Stanek Sunday funnies 5-17-15
Good morning, and Happy Sunday! Here were my top five favorite political cartoons this week. Be sure to vote for your fav in the poll at the bottom of this post!
by Glenn McCoy at Townhall.com…
by Michael Ramirez at Townhall.com…
a twofer by Chip Bok at Townhall.com, the latter in regard to disparaging comments President Obama made this week about the rich sending their children to private schools and private clubs to avoid contact with the poor…
by Henry Payne at Townhall.com…
[polldaddy poll=8872771]
May.17, 2015 7:48 am |
Cartoons |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Change the way Boehner and McConnell think? What for? Its not like they actually stand up to Obama or have any convictions they will fight for.
Oh yes, good old George
http://spectator.org/articles/62734/bye-george
One of his “hatchet man” responsibilities was silencing the women who accused Bill.
It seems that those who truly engage in a “war on women” can look forward to promising careers as TV “journalists”. In addition to George we have former NY Governor Eliot Spitzer, aka Client No.9, who was notorious for his brutal beatings of call girls, so much so the ladies feared for their lives.
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/eliot-spitzer-end-his-show-on-current-tv/?_r=0
Surprise, surprise.
A conservative (more than pro-life site) takes an important issue that impacts abortion rates (poverty) and reduces the conversation to weekly cartoons.
I gotta vote for #1, as it literally made me laugh out loud.
Ex-GOP says:
Surprise, surprise.
A conservative (more than pro-life site) takes an important issue that impacts abortion rates (poverty) and reduces the conversation to weekly cartoons.
All of the personalities lampooned in these cartoons are ardent abortion supporters. It does not surprise us that they make foolish decisions in other areas of leadership.
I don’t get your remark about poverty and abortion. This seems to your reasoning:
1) Poverty causes women to seek abortion, so we need to end poverty.
2) The way to end poverty is to elect more Democrats.
3) This generation of Democrat politicians believe that promoting abortion is a vital and necessary part of ending poverty.
4) Yet somehow electing pro-abortion politicians will save lives in the end.
That might work, but forgive us for being a bit skeptical.
Most of us would rather elect pro-life Republicans, and then urge them toward responsible welfare reform. This seems to offer a better hope of success toward saving lives and fighting poverty.
For example, the Republicans might be more willing to work with churches and charities who have a better track record at dispensing help to the poor and the trafficking slaves than government agencies do.
Del
No sir – the GOP used to label themselves as compassionate conservatives, and still, many GOPers care about the poor through SMART programs. There’s a difference between promoting work programs for the poor to lift them out of poverty, and cutting welfare and food stamps in hopes of motivating people to better themselves. For instance, contrast the mean spirited, narrow minded approach of Walker with GOP Governor Kasich – http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2015/01/john_kasichs_new_coordinated_w.html
I don’t care as much as you think about political parties.
But I do think it is insane that pro-lifers have jumped on board with this new breed of conservative that wants to cut services to the very people that will need them if they choose to have their baby.
So more directly – there are a lot of pro-lifers who seem to be saying ‘We really want you to have your baby, but please know that we don’t think we should pay paying for your insurance, your child’s insurance, paid maternity leave at all, give you sick time or guarantee you any sort of living wage. But please, have that baby”.
No disconnect there?
We don’t mind paying and helping women to care for their children. Most of us donate willingly to charity centers, CPC’s, food pantries, and so on.
Some of us think that many government programs are not an efficient or effective way to achieve charity. Democrats insist that Planned Parenthood is a suitable recipient for our charity, but they refuse to help our Pregnancy Centers. Their charity is pitiless and deadly, and we want no part of it.
However, I do not recall anyone on this board urging the sudden cessation of government welfare programs. There was one cartoon suggesting that the welfare state enslaves people in poverty…. but that is a call for welfare reform, not an assertion that the poor are lazy or undeserving of our help.
We can see the results of Democrat “compassion” for the poor.
https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2014/01/08/the-war-on-poverty-has-been-a-disaster-for-taxpayers-and-for-poor-people/
Del –
Oh, it’s a call for welfare reform? Really? Where has that ever been stated? And what’s the ‘welfare reform’ that is being backed?
I mean, I’ve seen people say, on this board, that somebody shouldn’t have to pay for somebody else’s maternity coverage. I’ve seen people say a taxpayer shouldn’t have to pay for somebody else’s child tax credit. I’ve seen people say that somebody without insurance shouldn’t get treated even in an emergency situation. Just last week, truth said to get rid of HealthCare Reform, he’s fine with really ill kids losing their insurance. And on last week’s welfare post – there was a person who said exactly what you say isn’t being said – somebody used the word ‘lazy’ at least three times. Did you post against what the poster said? Did anybody?
Open your eyes Del.
Del: I do not recall anyone on this board urging the sudden cessation of government welfare programs.
No, but I certainly think that something has to be done. An example is with Social Security Disability. The unemployment rate went up during the post-real-estate-boom economic decline in 2007 and later. Of those collecting unemployment pay, roughly 25% somehow qualified for Disability, before their unemployment ran out. This is absolute BS.
We have over 14 million people getting disability checks every month. There are areas of the country where 1 in 4 working age adults get disability pay. (States can save money by taking people off welfare and putting them on disability.) This is a whole lot of scamming going on, and a government that is too stupid to say “no” when it needs to.
In 2011, 53% of the supposedly “newly disabled workers” were due to back pain, other musculoskeletal problems, mental illness, developmental disability, etc. 40 years earlier, it was 17.9%
It’s not like the average job is more physically demanding that it was in 1961. What’s happened is that disability has become a de facto welfare program for millions of people. The social security disability fund is due to run out of money next year, 2016. I doubt the gov’t is going to cut or stop the payments to people. They’ll probably take extra money from the social security retirement fund, hastening the time that the money runs out there, too.
I like #2. It depicts dems as willing to vote for liars. It’s also the party people run to if they support child-killing.
JDC: I gotta vote for #1, as it literally made me laugh out loud.
Ha! Agreed.
Ex-GOP: A conservative (more than pro-life site) takes an important issue that impacts abortion rates (poverty) and reduces the conversation to weekly cartoons.
Well, the Sunday funnies are a tradition, and politics has always been a fertile ground for cartoonists, and politics is a huge part of the abortion issue.
I think this Sunday thread often has good discussions.
