Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #331143

Re: OT: Conservative sexism

Newsgroups comp.os.linux.advocacy
Date 2015-11-05 13:54 -0800
References (11 earlier) <D260450D.62CBC%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <sehgu0of.a@rooftop.invalid> <D260F9AF.62D49%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <a26bcfc1-0dbe-4792-b1e0-bfc4708330c0@googlegroups.com> <slrnn3nhvm.35q.jedi@nomad.mishnet>
Message-ID <ece3a33e-1d8b-4703-bfaf-e91c6b0f2d7d@googlegroups.com> (permalink)
Subject Re: OT: Conservative sexism
From Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 2:30:12 PM UTC-7, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On 2015-11-05, Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 12:19:07 PM UTC-7, Snit wrote:
> >> On 11/5/15, 11:51 AM, in article sehgu0of.a@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> >> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> >> 
> >> > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> >> On 11/4/15, 10:31 PM, in article shgmvkxi03.ap@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> >> >> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> ... 
> >> >>>> The accusation was Clinton lied by speaking of gun deaths and including
> >> >>>> suicides... but as noted, in the context she was completely honest.
> >> >>>> 
> >> >>> 
> >> >>> So you fear answering the question.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Nope. I am keeping the focus where it started. There was an accusation that
> >> >> Clinton lied in a commercial. I showed the accusation had no basis.
> >> > 
> >> > No you didn't.
> >> 
> >> Sure I did. The claim was she inflated gun death numbers by including
> >> suicides 
> >
> > In a discussion about "gun violence". While she'd be technically correct if 
> > you confine the definition of the word "violence", she knows full well that 
> > the term "gun violence" is  politically supercharged and it creates the 
> > vision of people being senselessly murdered. 
> 
>     This is simply a problem with the Democrat position on gun control. You 
> are not likely to find a Democrat that won't spin this subject in this way.

Bull, I personally know plenty that don't. Why doesn't Clinton feel that the ~11,000 gun deaths are enough to make her argument? Why the need to spin it when you risk losing your credibility during a campaign? This makes no sense to me.

>     There's probably a Republican equivalent but I can't think of it at the
> moment. Doesn't mean there isn't one though. I would not use this as an example
> of the accusation "Clinton lied".

Which is why I call it misleading... and it is.

Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: OT: Conservative sexism Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 12:17 -0800
  Re: OT: Conservative sexism owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-04 20:28 +0000
    Re: OT: Conservative sexism Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-04 15:42 -0500
      Re: OT: Conservative sexism Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-04 17:35 -0500
        Re: OT: Conservative sexism Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-04 17:38 -0500
        Re: OT: Conservative sexism Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-05 09:30 -0500
          Re: OT: Conservative sexism Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-05 09:39 -0500
          Re: OT: Conservative sexism Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-05 09:30 -0700
            Re: OT: Conservative sexism Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 11:47 -0800
    Re: OT: Conservative sexism owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-04 20:47 +0000
      Re: OT: Conservative sexism owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-04 21:57 +0000
        Re: OT: Conservative sexism Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-04 16:59 -0500
        Re: OT: Conservative sexism owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-05 04:06 +0000
          Re: OT: Conservative sexism Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 20:10 -0800
          Re: OT: Conservative sexism owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-05 04:33 +0000
            Re: OT: Conservative sexism owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-05 04:51 +0000
              Re: OT: Conservative sexism owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-05 05:31 +0000
                Re: OT: Conservative sexism Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 21:41 -0800
                Re: OT: Conservative sexism owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-05 18:51 +0000
                Re: OT: Conservative sexism Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-05 12:18 -0700
                Re: OT: Conservative sexism owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-05 19:24 +0000
                Re: OT: Conservative sexism Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-05 12:44 -0700
                Re: OT: Conservative sexism Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 12:32 -0800
                Re: OT: Conservative sexism JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-05 15:19 -0600
                Re: OT: Conservative sexism Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 13:54 -0800
                Re: OT: Conservative sexism GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-06 16:38 -0700
                Re: OT: Conservative sexism Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 15:48 -0800
                Re: OT: Conservative sexism GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-06 19:52 -0700
                Re: OT: Conservative sexism GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-06 19:51 -0700
                Re: OT: Conservative sexism Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-06 22:28 -0700
                Re: OT: Conservative sexism GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-11-07 12:45 -0700
              Re: OT: Conservative sexism Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 21:36 -0800
      Re: OT: Conservative sexism Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 14:53 -0800

csiph-web