WRL62

[Limbo Pete]

Already the WOAT Lounge thread.

It's been a real treat, man
Right outta the clear blue sky

 

[BarryDillon]

Were they always his or did he adopt them while he was fighting the fire?

Yeah I know, but they can expedite the adoption process if the kids are in an unsafe environment. A fire certainly qualifies.

 

[Lead]

I added to it. One good example is Hillary flip-flopping on gay marriage, she was in a political office when she changed her opinion at both ends, and, the key here, is that she didn't just change her mind, she literally told an interviewer that she hadn't changed her mind.

Can you rephrase this last part. Are you saying she changed her policy position but didn't actually agree with that position personally or that she changed her policy position with no intention of moving the policy forward if she were able to?

 

[curryjunkie]

Which one of are posters are from Ireland? I need to find something out about their country.

What? Also this thread shoulda been titled ....rustlemania! the meltdown! ..... In honor of the last few pages of the old thread....

 

[Sycho Sid]

Who do you guys think would win in an IQ test competition between @EGarrett, Donald Trump, and Jeanine Pirro?

Pirro > Garret > a potato that rolled into the test room > Trump

 

[Fawlty]

What? Also this thread shoulda been titlee rustlemania! the meltdown! In honor of the last few pages of the old thread....

I feel like this has been more of a composed, slow-burning affair, not unlike the prolonged withering of an expertly-crafted candle.

 

[EGarrett]

Can you rephrase this last part. Are you saying she changed her policy position but didn't actually agree with that position personally or that she changed her policy position with no intention of moving the policy forward if she were able to?

She gave two completely different speeches about it in both opinion and policy, and then (crazy as it sounds) refused to acknowledge that she did.

The funny thing is, the interviewer who asked her about it actually was confused about the same thing you're asking. She wouldn't acknowledge that she ever felt one way or the other or that she even changed her opinion.

5:21

 

[curryjunkie]

I feel like this has been more of a composed, slow-burning affair, not unlike the prolonged withering of an expertly-crafted candle.

Cool poll man,tho one option shoulda been " I have no egrets..."

 

[Limbo Pete]

Cool poll man,tho one option shoulda been " I have no egrets..."

Gaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

[Lead]

She changed her policy position and then (crazy as it sounds) refused to acknowledge that she did.

The funny thing is, the interviewer who asked her about it actually was confused about the same thing you're asking.

5:21

She is avoiding the question, yes. Politicians often do not like pointing out when they shift on a policy issue as it puts them in a bad light. It can be seen as an example of poor past judgment from them or lacking in principles. I'm just trying to narrow down the criteria to your definition. If a politician avoids acknowledging they shifted on a policy, this would put them in the corruption category, correct?

 

[EGarrett]

She is avoiding the question, yes. Politicians often do not like pointing out when they shift on a policy issue as it puts them in a bad light. It can be seen as an example of poor past judgment from them or lacking in principles. I'm just trying to narrow down the criteria to your definition. If a politician avoids acknowledging they shifted on a policy, this would put them in the corruption category, correct?

Listen to the part at 6:04.

Q: So that's one for you changed your mind?
HILLARY: I think you are being very persistent but you are playing with my words.
Q: I'm just trying to clarify so I can understand.
HILLARY: No, I don't think you are trying to clarify, I think you're trying to say that I used to be opposed and now I'm in favor and I did it for political reasons, so let me just state what you're implying and repudiate it. I have a strong record, I have a great commitment to this issue and I am proud of what I've done and the progress we're making.
Q: I'm saying that maybe you believed in gay marriage all along but felt that for political reasons, America wasn't ready yet so you couldn't say it.
HILLARY: No, that is not true.

She repudiates the idea that "she changed her mind for political reasons", she just "evolved," but yet she has a "strong record and a great commitment to this issue," but yet she didn't always believe in gay marriage.

Also, to answer your question, it's not poor past judgement, she was contradicting herself in real-time to the interviewer. It's exceptional.

 

[Lead]

Listen to the part at 6:04.

Q: So that's one for you changed your mind?
HILLARY: I think you are being very persistent but you are playing with my words.
Q: I'm just trying to clarify so I can understand.
HILLARY: No, I don't think you are trying to clarify, I think you're trying to say that I used to be opposed and now I'm in favor and I did it for political reasons, so let me just state what you're implying and repudiate it. I have a strong record, I have a great commitment to this issue and I am proud of what I've done and the progress we're making.
Q: I'm saying that maybe you believed in gay marriage all along but felt that for political reasons, America wasn't ready yet so you couldn't say it.
HILLARY: No, that is not true.