Ex-GOP, it would be interesting to see a poll among “conservatives” on what they would choose to have fixed, if they could only pick one – the abortion issue, as they see it, or the problems with our federal gov’t, as they see them (or even one specific problem, there).
I don’t think it’s possible to keep the issues separate, really – to perhaps oversimplify it, how can one be both pro-life and an economic conservative? Is one willing to pay for other peoples’ kids? Is one willing to pay for an unlimited number of other peoples’ kids?
Change the way Boehner and McConnell think? – surely getting them to think at all should be the first priority.
It seems that those who truly engage in a “war on women” can look forward to promising careers as TV “journalists”. – I thought Fox already had a full complement.
Most of us would rather elect pro-life Republicans, and then urge them toward responsible welfare reform. This seems to offer a better hope of success toward saving lives and fighting poverty. – sounds like the ultimate self-defeating statement to me.
I like #2. It depicts dems as willing to vote for liars. – that would be because democrat voters know the lies are told for the…..um…..benefit of republican voters. In other words for good. Whereas too many republican voters aren’t even aware their favorite goppers are lying to them.
It’s also the party people run to if they support child-killing. – there are very, very few people who support infanticide. I don’t know of any democrat politicians who do.
Which republican president banned abortion?
Mary: We can see the results of Democrat “compassion” for the poor.
https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2014/01/08/the-war-on-poverty-has-been-a-disaster-for-taxpayers-and-for-poor-people/
Mary, I think we have to realize that gov’t programs will fail, to some extent. I’d say we have to realize that in the beginning, even as the programs are formulated. Trying to do too much, or to pretend like “everything can be fixed” is a recipe for disaster.
Let’s say the gov’t rolls out a program to “feed everybody.” There will be costs, of course. Whether it is stated or implied, it seems to me that the gov’t proceeds as if it will cost “X amount per person,” while usually under-estimating the amount, and pretending at the same time that everybody can be reached, with food.
In reality, not everybody can be fed. Some will be unable to be located, even after expensive searches. Some will refuse to eat. Rather than certain success and a true “expected yield” or “linear utility basis,” in the real world some failure is what is guaranteed, and decreasing marginal utility or a “logarithmic utility curve,” is what will be fact.
Sensible gov’t expenditures would proceed while being fully cognizant of those facts. Sounds odd and pretty hard, but if some people are not starving, then such a program will be too expensive, and not worth it for the people as a whole.
Then – in our real world – there is also the need to remove the incentive for people to stay on such programs, and there too it takes a hard look at things to get a truly worthwhile deal.
Reality,
Change the way Boehner and McConnell think? – surely getting them to think at all should be the first priority. On this we will definitely agree.
It seems that those who truly engage in a “war on women” can look forward to promising careers as TV “journalists”. – I thought Fox already had a full complement. No, the woman beaters go to progressive TV.
Doug,
To some extent? That is a very charitable assessment. It would be more accurate to say a colossal failure.
Mary, I wasn’t defending the way the programs have gone, thus far. Agreed, that as far as ridding the country of poverty, the gov’t has failed massively.
My point is that in the real world, some failure is to be expected, and spending more money to try and get around that certainty is nothing but folly.
Again, I know it sounds hard, but it is only worth it to try and help some of the people. Perhaps “most of the people” in certain situations. For people that can support themselves, there should be huge incentive to get off gov’t support. And that means it has to be tremendously painful, one way or another, to stay on gov’t support.
Doug,
On this we definitely agree.
No, the woman beaters go to progressive TV. – that doesn’t preclude what I said.
Does Fox have any sickos who get their thrills from beating women to a pulp?
I don’t know, probably.
We were talking of the war on women.
You are aware of the elements pertaining to that?
Assault is a crime and should be dealt with accordingly.
Fox is a republican mouthpiece.
The more extreme, swivel eyed segment at least.
The major proponents of the war on women.
Lots of them.
Reality,
Probably? Either they do or don’t. Which is it?
Sure I’m aware of the so called “war on women”. Apparently you don’t consider beating women senseless and threatening and intimidating them into silence to be part of that “war”.
I said I don’t know, but it wouldn’t surprise me.
When the “war on women” is discussed it is relation to the republican focus on restricting their rights and freedoms. A socio-economic and political battle.
Assault is a crime and should be dealt with accordingly.
It still wouldn’t preclude what I said anyway.
Reality,
OK, a socio-economic and political battle.
Would George’s efforts to silence Clinton’s accusers fall under that category?
What efforts?
Reality,
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/strange_bedfellow/1998/08/the_flytrap_blame_game.html
lol. I voted for #3.
http://i1377.photobucket.com/albums/ah56/porkloin1/News%20Hits%20Home_zpsctsvn4ih.png
When the news hits home.
Mary, there is nothing in the article you provide a link to that demonstrates that George did more than ‘quell’ anything. Nothing about any serious coercion on any level. Most certainly nothing about violence in any way. Looks like you’re trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.
Quite even voting this week, on the cartoons. A week prior, it was like 60% who voted for the Welfare “ball and chain” one.
And who are these 10% of people saying, “Yes, women’s hormones preclude them from being President”?
Interesting – http://aff.sagepub.com/content/30/2/200.abstract
Reality,
From my link:
But it smacks of hypocrisy for Stephanopoulos to “discover” in 1998 that Clinton is a lying, womanizing dog. He has, after all known this since 1992. Back then Stephanopoulos himself helped quell bimbo eruptions and parroted Clinton’s lying denials.
Where did I say anything about George and violence? No evidence of coercion? So he silenced these women by asking pretty please with sugar on top?
You’re the one who referred to him as a “hatchet man”. Why?
You then tried to equate George with Spitzer. Why?
All the article says is he “helped quell bimbo eruptions”. Bimbo? Does that mean the chap writing the article is sexist?
So he silenced these women by asking pretty please with sugar on top? – do you have evidence of anything else? One meek mention in one article. Seriously.
You are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.
Reality,
LOL. A hatchet man does the dirty work. He doesn’t literally chase people with hatchets. I should have clarified that for you.
I pointed out that despite being part of a “war on women” Spitzer and George were able to move on as tv “journalists”.
“Bimbo eruptions” was a term coined by Betsy Wright, a Clinton aide in 1992. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betsey_Wright
OK Reality, if you really think George said pretty please with sugar on top…..
Has Hillary or anybody else ever been able to tell us her greatest accomplishment as Secretary of State? Was it the reset button with Russia? Seriously, can anybody name any accomplishment at all?
