Out of touch
- Thread starter layoutshooter
- Start date
Humble2drive
Expert Expediter
Your favorite past time of spewing hatred toward our Government and almost all politicians now extends to their children as well?
Chelsea could have easily gone the way of a Paris Hilton; however, she has always been respectful, well behaved and intelligent. She worked hard to earn her degree from Stanford with high honors. Then she went on to Oxford and then a masters in Public Health from Columbia.
She is known to be a motivated and dedicated worker for the Clinton Foundation where she will help millions.
Contrast that with your contributions to the world and think twice before you spout off about someone else's child.
Everyone is someone else's child.
Humble2drive
Expert Expediter
Completely off topic and an ignorant hateful observation. It is easy to insult others and be an Internet bully when you are anonymous.
Why don't you post pictures of yourself and your children and let us be the judges of your visual appeal?
Humble2drive
Expert Expediter
And your point is?
The OP was directed at Hillary Clinton. You and LOS decided to criticize her daughter. That is such a weak and pathetic direction to take.
And y'all wonder why so many women [and the men who appreciate them, no matter what they look like to strangers] consider Republicans the Party of Ugly [Insides]?
PS Do you pass these "values" on to your children, too?
Right its only Republicans that talk about others chuldren. Are you serious or do you need some reminders about what liberals have said,
Sent from my Fisher Price - ABC 123
tenntrucker
Expert Expediter
Last edited:
I agree that it's a pretty lame direction to take, but it's really no weaker or pathetic than attacking the poster rather than post itself. You criticized LOS for criticizing Chelsea, despite the fact that she is a public figure and an adult, yet at the same time took it upon yourself to defend Chelsea as if she should be untouchable. If you're allowed to defend her, others are allowed to criticize her. That's how it works. You'd have been fine if you had left off your "Contrast that with your contributions to the world..." shot, as it was a personal shot thoroughly unnecessary to the point you were trying to make. Asking Aristotle to post pictures of himself and his children is equally unnecessary, particularly since his comment about Chelsea was the exact opposite of "completely off topic," as the OP explicitly mentioned that she was paid real money to be on television.
chuldren?
you need to find a typo police badge
Sent from my Fisher Price - ABC 123
chuldren?
you need to find a typo police badge
Sent from my Fisher Price - ABC 123
Humble2drive
Expert Expediter
In this case the poster decided to take a direction which I felt was completely mean spirited and unnecessary. That is why I addressed the poster vs the post. There is nothing weak or pathetic about that.
You often criticize the posters so your conclusion above is surprising.
Sooooo, you believe that because a person is a "public figure" it is perfectly fine to call them names and denigrate them. That may be the common practice in America but does that make it right?
There is a difference between defending and educating. It seemed obvious to me that the poster knew very little about the person he was judging; therefore, I decided to present some information about the subject.
I just couldn't help myself. I am sure you understand.
Soooo, that makes a snide remark regarding Chelsea's appearance (attractiveness) on topic?
But they are colorful names!
Whenever you use an emotional response and attack the post, it is always weaker than using an intelligent response to attack what the poster said. Not just "you" personally, but me or anyone else that does it. An emotional response is inherently weaker than a reasoned one.
You'll have to give me your definition of "often" because attacking who said it rather than what they said is something I make a deliberate effort not to do, and rarely fail in that effort.
Whether it is right or wrong to attack a public figure is a separate issue from whether or not it is a common practice. Your issue was, as you stated, with LOS extending his "spewing [of] hatred toward our Government and almost all politicians [and] now" extending that hatred "to their children as well" as if somehow the adult children of politicians, who are now public political figures themselves, should for some reason be off limits.
Yes, you did, and you presented it neatly bookended between two personal attacks. As much as an educational opportunity, that smacks of using education as a means of attack.
I understand. That doesn't mean you don't owe him an apology, or at the very least make the effort to help yourself in the future.
That's what }the exact opposite" of "completely off topic" means, yes. As I previously stated, part of the topic as defined in the OP is the fact that she was paid money to appear on TV. That opens the door for comments as to whether she is or is not well suited for a visual medium (her attractiveness, thus far, has only been mentioned by you
).
Unlike many [of both sexes], Chelsea Clinton wasn't chosen for her looks, but her knowledge and perspective. The same goes for every man chosen to contribute his perspective on tv, and who points out how "well suited for a visual medium" they are?
Men who value women [or not] primarily on how attractive she is deserve what they get - and it won't be the best women, either.
Men who value women [or not] primarily on how attractive she is deserve what they get - and it won't be the best women, either.
It's not "talking about others' children" that bothers me, [libs had a ball with Bristol Palin, lol], it's the denigration of how a young woman looks that ought to be off limits. Unless the young lady in question is competing in a pageant, it is irrelevant, and says more about the "attractiveness" of the speaker/writer than the target.
Amen to that!
And I don't think our heavenly Father said "Oops sure messed up on that one" Everyone is beutiful in Gods eyes Why? Because He made them.
zorry
Veteran Expediter
If you want to be happy for the rest of your life
Never make a pretty woman your wife
From my personal point of view
Get an ugly girl to marry you.
Jimmy Soul
If her name had been Bertha Anderson, she wouldn't have gotten a penny. She was chosen for her name.
Women viewers, every time they turn on the news.
The inuntended consequence of Hot Chick News Grrrl is pretty funny, though.
Sexy News Anchors' Surprising Effect On Women - Forbes
We get exactly what we're after. When they get old and lose their lustre, we just trade them in for a newer model, like a car. And just like a car, if you leave their headlights burning all night, they won't start in the morning.