A lesson in reading ....words like "furious", "blew her top", "notorious temper". "short-fused. tirade", "behind her target's back", "dressing down", "shouting and screaming",. "outburst", "lashed out", "vicious streak of humiliating profanity", are emotional charged words and dysphemisms...and lessen the credibility of the article because they are clearly biased in my opinion. I probably missed a few others....and some of it even behind closed doors? LOL!
Where is the evidence? What is the story about? What is the conclusion? Is it just a Hillary bashing article?
posted on July 30, 2002 08:48:59 AM new
The newspaper had an article about how Hillary was "remaking" herself from liberal to "moderate"! Just another low-life scheming politician tainted by fiscal scandals, just like ALL the rest.
posted on July 30, 2002 08:51:25 AM new
Right up there with Bush & Cheney calling someone an A$$HOLE over the air. Or is that okay because it wasn't an opponent?
.
Reality is a serious condition brought on by a lack of alcohol in the system
posted on July 30, 2002 08:59:54 AM new
More reading points...
reportedly...by who?
said to be...by who?
who are the witnesses?
events that have been ignored by the press....that's interesting!
and an author trying to sell a book was "shivering "
posted on July 30, 2002 09:17:46 AM new
See...my point.
Doesn't matter what the clinton's do or say....it's glanced over with, protected by, justified, etc.
Doesn't matter how long ago she said those words....shows a state of mind...how one feels/thinks. Otherwise, they wouldn't have come out of her mouth. There's a word for that.
Helen - Try not to teach me anything okay? It's getting boring. And she did say these things to people. Rather than trying to teach me how to read, why don't you email and ask the people she said them to so you can verify her 'rages'. They're documented by many. Go to the publishers and ask why all these books, publications can be written reporting this and more, if they are true. There are slander and libel laws you know. Haven't seen the clinton's suing any of the authors yet.
posted on July 30, 2002 10:00:29 AM new
<Linda's quote>
"Helen - Try not to teach me anything okay? It's getting boring. And she did say these things to people. Rather than trying to teach me how to read, why don't you email and ask the people she said them to so you can verify her 'rages'. They're documented by many. Go to the publishers and ask why all these books, publications can be written reporting this and more, if they are true. There are slander and libel laws you know. Haven't seen the clinton's suing any of the authors yet."
<end Linda's quote>
Linda, I should not have to do the research for your thread.
If the news article that you select doesn't contain corroborated evidence, then just don't use it.
posted on July 30, 2002 10:37:42 AM newIf the news article that you select doesn't contain corroborated evidence, then just don't use it.
Good job of moderating Ms Helenjw, keep up the good work. But then Linda started the thread, but keep moderating and correcting, dat's your job
I think I noticed on all your Bush bashing threads (and there's a plenty) where you've all gone on, without your so called corroborated evidence, and you just don't use it, you abuse it
posted on August 2, 2002 04:36:07 AM new
Oh Lordy...that is almost a credible piece of prose. LMAO
[i]Doesn't matter what the clinton's do or say....it's glanced over with, protected by, justified, etc.
Doesn't matter how long ago she said those words....shows a state of mind...how one feels/thinks. Otherwise, they wouldn't have come out of her mouth. There's a word for that.[/i]
Come on...Clinton bashing has grown so old...if you cannot find enough accurate stuff, just make it up and someone, some where will believe it and post it like it makes any sense or has any credibility or validity. And them scream like heck if anyone says anything about Bush...
For eight years conservatives investigated, at an enormous cost, everything and anything about the Clinton administration. Now, when there is cause to investigate the Enron scandle and how much input Enron officials had in our energy policy or how much the administration knew in regards to 9/11 they whine and cry about partisan politics. And a few still try to avoid the problems that have been exposed by blaming the Clinton's or slandering them. If that does not work they will wave the flag and tell you how unpatriotic it is to talk against a sitting President...oh the irony
And the stupidity.
Please call me Charlotte so I don't have ta change my ID.
posted on August 2, 2002 07:54:26 AM new
Charlotte - Hillary is not yesterdays news. She is currently a senator. She plans on running for president. She's fair game for anyone who hopes that she NEVER becomes president.
While those on the other side of the isle can post whatever they want, when anyone [myself this time] posts articles that show the other side and their faults it's always attacked. So...have fun. You claim this source is slanted. Well...surprise surprise. And the one's used by the other side aren't? Of course they are.
While you may judge Newsmax an unworthy sourse, others do not. Newsmax is similiar to the Drudge Report. Few stories on his site are exclusives, but facts are taken from other more excepted sources.
If one clicks on the URL you posted and checks out who made these statements [presented facts about Hillary] they aren't people from Newsmax.
For example:
First article: Was a comment by Peter Roff a UPI national political analyst. And his statement was copyrighted by UPI.
--------------------
Second article: A Weekly Standard editor told Greta Van Susteren [from Fox News] this information.
--------------------
Third article: Was a keynote speech at a forum for presidential candidates for the DLC in NYC,
-----------------------
Forth article: This Hillary statement was make to WI Sen. Russ Feingold's face and witnessed by people there who told this to the Assoc. Press and NY Daily News.
----------------------
Then other things were reported by the late author Barbara Olson in her Clinton Biography "Hell to Pay".
---------------
Another author Gail Sheehy [author of Hillary's Choice"] says Carolyn Huber told her these things. Huber was Hillary's longtine aide.