Hillary said she would go even farther than Obama in pushing the illegal immigration amnesty. There isn’t much worse than having a president, sworn to uphold the law, giving illegal immigrants legal status ahead of the people that are trying to get here legally through our immigration system. It is really a crime.
A hatchet man does the dirty work. He doesn’t literally chase people with hatchets. I should have clarified that for you. – I know what a “hatchet man” does. I asked why you referred to George thus.
I pointed out that despite being part of a “war on women” Spitzer and George were able to move on as tv “journalists”. – yet there’s nothing that proves that George is part of the “war on women”.
OK Reality, if you really think George said pretty please with sugar on top… – well you’ve got nothing else.
Your statements about Hillary are hillarious truthseeker, they raise much hillarity.
I think Hillary’s greatest accomplishment as secretary of state is simply undoing the massive failure of the Bush years regarding foreign diplomacy, or whatever the Bush people claim they were doing.
No Reality, when I told you I never accused George of violence, you asked why I called him a hatchet man, even though you claim to know what a hatchet man is.
Of course, George only quelled “bimbo eruptions” and parroted Clinton’s lies. A true bastion of sensitivity toward women.
Like I said Reality, if you believe that….
Tut tut Mary. I didn’t say you had accused him of violence. You said One of his “hatchet man” responsibilities was silencing the women who accused Bill. which would be you referring to him as a “hatchet man”. I asked why you consider him a “hatchet man”. You still haven’t answered.
Of course, George only quelled “bimbo eruptions” and parroted Clinton’s lies. A true bastion of sensitivity toward women. – so, zero evidence that he is part of a “war on women”.
Like I said Reality, if you believe that…. – I didn’t say what I do and don’t believe, but it’s the only option you’ve offered.
“I think Hillary’s greatest accomplishment as secretary of state is simply undoing the massive failure of the Bush years regarding foreign diplomacy, or whatever the Bush people claim they were doing.”
Can you be more specific?
Reality 6:47PM
Mary, there is nothing in the article you provide a link to that demonstrates that George did more than ‘quell’ anything. Nothing about any serious coercion on any level. Most certainly nothing about violence in any way. Looks like you’re trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.
Mary 7:12PM
Where did I say anything about George and violence?
Reality 7:32PM
You’re the one who referred to him as a “hatchet man”. Why? You then tried to equate George with Spitzer. Why? –
Reality 9:19PM
Tut tut. You brought up George and violence. Not me.
Sure Reality, silencing and then parroting lies that discredit women accusing Clinton so as to cover up for him certainly would not be considered a war on women.
So you aren’t certain what you believe? You do consider “pretty please with sugar on top” a possibility?
silencing and then parroting lies that discredit women accusing Clinton so as to cover up for him certainly would not be considered a war on women. – you haven’t demonstrated that he did that.
So you aren’t certain what you believe? – incorrect assumption. I said I hadn’t said what I did or didn’t believe.
You do consider “pretty please with sugar on top” a possibility? – the harder you try to inveigle that there was more going on than there was the more appealing it becomes as a possibility.
truth
I think this article sums it up well – I’ll pull out a quote
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2013-04-03/clinton-legacy
“t is not that Clinton can’t point to some notable and enduring achievements. Because of her worldwide popularity and tireless travel — she set a new record for a secretary of state by visiting 112 countries — Clinton helped undo the damage that the habitual unilateralism of the George W. Bush administration had done to the global image of the United States. As Clinton put it to me in a 2010 interview, “My big-picture commitment is to restore American leadership, and I think that’s about as big a job as you can get. And everything I’ve done is in furtherance of that.”
This goal was shared by the whole administration. In his first term, Obama faced the daunting task of winding down two major wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He needed to contend with the reduction in U.S. leverage and prestige following the strategic mistakes and economic collapse of the Bush years. As a result, the administration was keen on emphasizing the “soft” diplomacy of U.S. image building and values promotion over “hard,” or coercive, diplomacy, which necessitates direct involvement in conflicts.”
…
“….Nevertheless, a global Pew Research Center poll and other international surveys have shown a substantial improvement in U.S. standing in world opinion, especially among Europeans. So there can be little doubt that Clinton restored some luster to an American brand badly tarnished by the previous administration.”
Article says she was far from the best we’ve ever had – but for turning the tide after a terrible administration, she got us back headed the right way.
Reality,
Refer to my 7:12PM post which is a direct quote from my 8:20am link.
I’m quoting a source, not expressing a personal opinion.
So you do know what you believe? Care to share with us?
EGV,
I seem to recall Hillary saying a video caused the violence in Benghazi. Was this a lie?
If the GOP tries to win the presidency through Benghazi or email servers, we’ll get to see a Hillary acceptance speech without staying up too late. GOP will have to find something better to run on.
I’m quoting a source, not expressing a personal opinion. – and your source is no more than another personal opinion.
So you do know what you believe? Care to share with us? – I’d rather watch you continue your attempts at inveigling thanks.
Reality,
LOL. Here we go again. Since you disagree with my source, may I assume then that you have a source that disputes mine?
I don’t blame you Reality. Whatever answer you give you can’t win either way.
EGV,
You didn’t address my question. Was she lying?
LOL! Your source isn’t evidential. It’s an opinion piece. It carries no more proof of anything than your claims do.
“Look, someone agrees with me” isn’t exactly evidence.
I know what I believe. The question is do you know what you believe. You haven’t done real well at demonstrating anything definitive.
Mary,
Yes Hillary was lying. But if you ask her about it now her answer is “what difference, at this point does it make”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8INIH0JfNA8
Ex-RINO,
That was more specific? lol Hillary visited more countries and logged more miles than any previous Secretary of State. The most plausible reason nobody can point to any accomplishment during all those visits is cause her real purpose for traveling to all those countries and logging all those miles was that se was tirelessly taking advantage of the government jet to solicit donations to the Clinton Foundation.
Reality,
You really are as predictable as the sunrise. Since both my sources say essentially the same thing, which one is it that you have suddenly decreed invalid?
So you still don’t care to share with us?
And you are getting boring in your efforts to say something proves something it clearly doesn’t.
I declare neither of them invalid. The fact is they aren’t what you seem to think will pass as evidence of anything. Valid, invalid, who cares. They’re nothing like what you purport them to be.
Both your sources are opinion pieces. Nothing more. Neither contains any actual evidence to demonstrate what George may or may not have done or to what extent.
At least I have something I could share. How about you?
