Language is personal, and language is evolving. An informal poll of several friends and employees tells me that detest is usually a stronger word than hate, if only because it is used much less frequently, and therefore, is a more deliberate word choice. “Hate” is used offhandedly, as in “Oh, I hate doing the dishes.” Comedians start many jokes with “Don’t you hate it when…?”. Those take on a darker meaning when “hate” is replaced with “detest”.
Anyway, minor point, and I can accept that in your usage, detest is a weaker word than hate, and simply means “Disapprove of.”
I assume that, as my questioning of your word choice is your only vocalized disagreement, you agree with the rest of my response to your challenge?
The analogy is more like one who has been accused, repeatedly, by those who have voiced their detestation of her, of embezzling, but has never been proven, versus one who not only was proven to have embezzled more than she is accused of, but also stole your shirt.
And you have to pick one.
As far as her having been in the public spotlight longer, that’s true, but I don’t see it as as much as a negative.
That’s not an honest summary of what Comey said. it’s not an issue of nuanced meaning. It’s an untruthful summary.
Right?
Now, if one weighs this against Trump’s mountains of lies, we clearly see that Clinton is the amateur in the dishonesty department. But that does not transform her into someone “as honest as she has been able.”
I assume your problem with the statement is the “Director Comey said my answers were truthful, and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people” part, and the rest is alright?
Break it down… “Director Comey said my answers [to the FBI, who said that they had no basis to believe she lied to them]were truthful, and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people [when she said that she was not aware of any classified info in her emails].”
It is a simple answer to a complex question. So, do I think that everything she says is 100% accurate and true? Not really. Do I feel that she is as honest as she is able in a world where things don’t always have simple answers that are right? Yep.
You really feel that this is being as honest as she was able to be?
Comey’s summary was very clear on the lack of criminal liability – a point I absolutely agree with and, indeed, made months ago.
But her summary was not “as honest as she was able to be.” Your parsing of her remarks is very focused and narrow; a reasonable listner would conclude that she was saying Comey endorsed her claims to the public, as opposed to her private responses to the FBI. I can’t dispute a defense that there is technical accuracy in your clarification, but absolutely reject your conclusion that this represents “as honest as she was able to be.” She was certainly able to say, “Director Comey identified unequivocally that there was classified material present in the e-mail set. While I was unaware of it then, I now am aware of it, and my earlier blanket denial was in error.”
Of the two statements – her actual one and my notional one – which is the more honest?
I certainly don’t deny that she puts as positive a spin on things as she can. Of the two statements, both I see are technically accurate, but your notional one is not as positive.
She lives in a world of CYA and couched statements. While it would be great if all politicians were entirely on the level, and entirely honest and open in all their statements, that’s not the country we have ever lived in. I expect her, and everyone else(running for any political office), to stretch the truth as much as possible to put herself in the best possible light, just as her enemies stretch the truth as much as possible to disparage her.
This is actually quite wonderful, thank you, I am a liberal and have never read this speech before and it totally changes how I perceive Clinton. The Iraq War vote was a thorny stick in my side about her past, I couldn’t defend her much against charges of her hawkishness, but this speech puts that into context. I’ll amend my future arguments to include this. She wasn’t for war, she was for a diplomatic solution first, similar to the one we had before in Bosnia, and it clearly shows she’s no warmonger. Plus, we all know from history that GWB lied to the whole nation by trotting out trusted general Colin Powell to lie to everyone about those mobile chemical weapons labs. I forgive Clinton for her vote. Actually, there’s nothing to forgive, I was the one who was wrong, I should be apologizing to her.
And it made sense at the time. You have a president who enjoyed a 90% approval rating and a country eager to band together after the worst attack in our history. You trusted him when he stood on the rubble of the WTC and refused to back down. As an American, that was a powerful moment. And you trusted him that he was going after the right people. He said Saddam was connected to 9/11, he said Mohammad Atta met in Baghdad prior to 9/11. Plus you had the CIA saying it and then Colin Powell, it seemed like a slam dunk. Plus, we all know Saddam was a bad guy and hey, we actually sold him weapons in the 90’s so of course we knew he had it. The vote was a bullied and lied to mistake for everyone, I don’t hold Clinton at a higher standard when she says that her president told her and the American people a blatant lie like that
I disagree with “this day and age”, as I think politics has been a game of half truths since well before the founding of this country, so if you insist, I could go with “as honest as she is able to be, while being a politician in this world.”
