Print

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

[UXLZ]

Hm, I'm surprised to see such a seemingly good article from a major news source. It's not even partisan!

I saw that somewhere else, I'm sure it isn't the washington post because I have most of their site  blocked via noscript due to the annoying popup shit they have.

Curious if you saw my comment about Clinton fighting for children's rights since the 60's and such, though she touched on it a bit during the debate earlier, she should talk about that more I think, given all the people talking about her as an uncaring corporate puppet and such. Dislike her all you want, but before equating the two make sure you check and see how much Trump has done to help anyone besides himself.

And my response to that is that Hitler also did some good things. What's your point? That soulless monsters know that acting purely like soulless monsters isn't a very good idea?

[Neonivek]

Well what evil thing did Hillary Clinton do?

Outside the baby eating of course.

No need to bring trump into it (even though by me mentioning it I am) given the looooooooong list of stuff he personally did... maliciously.

[UXLZ]

Well, what evil thing did Hitler do, before Hitler did all those evil things? Clinton hasn't had her time to shine.

[UXLZ]

If you remove the straight-military blocs from that chart (there's only 2 or so), she actually does seem to hold, if not the most amount of time "on the job", at least something close to that.

Well, if we're going to be selectively removing things it makes a lot more sense to remove all of the time where it was just Hillary being married to Bill while he was in office, no?

And as the article mentions, this is presidents. Not candidates. Presidents.

[Sergarr]

Well, what evil thing did Hitler do, before Hitler did all those evil things? Clinton hasn't had her time to shine.

Dude. She was in positions of power for, like, more than a decade now. We saw what she was trying to do with it, and, while it wasn't perfectly stellar (she did vote for Iraqi war at the time), it was pretty okay, I'd say even good.

Stop trying to think that, just because she's a little bit mechanistic in her behavior, she will go full "ANNIHILATE USA" the moment she becomes POTUS. Hitler was not a soulless monster. Hitler was a very, very passionate person who really, truly, religiously believed what he praised. He was, thus, the very opposite of Hillary, by your definition.

You seriously sound really irrational here. Like, do you think she's going to personally kill you?

[misko27]

Well, what evil thing did Hitler do, before Hitler did all those evil things? Clinton hasn't had her time to shine.

Neither have you, but this is America pal. In this country, you are presumed innocent until proven Hitler.

[UXLZ]

Literally removed 2 cases of dudes who were in the military for 40 years and you're crying foul. Out of a list of 40-something individuals.

At one point you have to look yourself in the mirror and ask whether this is getting you anywhere. You've managed to convince yourself that Clinton is Hitler based on what she hasn't done. You've managed to convince yourself that everyone's out to manipulate facts in favor of one candidate or another, and that everyone's lying or misleading all the time. You have more in common with people who think 9/11 was an inside job than the rest of the electorate.


Do you really want that to be your life? There's healthy skepticism and then there's paranoia. This is paranoia.

Hey, I removed one case of a woman being married to a dude who was in office for (12?) however many years, and you're crying foul.

What, no, I don't think she's actually Hitler. Trump has more similarities at the very least. What I'm trying to illustrate is that doing good things doesn't mean one can't also do bad things. It was a counterpoint to "if Clinton's so bad why has she helped with Children's rights" by saying "if Hitler's so bad why did he help with animal rights and environmentalism?"
I don't think 9/11 was an inside job. I do think there was a lot of weirdness around it, though. Especially with the NIST investigation, but I digress.

The line between skepticism and paranoia is the line between agreeing with you and not. =)

[Frumple]

... no, it's not. At all.

[Egan_BW]

No, the line between skepticism and paranoia is not the line between agreeing with Ispil or not, it's the line between agreeing with me or not. You do not agree with me, therefore you are a lunatic crazy conspiracy theorist and you need to get off my lawn.
Glad we could clear that up.

[Neonivek]

In this case it is more that there is a inference that Hilary is "bad" but without anything tangible as to why she is bad except hypothetical situations.

[UXLZ]

Well, what evil thing did Hitler do, before Hitler did all those evil things? Clinton hasn't had her time to shine.

Dude. She was in positions of power for, like, more than a decade now. We saw what she was trying to do with it, and, while it wasn't perfectly stellar (she did vote for Iraqi war at the time), it was pretty okay, I'd say even good.

Stop trying to think that, just because she's a little bit mechanistic in her behavior, she will go full "ANNIHILATE USA" the moment she becomes POTUS. Hitler was not a soulless monster. Hitler was a very, very passionate person who really, truly, religiously believed what he praised. He was, thus, the very opposite of Hillary, by your definition.

You seriously sound really irrational here. Like, do you think she's going to personally kill you?

Don't forget Libya. That wasn't very stellar, either.

I'm not comparing her to Hitler because I'm saying she's similar to Hitler. I'm comparing her to Hitler because "evil" people can do "good" things, and "evil" people aren't "evil" every waking moment of their lives.

Of course not. Not even kill me by proxy (unless it's accidental.) Aside from the fact that I doubt she's even aware of my existence, killing me wouldn't really gain her much. If anything it would probably detract from her, because I seem to be able to drive her supporters into a stronger fervor. Similar reason as to why she was probably praying Trump or Ted Cruz won the Republican nomination - only ones she could beat.

No, the line between skepticism and paranoia is not the line between agreeing with Ispil or not, it's the line between agreeing with me or not. You do not agree with me, therefore you are a lunatic crazy conspiracy theorist and you need to get off my lawn.
Glad we could clear that up.

Sorry, I got confused. T_T

[mainiac]

What I'm trying to illustrate is that doing good things doesn't mean one can't also do bad things.

Nihilism can't prove a point dude.

I dont know that you are the zodiac killer.  Sure I have no reason to think you are the Zodiac Killer but just because I dont have evidence doesn't mean you aren't true.

You are usuing the Zodiac killer argument.  Except it's a joke argument because it's so obvious it's wrong that nobody should ever fall for it.  But you aren't using it as a joke.

No, the line between skepticism and paranoia is not the line between agreeing with Ispil or not, it's the line between agreeing with me or not. You do not agree with me, therefore you are a lunatic crazy conspiracy theorist and you need to get off my lawn.
Glad we could clear that up.

No it's the line between spouting really stupid arguments with a straight face or not.

[Strife26]

Anyway, as long as we're talking about paranoia, between people calling this the "final" Presidential debate and Trump leaving us in suspense if he's going to actually care about election results, I'm considering my options for packing heavy and heading innawoods more than average.

[Egan_BW]

In this case it is more that there is a inference that Hilary is "bad" but without anything tangible as to why she is bad except hypothetical situations.

And Emails! Emails are totally tangible proof of something or other blah blah blah totally she's corrupt tho the FBI said so.
poe detector broken? I'll spell it out for you: no, Emails are shit that proves nothing.

[Neonivek]

In this case it is more that there is a inference that Hilary is "bad" but without anything tangible as to why she is bad except hypothetical situations.

And Emails! Emails are totally tangible proof of something or other blah blah blah totally she's corrupt tho the FBI said so.
poe detector broken? I'll spell it out for you: no, Emails are shit that proves nothing.

DID the FBI say she is corrupt?