She didn't change her mind for political reasons, she just "evolved," but yet she has a "strong record and a great commitment to this issue."

I listened to the whole part, including that. I'm trying to tie this example now to the definition you are using for corruption. We have to identify what in this example makes for corruption by the definition you mentioned. Is it her avoidance in acknowledging she changed on the policy?

 

[waiguoren]

I've already forgiven him, I am sure he did not understand what he was saying. That said, he said it, and I won't forget.

If he didn't understand what he was saying, why even bring it up? You have not forgiven him. If you had truly forgiven him, you wouldn't even have it on your mind. It's overwhelmingly clear that you and your father have a strained relationship. If possible, you should reach out to him and try to repair the relationship. If not, you need to realize that you are judging him unfairly.

 

[EGarrett]

I listened to the whole part, including that. I'm trying to tie this example now to the definition you are using for corruption. We have to identify what in this example makes for corruption by the definition you mentioned. Is it her avoidance in acknowledging she changed on the policy?

She contradicted herself, which means unequivocally that she gave a false statement. Exceptionally so, even for a politician. The definition of corruption is dishonesty by people in power. She was giving unequivocally false statements about her opinion and her position as a Senator and Secretary of State.

Keep in mind this isn't the only one, I just chose it because she does it on tape (she said something just as bad if not worse in her Wall Street speeches but there's no audio to my knowledge, though I can give the transcript). Like I said, her track record of corruption is very long.

 

[waiguoren]

@Jack V Savage

Oh really? By that definition, is a person who isn't in power corrupt? Like a child who goes to grade school?

What is the point of this whole conversation? I'll take you at your word that you meant the (far) less common definition of "corrupt" in your old post from the other thread. I think it's pretty obvious Jack V Savage assumed you meant the standard usage, as did I and probably everyone else who saw the exchange. I think it's a huge waste of time to try to play "gotcha" on a semantic dispute like that or to hold it out as some kind of victory because the other guy stopped engaging. Why not just spell out whether or not you think Clinton is "corrupt" under the standard definition and be done with this?

 

[Fawlty]

Cool poll man,tho one option shoulda been " I have no egrets..."

I deeply egret this omission.

 

[Lead]

She contradicted herself, which means unequivocally that she gave a false statement. Exceptionally so, even for a politician. The definition of corruption is dishonesty by people in power. She was giving unequivocally false statements about her opinion and her position as a Senator and Secretary of State.

Okay, so the criteria these two things
1. Power
2. Dishonesty
Correct?

Keep in mind this isn't the only one, I just chose it because she does it on tape (she said something just as bad if not worse in her Wall Street speeches but there's no audio to my knowledge, though I can give the transcript). Like I said, her track record of corruption is very long.

My point in doing this wasn't for you to have to build a case of numerous examples here. We just needed enough that got us to where we can look for other examples with that criteria.

 

[EGarrett]

What is the point of this whole conversation? I'll take you at your word that you meant the (far) less common definition of "corrupt" in your old post from the other thread. I think it's pretty obvious Jack V Savage assumed you meant the standard usage, as did I and probably everyone else who saw the exchange. I think it's a huge waste of time to try to play "gotcha" on a semantic dispute like that or to hold it out as some kind of victory because the other guy stopped engaging. Why not just spell out whether or not you think Clinton is "corrupt" under the standard definition and be done with this?

It won't move forward because Jack can't acknowledge that he didn't know that was a definition and that his attempted argument against it was flat-out wrong. He can't admit that his attempted argument against the definition (that everyone is corrupt according to it) was just wrong. It only applies to people in power, so no, not everyone is corrupt.

That's the point. He makes weak, false and bad arguments, they get disproven and he then runs away. You can't discuss with someone like that, and him going around acting like he's the one who makes good points is just dishonest and wrong. If he was honest or could just admit that he was wrong about the definition having no meaning, it could move forward easily.

 

[EGarrett]

Okay, so the criteria these two things
1. Power
2. Dishonesty
Correct?



My point in doing this wasn't for you to have to build a case of numerous examples here. We just needed enough that got us to where we can look for other examples with that criteria.

Remember, my original statement was that her track record for corruption was a mile long. Not just that she did it once. That's what sets her apart from other politicians who lie once or twice.

BTW this thread title is meant to be an insult/call-out of me. The rules seem to state that you can't do that.

 

[Curmudgeon]

@Lead is corrupt.