You should vote for Hillary because she will deregulate government so that they cannot peer into your bedroom to see what type of cardboard tube you want to stick up your ass. Everyone has the right to stick whatever paper product they want up their own ass until it gets soggy from overuse. Your fetish would be accepted under a Clinton administration, as natural as the trees used to make the fine cardboard tubes that you like to stick up your ass
For 25 years Clinton has been fighting to protect cardboard tube loving Americans, even when it was illegal, even when it was inconvenient. Trump has said he would throw people like you in jail where, ironically, much more cardboard tube would be stuck up your ass
B…but… but… Trump can’t lack policy depth and sound judgement. Billionaire! Lots of companies! Wrote Art of the Deal all by his lonesome! Three-dimensional chess! Five steps ahead! Look how well-behaved his kids are!
What about wholesale invention of life-threatening scenarios that never happened? (Sniper fire at herself and Chelsea in Bosnia.) I don’t know of any other politicians who’ve ever been caught ‘stretching the truth’ like that.
Then, when exposed by Sinbad she lied again and said she had merely misspoken, a lie backed up by her husband when he claimed she was exhausted from campaigning (during a campaign, btw, when she was running ads portraying herself in a dress and jewelry in the Oval Office adeptly handling some crisis at 3 a.m.). It turned out she’d been telling this story over and over at different campaign stops and had been doing so for days.
The hatred/dislike for Hillary Clinton is long-standing and driven by the things I listed upthread, of which her propensity for lying is only a part. This resentment doesn’t simply evaporate because someone who’s a bigger liar suddenly steps onto the national stage.
What she said was, ““I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.””
Now, she did go to Bosnia, right? Her landing in Bosnia was one of those fast combat dive landings that they do when under threat of fire. Her briefing on the plane told her that there was a threat of sniper fire. She was wearing a flak jacket and was in the armored cockpit for the landing, because of the possible threat. There was a very short greeting ceremony, that was rushed through, and they were hurried into armored cars to get to the base.
At most, a bit of a misremember, at worst, a bit of exaggeration. Whole cloth would be something entirely different.
They did not run with their heads down. She (followed by her daughter, no less) casually exited the helicopter and strolled nonchalantly toward the landing ceremony.
Speaking of which:
There wasn’t ‘supposed’ to be a landing ceremony, there was a landing ceremony.
They didn’t forego the ceremony; they participated in it.
They did not rush through the ceremony or get hurried into armored cars.
‘Whole cloth’ is a perfect description of what she used to make that story up.
And she told it over and over again until busted for it, whereupon she and her husband both began to lie about how and why (and how often) it happened.
The clip that you linked to was much more of a compilation of sorts, so it is hard to get a good idea of how quickly things moved, and how rushed things were, but we were talking about her exit from the plane, not the helicopter. (She took the helicopter from that base to two other bases in the area.) I have read excerpts from other who were there, and they remember the briefing of snipers before landing, they remember hillary being protected in a flak jacket, they remember being briefed that they may need to make a “beeline to the armored vehicles parked nearby.”
Which is more likely, that, more than a decade later, she misremembered details of her exit, or that she decided to make up a lie that would be easy to disprove?
Keep in mind, that in this thread, you have made the mistake of forgetting that we were talking about a plane, and only a few hours later, you remembered it as a helicopter. Was that a mistake, or were you coming up with a story out of whole cloth? I would be more inclined to assume it was a mistake, than a lie, why does hillary not get the same courtesy?
Do you have a video of you holding, or otherwise touch a soggy, cardboard tube? I’m sure the answer is yes, but can we see it? I’m curious as to the radial width of your preferred tube to rectum ratio. Just how big can you stretch that thing anyway?