How many of the emails Bill deleted off of ‘his’ server were emails from ‘friends’ regarding Bill’s million dollar speaking engagements that were booked during Hillary’s ‘State Department’ visits?
As I said Reality, you are as predictable as the sunrise.
That’s good to hear Mary. I would hope you’d have realized by now that you will get caught out on these things.
The two articles you linked to prove no more about what George may or may not have done, and to what extent, than you and the person standing next to you expressing the same opinion on something would do.
Watch Hillary’s wide eyed head bob for 20 seconds from about 1 minute till 1:20 of this video while she takes a question about her deleted emails.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/19/clinton-breaks-media-silence-answers-reporters-questions-on-emails-and-more/
Reality,
LOL. Nice try.
It doesn’t require much effort Mary. You dish up some drivel that either simply doesn’t say what you want it to say, doesn’t actually prove a thing or in fact negates what you claim and I simply read the stuff and point out which of those failings applies.
Like in this instance. Two opinion pieces loosely alluding to someone possibly doing something, with no quantitative or qualitative input =/= evidence.
Try again.
Funny how republicans and their minions – from the misled to the delusional – think that attacking Hillary with spitballs is going to change anyone’s mind either way.
Reality,
Sometimes you are just too much fun.
Say, any plans to let us in on whether you do or don’t believe “pretty please with sugar on top”.
That’s good. Nowhere near as much fun as you though. If you want to try to be anything more than funny how about you try to refute my observation of your failed attempts to make more of George than can be demonstrated?
Any plans to show us what other methodology he may have used? That’s right, you can’t.
Reality,
Like I said, nice try.
Thanks.
When will you make an effort?
LOLLL.
Yes I see. You post two opinion pieces which agree with your opinion – but include no details or actual facts – then stand back and expect it to be regarded as proof of anything? That’s not even a ‘nice try’, that’s major LOLLLL’s.
*Still Laughing* Whatever you say Reality, whatever you say.
It’s OK Mary, I acknowledge your having conceded.
Only in your dreams Reality.
Well if your response to having it pointed out that two opinion pieces which agree with your opinion but include no specific details or verified facts do not constitute evidence of anything at all is “LOL”, it only says one thing.
Dream on.
Another example of where our country is headed if we keep electing progressive numnuts.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/19/emanuel-starts-2nd-term-as-chicago-financial-crisis-deepens-with-junk-rating/?intcmp=latestnews
Reality,
Please point out where I said it was my opinion.
Please point out where you have demonstrated it is anything else but opinion.
Reality,
Point out where I said it was MY opinion.
So now you’re disagreeing with what the opinion pieces said? Is that it?
So why did you supply links to them?
So what IS your opinion?
Reality,
Where did I say this was MY opinion?
If you are claiming that it is not your opinion why did you link to two opinion pieces expressing a certain opinion?
If that isn’t your opinion what is your opinion?
Or do you just adhere to whatever opinion someone you like expresses?
Truthseeker: Another example of where our country is headed if we keep electing progressive numbnuts.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/19/emanuel-starts-2nd-term-as-chicago-financial-crisis-deepens-with-junk-rating/?intcmp=latestnews
TS, Illinois has a Republican governor, and has huge financial problems as well. Aside from political ranting, Chicago’s deal is a good illustration of what happens when gov’ts can’t say “no” when they need to.
According to Ted Dabrowski at the Illinois Policy Institute, public employee pensions are so underfunded, the shortfall will nearly equal six times the annual budget for the city.
Heh – the Illinois Supreme Court said that pensions cannot be defaulted on, so…. Something has got to give here, but danged if I can see where things are going to go.
I thought this was pretty funny. Al Sharpton’s oldest daughter sues New York City for $5 million, claiming she sprained her ankle due to uneven pavement.
So then she goes to Bali and makes an Instagram post about having climbed a mountain.
http://nypost.com/2015/05/18/al-sharptons-daughter-hiked-up-a-mountain-on-sprained-ankle/
Reality,
Please show me where I said this was MY opinion.
Hi Doug,
We shouldn’t be surprised that Al Charlatan’s daughter is a lying shakedown artist just like her old man. Apparently she’s also another “not so Sharpton”.
The apple never falls far from the tree.
Mary: We shouldn’t be surprised that Al Charlatan’s daughter is a lying shakedown artist just like her old man. Apparently she’s also another “not so Sharpton”.
The apple never falls far from the tree.
Mary, can’t find anything to argue about, there. Al as “a lying shakedown artist” is just how I would put it, too. Ever since the ridiculousness of the Tawana Brawley deal….
Mary –
Many moons ago, you asked if Hillary was lying – after doing some research on it (I don’t have Benghazi fever as you and truth do) – I’m going to say that no, she was not lying.
Thanks –
EGV,
Many moons ago? In fact it was just two days ago.
So Hillary was telling the truth when she said it was caused by a video?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/19/obama-hillary-clinton-benghazi-narrative-rebutted-/?page=all
You’re welcome.
Given what she knew, probably.
Politicians use what they know all sorts of times- just because they end up being wrong doesn’t mean they ‘lied’.
EGV,
According to the source, she knew and she lied, and continued to lie.
Judicial Watch is a right wing attack site – it does not surprise me in the least that this is what they believe.
So you can say, 100% certain -you’d bet your life on it, that she was up to date on all the intelligence and she knew, without a doubt, that what she was saying was wrong?
EGV,
The fact a source is one we don’t like doesn’t make it wrong. Its not a matter of what they “believe”, its what they can document…which they do.
I would hope as secretary of state she would be up to date on all the intelligence. Also its not a about what I think or say, its what the documentation has shown.
So you’re saying it might be possible that she lied.
Thanks for the massively insightful, bold conversation Mary.
EGV,
I don’t know where you get that. I rely on what the source is saying and according to that, she lied.
Again its what the documentation says, not what I want to believe.
Don’t get so huffy with me. Its Hillary who lied. If you have a source disputing what the Washington Times/ Judicial Watch says, by all means post it.
So is what you are now trying to claim that –
“Oh yes, good old George”
“One of his “hatchet man” responsibilities was silencing the women who accused Bill.”
“It seems that those who truly engage in a “war on women” can look forward to promising careers as TV “journalists”. In addition to George…..”
“Would George’s efforts to silence Clinton’s accusers fall under that category?”
“No evidence of coercion?”
“I pointed out that despite being part of a “war on women” Spitzer and George were able to move on as tv “journalists”.”
