKing]

Please provide any evidence that I said these people were all the same, other than that they are all public political figures that get lambasted regularly (WHICH WAS MY WHOLE FUCKING POINT). Or indeed, that I said anything about the character of the people in that list. (Granted, I've been pretty public in my dislike for Farage, but I've never had a real axe to grind with Cameron). I included Cameron on the list because people will casually refer to him as a pig-fucker, for instance.
 
You have a pet peeve about people reading shit into your words, well now you're doing the same thing.

[mainiac]

Oh the justification for treating them the same is that they are different?

Oh but I have such thin skin unlike you redking.

[RedKing]

Jesus wept. >_<

You're not even trying to understand.

[Rolepgeek]

But RedKing, all those people are actually worthy of harsh criticism and ridicule, unlike and indeed in stark contrast to [preferred political candidate]! Don't you see?

Granted, I do in fact believe something like that, but cognitive biases aren't something you escape from simply by knowing that exist. A lot easier to see harsh criticism or attacks on your candidate than someone else's, simply because it's more relevant to you.

When people call Cameron a failure they are referring to a tangible outcome with clear results, the Brexit.  When they talk about Trump they are referring to the real policies he advocates.

Clinton hasn't exactly been inactive in politics.

And you really are basically just confirming my point, which is that it's always easier to criticize the opposition and think it's fair, as compared to your candidate, for whom being compared to gila lizards is harsh and unfair and such a terrible thing for the Nazi Party which is your opposition to do. You know, with Trump being LITERALLY FIGURATIVELY HITLER, GUYS, and all.

[Flying Dice]

Jesus wept. >_<

You're not even trying to understand.

That was evident about ten iterations of this argument ago.