Posted on 03/26/2015 6:24:09 PM PDT by grundle
Edited on 03/26/2015 8:51:46 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Hillary Clinton is a polarizing, calculating, disingenuous, insincere, ambitious, inevitable, entitled, over confident, secretive, out of touch candidate who represents the past, and will do anything to win.
And if you are wondering why I would say such a thing, here is the reason.
Well that very mediocre guy did get a higher percentage of the Texas vote than Cruz in 2012...
And those are her good points!
How about “the treasonous Butcher of Benghazi”?
You know, Hillary has been around many years. I always felt she was insincere and out of touch.. Of course, being in politics, one realizes that being ambitious is part of politics. And, one realizes that anyone with a strong personality is going to be polarizing, and accused of being disingenuous. One wonders why Hillary doesn’t come out and say that being accused of being calculating and secretive can not be necessarily sexist. And, the people who formulated this list are trying to help her, they are doing her more harm than good because it adds to the belief that she is indeed, calculating, entitled, and, will do anything to win. She has to make clear that she believes that she is not over-confident or inevitable. She has to make clear that her actions regarding the Email server are not secretive and that it does not add to the argument that she represent the past, even though her past actions in Arkansas might indicate.
The very fact that this “directive” originated from Hillary’s campaign, is proof they believe the charges.
And a Hat Tip to the Admin Moderator for correctly attributing the source of the pithy headline and comment!
And Thanks from all of us for all the (usually thankless) work you do!
Why thank you, Shibumi. I try hard but so few recognize the effort I put into educating all those here. *grin*
And this is on a good day and considered her better qualities.
Yes, thank you admin moderator, very much!
I came up with the title on my own, and I had not read Real Cynic No More’s comment in the other thread. I’m sure lots and lots of other people have also had the exact same idea. For you to accuse me of plagiarizing someone else is ridiculous.
No Gooch, it's logical.
Pulled threads and pulled posts don't show on your posting history, but you and I and Admin and a few others (who I've pinged here) are aware of your long history of threads pulled and attribution corrected.
If anything, when someone sees a thread posted from your blog the first thing that comes to mind is "Where did he rip this off from?"
You've earned the "honor" from your repeated re-titling, re-hashing, re-blogging and playing fast and loose with copyright. (Case in point, Calvin and Hobbes.)
And if you're wondering who pointed the finger, it was me. I'm the one that hit abuse (twice) and called Admin's attention to this thread.
Now - go ahead and try to tell me where anything I've said here is wrong. Tell me those threads weren't repeatedly pulled. Tell me you haven't had threads pulled for plagiarism.
Anyone who wishes to see an example of what I'm talking about can click on this thread, right here. Please note that the whole text was excerpted from FreeRepublic to protect against copyright violations and if I'm not mistaken, you were suspended for the reason given on the thread header.
Indignation and self righteousness - you don't wear them well.
Whenever I do copy text from another website, I always cite the link.
Investor's Business Daily also came up with the same idea that Real Cynic No More and I came up with. And I'm sure a lot of other peopel on the internet are also calling Hillary Clinton those 12 exact words and phrases:
Those are some mighty weak straw men you got there, Taint.
Copyright infringement and plagiarism are indeed two different things. The thread I linked is an example of one.
Please don’t suggest that you’ve never had a thread pulled for the other - the internet has a very long memory. It might take me a while, but you and I both know that there are examples of you doing *both*.
As for IBD, what are you suggesting? It couldn’t be the old canard of “everybody else does it!” now could it?
Here’s your basic problem - credibility. Or rather lack of it. You can’t go around for (literally) years trying to piggy back your blog’s hit rate on other people’s work without suffering some damage.
Face it, Gooch - you do very little that could be called “original” journalism, even by the low standards of the blogosphere. About the only thing you have to offer is a rather advanced case of OCD list making. There are dozens of FReepers who on a daily basis post far more insightful and extensive essays as thread comments in the spirit of synergy and sharing who don’t expect to get blog hits for it.
You wrote two sentences one of which was rhetorical. And you linked to an article from Daily Caller. Why didn’t you just post the Daily Caller article? Your “clever comment” could be Post #1 and nobody - myself included would say one thing about it. But no. You had to pretend that those two sentences deserved a link to your blog. And if you had done it that way, probably no one would have noticed that it was the same as another FReeper’s comment.
Any way you slice it, you’ve made your own bed and established your own reputation. And it’s not a good one.
Yes, some of the threads that I started here have indeed been deleted. But my blog posts still exist at my blog, and I always post a link to any source that I use.
Dissemble all you wish.
It doesn’t change who or what you are.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.