“silencing and then parroting lies that discredit women accusing Clinton”
aren’t your words, that you’re just parroting someone else’s words? If they are your words (which they obviously are) then you are agreeing with what the opinion pieces had to say. Which was nothing clearly demonstrative. Therefore your opinion is that George is a scallywag because you choose to accept what the articles state and exaggerate it all.
And why did you expend so much time and energy flailing about in denial when I pointed out that what you and the articles you linked to were merely opinion? That there were no specific details of what George did or didn’t do or to what extent?
Yet here you are, after it has become apparent that you have tried to present opinion as fact, claiming that it isn’t your opinion.
So what is? You must think George is a good, honest man.
Reality,
All based on the sources I posted.
Now…please point out where I said this was MY opinion.
You will notice I posted these statements after I posted sources.
Say Reality, are you ever going to let us in on whether or not you believe George said “pretty please with sugar on top”??
All based on the sources I posted. – which are opinion pieces. So if you agree with what are opinion pieces you must share their opinion. Unless you specify otherwise, which you haven’t.
Neither article mentioned the ‘war on women’. You did. You stated “It seems that those who truly engage in a “war on women” can look forward to promising careers as TV “journalists”. In addition to George…..” and “I pointed out that despite being part of a “war on women” Spitzer and George were able to move on as tv “journalists”.” That’s opinion. Yours.
Now…please point out where I said this was MY opinion. – your words.
You will notice I posted these statements after I posted sources. – not to any great extent you didn’t.
Say Reality, are you ever going to let us in on whether or not you believe George said “pretty please with sugar on top”?? – unless and until you are able to demonstrate anything different I’ll have to be agnostic on it.
Mary –
There’s just nothing to talk about. You don’t seem to have an opinion on it, and I can’t argue with an internet news site.
Let’s just bottom line it. People who hate Hillary already will see this as further proof that they don’t like her. The majority of the population doesn’t care – they simply don’t.
I care Ex-GOP. I see it as further evidence of the GOP’s war on women and the extreme lengths of dishonesty they will go to ;-)
Ha – yes – understood.
I mean though, Mary- are you saying a person shouldn’t vote for Hillary if she did lie?
Do you hold that same bar for Walker? Or Jeb?
Reality,
So called “opinion pieces” can also contain facts.
War on women? Not my opinion Reality. We already know of Spitzer’s abuse of women, and George? Two “opinion pieces” written several years apart, express the same “opinion” that he was involved in “quelling” Clinton’s accusers. Check the video “War Room” on youtube and you’ll see George in action, so obviously he was part of the Clinton “War Room”. Now, given this am I inclined to think these writers are correct? Frankly, yes. Unless of course you can post sources to the contrary which I seriously doubt you can.
Again Reality, where did I say this was MY opinion.
Hey I understand. Either way that you answer my question you lose.
EGV,
Let’s stop playing games. You came to the conclusion Hillary didn’t lie. I gave you a source that says she did. Your real issue here is being forced to face up to the fact Hillary is a liar. Its not about my opinion. Its not about who I would vote for.
So called “opinion pieces” can also contain facts. – they can. But what did these two tell us? Nothing specifying what George did or didn’t do or to what extent. What did this “quelling” consist of exactly? Come on, be specific.
War on women? Not my opinion Reality. We already know of Spitzer’s abuse of women, and George? – your claim that either or both of these, particularly in George’s case, qualify them as part of the ‘war on women’ is no more than your opinion. That’s all it is.
Two “opinion pieces” written several years apart, express the same “opinion” that he was involved in “quelling” Clinton’s accusers. – and what did that “quelling” consist of? That’s right, neither article tells us. Yet you agree with the “opinion” expressed in the articles. That’d be your opinion.
Check the video “War Room” on youtube and you’ll see George in action, so obviously he was part of the Clinton “War Room”. – and? Demonstrating what exactly? Did he give us a definition of his “quelling” activities? No.
Now, given this am I inclined to think these writers are correct? Frankly, yes. – so in your opinion they are Correct. Correct in regards to what exactly? That George played a role in “quelling”? Magnificent! How massively insightful.
Unless of course you can post sources to the contrary which I seriously doubt you can. – why would I need to, you haven’t produced anything which clearly demonstrates anything. At all. You’ve expressed your opinion that George is part of the “war on women” because a couple of articles claimed he did some “quelling” of completely unknown content.
Again Reality, where did I say this was MY opinion. – all over the place.
Hey I understand. – evidently not.
Either way that you answer my question you lose. – given that you are completely and utterly unable to ascribe any particular action whatsoever to George, yet make opinionated claims in regards to him, you’ve already lost.
“Heh – the Illinois Supreme Court said that pensions cannot be defaulted on, so…. Something has got to give here, but danged if I can see where things are going to go.”
Only one place it can go Doug. Since they can’t default on them and change the rules Chicago is going bankrupt. It is the Democrat way to spend now let the next generation worry about it. It is happening to all the Democrat controlled urban areas.
Yeah Mary – I don’t think she lied.
Reality,
You can get it straight from the horse’s mouth.
https://www.nytimes.com/books/99/03/07/daily/031299human-book-review.html
George admits he helped “spin” the Gennifer Flowers story and “defended” Bill against the “bimbo eruptions”. How do you suppose he did that? I know, pretty please with sugar on top.
Perhaps this is one of the ways the “bimbo eruptions” were quelled.
http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/PRIVATE-EYES-Detective-Work-is-Big-Business-in-3304231.php
Palladino was a no holds barred private investigator hired in 1992 to quell “bimbo eruptions”, such as Clinton’s peccadilloes. Geez, was this to intimidate and blackmail the women into silence?? Nahhhhh.
EGV,
I’ve got some great ocean front property in Montana to sell you.
Come on Mary – you don’t seem to fully believe she lied – you couldn’t say you knew for sure – you just had some article you found…
EGV,
About that ocean front property…its real cheap.
Truthseeker: Only one place it can go Doug. Since they can’t default on them and change the rules Chicago is going bankrupt.
I figure that too, TS, but bankruptcy is not really the end, is it? Other cities have “emerged from bankruptcy” in the past – I assume with changes to some or all obligations, but the people are still there, and I assume great strife will be too.
It is the Democrat way to spend now let the next generation worry about it. It is happening to all the Democrat controlled urban areas.
Yes, Truthseeker, you are right – it is indeed the Democrat way.