------------
Dick Morris - I think we all know who he is. Says in one of those articles that while the Clinton's have applied to be reimbursed for their attorneys fee, they never paid a penny out of their pocket. He states they've only paid the lawyers a million dollars and that came out of their legal defense fund. Not their own pockets.
------------------
Then Peter Paul - who's account of illegal clinton fund-raising practices is being taken more seriously by the justice department in recent months. She failed to report over $2million in cash [and in kind] contributions to the Hillary 2000 Senatorial campaign.
So...it's not all old news. And because Newsmax takes issues and
reports them, states the sources who made those statements, doesn't make them untrue.
So all are free to read or not read, believe or not believe statements many have made about Hillary. I made this post because she has twice this week lost her cool [in the last couple of weeks] and it's been in the news....not just on Newsmax.
And I was surprised to read what she called Mr. Fray, says a lot about her prejudices.
posted on August 2, 2002 08:43:05 AM new
Helen - Are you referring to when you [and krs] post articles from Cheryl? Tell me please, she's not slanted. But many here believe that every word she says is written in stone. That her twist on any subject is the ONLY truth. She's just one person giving her opinion.
[That's one example of what I'm saying.]
You're great at posting urls, but I find it telling that you don't choose to answer questions when they are ask of you in threads. Can't you accept that there are people who don't see things the same way you do? Can't you be a little open to the fact that different people hold different opinions on the various subjects?
posted on August 2, 2002 09:20:35 AM new
Cheryl's articles are focused on significant and current issues and those people who are involved in these issues.. That's the difference.
Nearly every writers opinion is biased. In order to understand what is really happening, a critical and skeptical reading of all news stories is necessary.
If you want to defend George Bush, why are you focused on Hillary Clinton? It would be just as inappropriate if I chose to discuss Nancy Reagan's temper in an effort to bash Bush.
Hillary is busy doing a fantastic job as you can see if you will read the links that I have posted above. In the story that you posted, I did not see any credible criticism of Hillary's job performance.
posted on August 2, 2002 09:29:00 AM new
Are the Republicans that DEATHLY afraid of Hillary??? Why?? She's Not the same Whipping Post her Husband was, I know because she hasn't Screwed Up (no pun Intended...Maybe) Like Bill....But what are They REALLY afraid of???
posted on August 2, 2002 09:48:24 AM new
Helen - I don't know how to get through to you. Those articles that I listed in my previous posts are current issues. The other posts I made are about Hillary.
Hillary is going to be running for president. There are many things that went on in the clinton administration that I didn't agree with. I figure her policies if elected, her [IMO] underhanded ways, will again be brought upon our country should she be elected. So many people will be using the clinton administration, and what happened during that time, to form an opinion on whether or not they will vote for her. Is Nancy going to be running for president too? LOL
And because you might prefer to ONLY have certain threads on this board, that's not the way it works. We're all free to post whatever we like.
And because you agree with Cheryl's 'take' on any issue, doesn't give it any more credibility than one printed by an oposing view. It's still one persons take on any issue.
Take for example.... I asked why Rubin shouldn't be called to testify, in the corporate wrongdoing. Asked what was the reason both sides shouldn't be called upon to answer about their involvement. No democrat [or anyone for that matter] responded. Could it be because some here couldn't stand to hear that someone on 'their side' might have also played a part in these corporate wrongdoings?
I am definitely not opposed to any thread on any issue. But I have the right to state my opinion like everyone else here. I'm sure that you will understand that.
posted on August 2, 2002 10:20:44 AM new
Helen - Well maybe we're going to be able to get this worked out after all.
Sure you have a right to post your opinion, as do I. What I'd appreciate from you is that you stick to the subject you're disagreeing with. Work at not insulting me personally, my spelling, my reading abilities, my comprehension, etc. But rather address the issue you disagree with.
It has never bothered me that you [or anyone else] disagree(s) with me.
posted on August 2, 2002 12:04:38 PM new
If we can manage to do that, Linda, we will be the most extraordinary posters on the Round Table. LOL!
Actually, I am sorry if I insulted you because I really did not intend to do that. I just wanted to give you some advice that I learned in a journalism class. In order to use fallicies effectively, you have to be very skilled and a lot of reporters aren't.
Yesterday, for example, I was directed to read an article in which the writer had won several journalism awards but he had used what is commonly referred to as an either or fallacy....you either believe this or you believe that...no alternatives allowed.
And he had used others that were not noticed. But he got his point across to a lot of people and won the Kennedy Journalism award.
Now, I would like to give you a sincere compliment, Linda. I have noticed that when the "group" gangs up on me that you do not engage in that behavior and I appreciate that.
posted on August 9, 2002 10:44:22 PM new
Aw shucks, Linda K! Do you mean to tell us that Hillary is behaving like THE MEN do?! You mean she has a temper? And a mind of her own? Pooh.
Women are SUCH EASY TARGETS TO DEMONIZE, aren't they? The veterans, God bless 'em, are STILL, even as we speak, ragging on Jane Fonda, even producing those stupid bumper stickers. Every small-minded group has to have one person to demonize, and women are so easy!
I hate to see a woman do that to another woman, Linda K. Find a man--any man--and pick on him for a while.
We Democrats aren't picking on Laura Bush. We all know she smokes cigarettes on the sly but we're not making a big deal out of it, although she's such a good little girl.
