Jump to content

Rolling Stone: There Is No Real Hillary Clinton


DKW 86

Recommended Posts





DKW 86, on 01 Marchsnapback.png 2015 - 09:12 AM, said:

I quit read at Matt Taibbi & Rolling Stone.

OMG! You just quoted the most disgustingly bad journalism source in America. Where they have admittedly got caught

embarrassingly having smeared an entire fraternity and university over a story they later admitted to having done exactly ZERO fact checking on.

After his comments about how 'rigorous' the standards were at Rolling Stone, i will never again use him as quote worthy.

I openly apologize to this forum for ever having used him in the past.

snapback.pngDKW 86, on 01 March 2015 - 10:05 AM, said:

Yall tell me if the Left is really laughing at Walker or worried.

Walker has survived 3 Hard Fought Elections in 4 Years in a Liberal Wisconsin.

He has been a thorn in the sides of Dems in doing so.

Taibbi, writing from Rolling Stone, the same Rolling Stone recovering from the "no fact checks" blow up just a few weeks ago is now writing how it is all over for him.

Walker gets trashed over and over from the Left Media. Why so many stories now?

Maybe they are worried about him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So when you are getting called out by those that sympathize and support you, you do what then?

I just find it SEW funny. ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why can't one still be against Rolling Stone , but acknowledge that a journalism dept which leans decisively Left in its views has some serious reservations and criticisms about Hillary ?

The disingenuousness of the Leftists on here never does abate, does it ?

@ homer - Just curious, does it grind your gears to hear conservatives use that ' I was for it before I was against it ' line ? What did you think about Kerry , when he first used it ? Just wonderin'.

( really doubt I'll get an honest answer, but at least the question was asked )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So when you are getting called out by those that sympathize and support you, you do what then?

I just find it SEW funny. ;-)

Please do not read anything political into my post. There was nothing political about it. I was just making fun of you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why can't one still be against Rolling Stone , but acknowledge that a journalism dept which leans decisively Left in its views has some serious reservations and criticisms about Hillary ?

The disingenuousness of the Leftists on here never does abate, does it ?

@ homer - Just curious, does it grind your gears to hear conservatives use that ' I was for it before I was against it ' line ? What did you think about Kerry , when he first used it ? Just wonderin'.

( really doubt I'll get an honest answer, but at least the question was asked )

I have no problem with someone changing their mind - even a politician.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OMG guys....

really OMG.

OH EM to tha GEEE

I'm OMG'ing so much about Hilary... OMG.

(I need to stop quoting my FB I guess)

A politician doesn't stick to what they believe but instead does whatever is necessary to win??!!!??!?!?!?!?!

This IS BRAND NEW INFORMATION!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well in truth, in doing some real thinking about this, RS wasnt doing reporting here.This was really OPINION.

Because i just dont believe anything that RS REPORTS on. Opinion, OTOH, isnt quite so rigorous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OMG guys....

really OMG.

OH EM to tha GEEE

I'm OMG'ing so much about Hilary... OMG.

(I need to stop quoting my FB I guess)

A politician doesn't stick to what they believe but instead does whatever is necessary to win??!!!??!?!?!?!?!

This IS BRAND NEW INFORMATION!

Touche'
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does anyone, voters or reporters, buy it when a politician, well past 50 yrs old, comes out and claims they've " evolved " ( really bad, false use of THAT word ) on an issue, but never has to explain how or why. We get weak pablum, like " it's the right thing to do ", or " on the right side of history " ... :dunno:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does anyone, voters or reporters, buy it when a politician, well past 50 yrs old, comes out and claims they've " evolved " ( really bad, false use of THAT word ) on an issue, but never has to explain how or why. We get weak pablum, like " it's the right thing to do ", or " on the right side of history " ... :dunno:

The real question is have they actually "evolved" or are they just talking for electoral benefit?

Goldwater, when he died, was not the same Goldwater that ran for President in 1964. Wallace, otoh, i think was all talk. When he came to AU and had to kiss the Black Homecoming Queen back in 84-85 it just about killed him. People do change. I am not at all what i was 10 years ago. Going to a new church and seeing things from another perspective changed my view big time. In 2005, i had just had it with Bush43. Two wars, $TNs blown for nothing. We were entangled in the ME for no real reason IMHO other than to make certain folks incredibly rich it seems. people do change, but watch their actions over time. HRC? I think it is pure politics and as soon as she wins the nomination, if she wins the nomination, she will be back to mainstream in about a week or two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The saddest part is that even those who support her know she's just giving lip service. As if that's all that matters. I was against X, but now I'm for it , so what ever I've said the most recent 'wins' with the voters ? No one is held accountable for WHY they believe what they believe. Especially not politicians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does anyone, voters or reporters, buy it when a politician, well past 50 yrs old, comes out and claims they've " evolved " ( really bad, false use of THAT word ) on an issue, but never has to explain how or why. We get weak pablum, like " it's the right thing to do ", or " on the right side of history " ... :dunno:

The real question is have they actually "evolved" or are they just talking for electoral benefit?