However, it’s also the Republican way. We have states that got Republican governors and went from surpluses to deficits. Look back over the last 50 or so years – every time a Republican has followed a Democrat in the White House, it’s not like they have cut spending. It’s not like they even kept it constant. Every single time, the deficits have rocketed to new highs.
The spending “pie” under Democrats will likely be slightly (<~~ emphasis added) different than under Republicans, but a hearty filling of red ink is the main deal, either way.
You can get it straight from the horse’s mouth. – so now you’re back to scrabbling about trying to find stuff that supports your opinion?
George admits he helped “spin” the Gennifer Flowers story – no he doesn’t. That’s how the writer of the review describes it.
and “defended” Bill against the “bimbo eruptions”. – how did he do that? Do you know? No, you don’t.
How do you suppose he did that? I know, pretty please with sugar on top. – if you say so. You still can’t provide anything that tells us what the “quelling” consisted of let alone anything that substantiates anything.
Perhaps this is one of the ways the “bimbo eruptions” were quelled. – you think “Palladino was hired to quell “bimbo eruptions,” such as some of Clinton’s peccadillos.” tells us how the “bimbo eruptions” were quelled? Seriously?
Are Palladino and George the same person? If they aren’t, what’s meant to be the purpose of introducing Palladino?
Geez, was this to intimidate and blackmail the women into silence?? Nahhhhh. – intimidate and blackmail? Where does it say that? Does it say George did such stuff?
Your opinion on this matter is getting harder to sustain.
“Intellectual masochism”.
This must be about round 4 or 5 of my observing it on a thread.
“The spending “pie” under Democrats will likely be slightly (<~~ emphasis added) different than under Republicans, but a hearty filling of red ink is the main deal, either way."
Well, the presidency changes hands often. What I was referring to was the bankruptcy of urban cities where complete Democrat control has been the rule for generations…Baltimore, Chicago and Detroit for example.
Reality,
LOL, you are really doing a lot of sputtering.
The writer is reviewing who’s book? He also directly quotes George.
Looks like my source was correct that Georgy boy did in fact “spin”, i.e. lie about Gennifer Flowers, and “defended” Clinton against accusing women.
Now why else would they hire someone like Palladino and who do you think did the hiring and gave him his instructions? We can’t know for sure but we do know one of the purposes of the war room was to quell “bimbo eruptions” and George was definitely part of the war room. He admits he “defended” his boss against “bimbo eruptions”. Now why would he do that? Maybe because it was his job?
The only thing spluttering is the flame under your pot as you somehow think you’re cooking up chille con carne using three lonely beans and a tomato seed.
Looks like my source was correct that Georgy boy did in fact “spin”, i.e. lie about Gennifer Flowers, and “defended” Clinton against accusing women. does it? Gee, ‘looks like’ is massively insightful – of your opinion. You can’t even discern what’s a quote and what are the reviewer’s own words.
Now why else would they hire someone like Palladino?…Now why would he do that? – you can ‘now why?’ whatever you want Mary. What did George do?
So what we have so far is that George “quelled” something.
And the statements about George that you have made which make your opinion plainly obvious to anyone.
TS: What I was referring to was the bankruptcy of urban cities where complete Democrat control has been the rule for generations…Baltimore, Chicago and Detroit for example.
Truthseeker, there are some other factors to take into account, things going back to times prior to when Democrats had control.
However, without arguing, it is indeed evident that the more recent “generations of rule” of Democrats are not a thing that can be maintained, and that things have been “going down the tubes.”
What good, really, is a system that is not sustainable?
“What good, really, is a system that is not sustainable?”
It is only good to heathen who would ruin everybody else’s tomorrow just to make themselves feel good today.
It is only good to heathen who would ruin everybody else’s tomorrow just to make themselves feel good today.
Agreed. Or just to keep themselves in office….
Reality,
Reviewer: How can Stephanopoulos reconcile his willingness at the time to spin the Gennifer Flowers story with his current anger over the Monica Lewinsky affair?
George: “I didn’t think I was a hypocrite, because my defense of Clinton against past bimbo eruptions had been predicated on my belief that he wouldn’t create new ones, but maybe I was complicit because when I worked for Clinton I had been willing to suspend my disbelief about some of his more suspect denials.”
So George did indeed defend Clinton from “bimbo eruptions”. “Spinning” i.e. lying about Gennifer Flowers was one example, along with a willingness to overlook Clinton’s lies, or should we say “suspect denials”. Check the definition of “quelling” Reality and it can also mean subduing or quieting. It does not necessarily mean force, threats, or violence.
A direct quote from my source:
In 1992, Palladino was hired to quell “bimbo eruptions,” such as some of Clinton’s peccadillos.
So we know for a fact at least one way those “bimbos” were silenced. Do we know for certain George was involved in hiring Palladino? No. Do we know George worked the “war room” and one of his responsiblities was handling “bimbo eruptions”? Yes.
Reviewer: How can Stephanopoulos reconcile his willingness at the time to spin the Gennifer Flowers story with his current anger over the Monica Lewinsky affair? – yes, the reviewer. His words. Not a quote from George.
George: “I didn’t think I was a hypocrite, because my defense of Clinton against past bimbo eruptions had been predicated on my belief that he wouldn’t create new ones, but maybe I was complicit because when I worked for Clinton I had been willing to suspend my disbelief about some of his more suspect denials.” So George did indeed defend Clinton from “bimbo eruptions”. – I haven’t said that George didn’t defend Clinton against ‘bimbo eruptions’. What I have said is that we have no idea what he did or didn’t do to do so or to what extent. You are still unable to clarify anything in this regard.
“Spinning” i.e. lying about Gennifer Flowers was one example, – or so the reviewer contends. George didn’t say that.
along with a willingness to overlook Clinton’s lies, or should we say “suspect denials”. – demonstrating what?
Check the definition of “quelling” Reality and it can also mean subduing or quieting. It does not necessarily mean force, threats, or violence. – well done!
A direct quote from my source: In 1992, Palladino was hired to quell “bimbo eruptions,” such as some of Clinton’s peccadillos. So we know for a fact at least one way those “bimbos” were silenced. – no we don’t. Get real.
Do we know for certain George was involved in hiring Palladino? No. Do we know George worked the “war room” and one of his responsiblities was handling “bimbo eruptions”? Yes. – adding the nothing we know about what Palladino did or didn’t do to the nothing we know about what George did or didn’t do doesn’t add up to anything.
It’s like you’re trying to write a report on a meeting you never attended. An outcome was reached but you have no idea how or who did what.
Yet you were happy to make a number of statements about George which you cannot verify beyond “bimbo eruptions’.
What a joke.
Reality,
I know they’re not George’s words, they’re the reviewer’s taken from George’s book which he is reviewing. That’s what book reviewers do Reality.
The reviewer’s statement and George’s quote speak for themselves. So you agree then that he defended Bill against bimbo eruptions. Thank you. That’s been the whole point. How would he defend Bill? I think its obvious. Quelling the eruptions. Keep the women quiet. Or discredit them. How he went about this could have been any number of ways. According to him he accomplished his task…he defended Clinton. That was his job and he did it.
You “get real” Reality. Why do you suppose a no holds barred PI is hired? To teach table ettiquette? His purpose is to dig up dirt. A man like this digging around in your past can be very intimidating. Your home or apartment being broken into and your personal belongings searched through, as was Flowers’, can be very intimidating. Your personal information being turned over to people who want you to shut up can be a good way to…shut you up.
I know they’re not George’s words, they’re the reviewer’s taken from George’s book which he is reviewing. That’s what book reviewers do Reality. – so now you realise, at last!
The reviewer’s statement and George’s quote speak for themselves. – yes. The reviewers words speak for the reviewer and George’s words speak for George.
So you agree then that he defended Bill against bimbo eruptions. Thank you. That’s been the whole point. – as I have repeatedly said. It’s also the only point that can be made, despite your frantic scrabbling around for more.
How would he defend Bill? I think its obvious. – that’d be your opinion then.
Quelling the eruptions. – how?
Keep the women quiet. – how?
Or discredit them. – how?
How he went about this could have been any number of ways. – see, you don’t know how.
According to him he accomplished his task…he defended Clinton. That was his job and he did it. – yes but how? What did he do? What didn’t he do? To what extent did he do what he did do? You’ve suggested ‘pretty please with sugar on top’ but nothing else.
You “get real” Reality. Why do you suppose a no holds barred PI is hired? To teach table ettiquette? His purpose is to dig up dirt. A man like this digging around in your past can be very intimidating. Your home or apartment being broken into and your personal belongings searched through, as was Flowers’, can be very intimidating. Your personal information being turned over to people who want you to shut up can be a good way to…shut you up. – I am being real. You on the other hand, are speculating.
Reality,
Well, I’m glad you realize the reviewer comments on what George says. It isn’t anything the reviewer makes up.
Yes, the reviewer discusses what George says, including quoting George.
What more have I “scrambled for”? I quoted two different articles who said he “quelled the bimbo eruptions”. George admits he defended Clinton against the bimbo eruptions.
He defended Bill by making sure the ladies kept quiet. I would think that’s obvious. That is what he would want the ladies to do, don’t you agree?
Discrediting them by parroting Clinton’s lies, Gennifer Flowers being the one example. I would consider that discrediting someone.
He says he defended Clinton against the bimbo eruptions. I would take from that statement he was successful in whatever tactic used. He even hoped this would mean no more in the future. LOL.
OK, so you tell me why you think a PI like Palladino would be hired. We have the documentation that he was.
Well, I’m glad you realize the reviewer comments on what George says. – yes, but they aren’t all quotes from George as you attempted to imply. They are the reviewers extrapolation of things George said.
It isn’t anything the reviewer makes up. – in parts, yes it is.
What more have I “scrambled for”? I quoted two different articles who said he “quelled the bimbo eruptions”. George admits he defended Clinton against the bimbo eruptions. – so you keep saying. But how did he? What did he do? To what extent? The only option you’ve offered so far is “pretty please with sugar on top”.
Yet you made disparaging statements such as “Oh yes, good old George” – “One of his “hatchet man” responsibilities was silencing the women who accused Bill.” – “It seems that those who truly engage in a “war on women” can look forward to promising careers as TV “journalists”. In addition to George…..” – “Would George’s efforts to silence Clinton’s accusers fall under that category?” – “No evidence of coercion?” – “I pointed out that despite being part of a “war on women” Spitzer and George were able to move on as tv “journalists”.” – “silencing and then parroting lies that discredit women accusing Clinton”
Which all does a pretty good job of demonstrating your opinion.
He defended Bill by making sure the ladies kept quiet. I would think that’s obvious. That is what he would want the ladies to do, don’t you agree? – how? “PPWSOT”?
Discrediting them by parroting Clinton’s lies, Gennifer Flowers being the one example. I would consider that discrediting someone. – how. “PPWSOT”?
He says he defended Clinton against the bimbo eruptions. I would take from that statement he was successful in whatever tactic used. He even hoped this would mean no more in the future. LOL. – how? “PPWSOT”?
OK, so you tell me why you think a PI like Palladino would be hired. We have the documentation that he was.
– hired to do what exactly? How did he go about it? “PPWSOT”? Who gives a toss anyway. This is about what you have said about George. Since you are unable to demonstrate anything at all about what George may or may not have done and to what extent you introduce a new character. Interesting, but pointless.
Reality,
I didn’t say they were all quotes. I pointed out which one was.
Can you point out where the reviewer made anything up?
George himself admits it. Now do I believe he just nicely asked the ladies to keep quiet? No. Unless the ladies meant business why would they even come forward? Quieting someone may involve nothing more than a phone call implying there could be serious implications for coming forward, as George does on one such War Room call. Then there’s always Palladino.
A hatchet man does your dirty work. George admits to doing the dirty work.You don’t think that “defending” Clinton against his accusers, who are silenced or publicly portrayed as liars isn’t a war on women? Why would George defend Clinton like this? Didn’t he find Clinton’s activities abhorrent? Or is it OK for Billy boy to have his fun. Women are just playthings.
Well Reality, when someone goes public implying that you are a liar and this is believed, then yes I would consider that discrediting you.
So you can’t give me any other valid reason why Palladino would be hired. I didn’t think you could. Even you understand Reality why a down and dirty PI like Palladino is hired.
And you tried to present words which weren’t a quote as a quote.
Anything which isn’t a direct quote is the reviewer’s interpretation, his message.
All we know is that George was part of a group which “quelled the bimbo eruptions”. That’s it.
We have no idea where his approach or actions sat on the scale of nice to nasty.
Why you think dragging Palladino into this demonstrates anything about George is a mystery.
George helped “quell the bimbo eruptions”. How? “PPWSOT”?
Reality,
A review is the reviewer’s discussion of the content of the book.