Goldwater, when he died, was not the same Goldwater that ran for President in 1964. Wallace, otoh, i think was all talk. When he came to AU and had to kiss the Black Homecoming Queen back in 84-85 it just about killed him. People do change. I am not at all what i was 10 years ago. Going to a new church and seeing things from another perspective changed my view big time. In 2005, i had just had it with Bush43. Two wars, $TNs blown for nothing. We were entangled in the ME for no real reason IMHO other than to make certain folks incredibly rich it seems. people do change, but watch their actions over time. HRC? I think it is pure politics and as soon as she wins the nomination, if she wins the nomination, she will be back to mainstream in about a week or two.

Exactly! Some are genuine. Many are phony. Seeking a position of power is a pretty good indicator, not an absolute but, a pretty good indicator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The saddest part is that even those who support her know she's just giving lip service. As if that's all that matters. I was against X, but now I'm for it , so what ever I've said the most recent 'wins' with the voters ? No one is held accountable for WHY they believe what they believe. Especially not politicians.

If I understand you correctly, you are frustrated by a voting base of mindlessly loyal partisan sheep? Is that correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why can't one still be against Rolling Stone , but acknowledge that a journalism dept which leans decisively Left in its views has some serious reservations and criticisms about Hillary ?

The disingenuousness of the Leftists on here never does abate, does it ?

@ homer - Just curious, does it grind your gears to hear conservatives use that ' I was for it before I was against it ' line ? What did you think about Kerry , when he first used it ? Just wonderin'.

( really doubt I'll get an honest answer, but at least the question was asked )

I have no problem with someone changing their mind - even a politician.

Mitt says thank you. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why can't one still be against Rolling Stone , but acknowledge that a journalism dept which leans decisively Left in its views has some serious reservations and criticisms about Hillary ?

The disingenuousness of the Leftists on here never does abate, does it ?

@ homer - Just curious, does it grind your gears to hear conservatives use that ' I was for it before I was against it ' line ? What did you think about Kerry , when he first used it ? Just wonderin'.

( really doubt I'll get an honest answer, but at least the question was asked )

I have no problem with someone changing their mind - even a politician.

Mitt says thank you. :)

There is nothing inherently wrong with changing your mind. The world is a dynamic place. Anyone who never changes their mind, is no longer thinking.

The question is, whether the change is genuine or, politically convenient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing inherently wrong with changing your mind. The world is a dynamic place. Anyone who never changes their mind, is no longer thinking.

The question is, whether the change is genuine or, politically convenient.

Proof is in the actions, not the mouth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of her changes reveal her true beliefs. She was masquerading before. Does anyone truly believe she actually thought this was a good thing before now?

Curious as to what she has been masquerading as. I have always seen her as the prototypical self-serving, establishment politician.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of her changes reveal her true beliefs. She was masquerading before. Does anyone truly believe she actually thought this was a good thing before now?

Remember the speech she gave concerning her ' rock solid , foundational views ' on traditional marriage ? Apparently neither does the MSM.

“I believe that marriage is not just a bond but a sacred bond between a man and a woman. I have had occasion in my life to defend marriage, to stand up for marriage, to believe in the hard work and challenge of marriage. So, I take umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage or to the fundamental bedrock principle that it exists between a man and a woman going back into the mists of history as one of the founding foundational institutions of history and humanity and civilization. And that its primary, principle role during those millenia has been the raising and socializing of children for the society into which they are to become adults.”Hillary Clinton, 2004

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of her changes reveal her true beliefs. She was masquerading before. Does anyone truly believe she actually thought this was a good thing before now?

Remember the speech she gave concerning her ' rock solid , foundational views ' on traditional marriage ? Apparently neither does the MSM.

“I believe that marriage is not just a bond but a sacred bond between a man and a woman. I have had occasion in my life to defend marriage, to stand up for marriage, to believe in the hard work and challenge of marriage. So, I take umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage or to the fundamental bedrock principle that it exists between a man and a woman going back into the mists of history as one of the founding foundational institutions of history and humanity and civilization. And that its primary, principle role during those millenia has been the raising and socializing of children for the society into which they are to become adults.”Hillary Clinton, 2004

She absolutely believed what she said, when she said it, at least for that one moment...it benefitted her politically.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why can't one still be against Rolling Stone , but acknowledge that a journalism dept which leans decisively Left in its views has some serious reservations and criticisms about Hillary ?

The disingenuousness of the Leftists on here never does abate, does it ?

@ homer - Just curious, does it grind your gears to hear conservatives use that ' I was for it before I was against it ' line ? What did you think about Kerry , when he first used it ? Just wonderin'.

( really doubt I'll get an honest answer, but at least the question was asked )

I have no problem with someone changing their mind - even a politician.

Mitt says thank you. :)

There is nothing inherently wrong with changing your mind. The world is a dynamic place. Anyone who never changes their mind, is no longer thinking.

The question is, whether the change is genuine or, politically convenient.

*************************************

The mind in its natural state is an ever changing entity, constantly gathering new information and inputting them into existing or new matrix's, and when one rejects new information or new solutions to matrices' the mind stagnates and begins to die.

*************************************

Paraphrasing there, no idea who the author is, but I remember reading it on a plaque when I was a child... and your post reminded me of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...