We know, because George says so, that he was involved in defending Bill from the “bimbo eruptions”. I’m glad we agree he helped quell the bimbo eruptions.
His approach? Well here’s how he handled someone who wanted to go public about an alleged illegitimate child of Clinton’s.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXZdaP4SvD0 Go to 1:11:26
You don’t reaaaallly want to go public with this.
You’ll never work in Democratic politics again
You will have a campaign that understands that at a difficult time you did something right.
Not exactly intimidating. But one would get the message that keeping quiet is the best course.
I didn’t say Palladino has anything to do with George. I point out that he was utilized to quell the bimbo eruptions, according to the source.
A review is the reviewer’s discussion of the content of the book. – yes. An opinion. With a few selective quotes thrown in. But one must be careful to not assume that the reviewers words are strictly based on a quote.
We know, because George says so, that he was involved in defending Bill from the “bimbo eruptions”. I’m glad we agree he helped quell the bimbo eruptions. – we’ve agreed on that from the start. What it means, what it entails, that’s what we don’t know.
Not exactly intimidating. But one would get the message that keeping quiet is the best course. – sounds more “PPWSOT” then.
I didn’t say Palladino has anything to do with George. I point out that he was utilized to quell the bimbo eruptions, according to the source. – which, as I have pointed out, tells us nothing of what George may or may not have done.
Reality,
.
Book reviews may contain an opinion, but the opinions are based on what the book says, which the reviewer also informs us of.
What difference does it make what it entails? He did it.
What does PPWSOT mean?
It tells us what the Clinton campaign would resort to.
Book reviews may contain an opinion, but the opinions are based on what the book says. – the opinions are based on the reviewers interpretation of the quotes. Extrapolation too sometimes.
The reviewer stated what was in George’s book. – he also made statements about George which weren’t in the book.
What difference does it make what it entails? He did it. – did what exactly? “quelled bimbo eruptions”? We know that, but how? You made judgments of character without knowing what he did.
What does PPWSOT mean? – it’s an acronym, based on your words. I’m surprised you don’t recognize it.
It tells us what the Clinton campaign would resort to. – you think it’s unique?
Reality,
Let’s settle once and for all on a definition of book review:
Dictionary
book review
noun
Definition of BOOK REVIEW
: a descriptive and critical or evaluative account of a book
What statements did he make that were not in the book?
So its more acceptable to you that he did it one way but not another? I don’t find it acceptable that he did it at all. Though I must admit the video shows him handling such a situation very efficiently.
Please inform me what the acronym is.
So you have no problem with the Clinton campaign going after Clinton’s accusers in this manner.
a descriptive and critical or evaluative account of a book – perhaps now you should look up ‘evaluate’.
He made statements which were extrapolations, guesses perhaps, which weren’t supported by quotes.
So its more acceptable to you that he did it one way but not another? I don’t find it acceptable that he did it at all. Though I must admit the video shows him handling such a situation very efficiently. I’d find it more acceptable if he said “pretty please with sugar on top” than a threat of violence. Wouldn’t you?
Please inform me what the acronym is. – words that you used first on this thread. Can you figure it out yet?
So you have no problem with the Clinton campaign going after Clinton’s accusers in this manner – in what manner?
Reality,
Maybe you should check out descriptive.
You know for a fact these were extrapolations and guesses perhaps…how? Please point them out.
Actually I found the way he did it in the video very efficient. Not quite pretty please with sugar on top but no threats of violence either.
Fine Reality, play your little games.
The use of a private detective to quell bimbo eruptions.
Maybe you should check out descriptive. – maybe you should have done so before suggesting I do so.
You know for a fact these were extrapolations and guesses perhaps…how? Please point them out. – you did read the article didn’t you. You supplied it after all.
Actually I found the way he did it in the video very efficient. Not quite pretty please with sugar on top but no threats of violence either. – yes, I’d already ascertained that is your opinion.
Fine Reality, play your little games. – psst…you’ve just used the term, surely it’s not that hard.
The use of a private detective to quell bimbo eruptions. – telling us what exactly? Two thirds of three eights of naff all.
You keep trying to tie ribbons in the hair of a head which is actually bald.
Reality,
Apparently I had already beaten you to it.
You make the claim, back it up.
Come on Reality, give George some credit. He handled this caller like a real pro, convincing this potential bimbo eruption that he/she really didn’t want to go public. That he has only the informant’s best interests at heart. He/she would never work in Democrat politics again. Oh, and the campaign will remember that he/she did “something right” at a difficult time. A favor in your future perhaps?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Palladino
Apparently you need to look again.
You made it up, back it up.
Come on Reality, give George some credit. He handled this caller like a real pro, convincing this potential bimbo eruption that he/she really didn’t want to go public. – did he? How did he? What exactly did he do?
That he has only the informant’s best interests at heart. He/she would never work in Democrat politics again. Oh, and the campaign will remember that he/she did “something right” at a difficult time. A favor in your future perhaps? – so confident yet you end it as a question.
Can you explain how what Palladino may or may not have done tells us anything at all about what George may or may not have done.
George “helped quell the bimbo eruptions”. Full stop. End of story. You’ve got nothing more than that.
Reality,
I made it up??
Can’t you see and hear the video?
You can hear for yourself what George is saying. One does have to wonder if George is hinting at a favor in the future should the informant do the “right thing”.
You asked me in what manner the Clinton campaign went after his accusers. I posted a source as to how Palladino was used for this purpose.
So we agree George “helped quell the bimbo eruptions”. We have the video that gives us one example.
I was referring to the review, not the video. Track back.
“hinting at” – gee that’s evidential.
You asked me in what manner the Clinton campaign went after his accusers. – no I didn’t.
We always agreed that George “helped quell the bimbo eruptions”, why keep pretending otherwise?
Reality, 9:49PM
So you have no problem with the Clinton campaign going after Clinton’s accusers in this manner – in what manner?
I know you were referring to the review and not the video. Now what did I make up?
I pretend nothing. You asked how George “helped quell bimbo eruptions”, I gave you a video of George in action.
So you have no problem with the Clinton campaign going after Clinton’s accusers in this manner – in what manner? – exactly. The ‘Clinton campaign’ isn’t exclusively George.
I know you were referring to the review and not the video. Now what did I make up? that the bit re Flowers was a quote from George when it was the reviewers interpretation.
I pretend nothing. You asked how George “helped quell bimbo eruptions”, I gave you a video of George in action. – his ‘hinting’?