IS Hillary Clinton just insane?

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yay must mean I passed the "I'm not a pleb" quiz hehe. It was due to pain... back pain I think it was (I'm in the process of brewing a bold aromatic mental powe-up *sip*). I mean JFK got so strung out by the Doc, he had an incident one time in a hotel where he threw off all his clothing and ran screaming down the hallways [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No I'm not talking to myself [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] this was my reply to AtG, just good place to expand my comment.

You know, there is a parallel forming between JFK and HRC. Primarily in the matter of the Russians. Why did the whole Cuban missile crisis happen? I mean we know the story, and the Russians were pissed off even before JFK took office (before my time too). But this didn't happen before he took office, but during.

Could it really have been avoided all together? So like we know now he was jacked up on speed. I would say that drug usage directly modified his approach to things, as where like Reagan was cool headed about the Russian matter (though we were less so hehe my time), but in hindsight there was nothing as of the tension raised by the Cuban missile crisis, some, but not to that extreme.

And so we look at Hillary, and see the interaction causing the Russian question again to slide back towards relations parallel to the 1960's. Well not fully with just Hillary at this point, 0bama is driving it as well. In this case we are putting missiles on their borders. The tension is that these missiles are not just capable of defensive operations, but as well capable of offensive operations, which is true. Thus we have a crisis brewing once again just as potentially lethal as the Cuban missile crisis.

tl;dr Clinton, if strung out, much like JFK was, could result in another extreme crisis as happened during the Cuban missile crisis. It's already leading in that direction.

[Sidelle]

To answer OP. Yes. Hillary's a crazy motherfucker. Not insane but crazy like a fox with early stages of Alzheimer's that occasionally makes itself known. Anyone who trusts a word she says and votes for her is an idiot. Trump has his flaws but this bitch is on a whole new level of evil. People like this should never be allowed to have power under any circumstances.

P.S. By the way... Just how many of you are taking estrogen before your sex changes? It's bitchier than junior high up in here.

[R Flair]

What you said was 100% an ad hominem couched in a psychoanalysis of people who follow conspiracy theories.

Instead of responding to the topic discussion, you leveled an accusation against him concluding by way of implication that he "wasn't as smart as he thinks he is" among other things.

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by R Flair [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What you said was 100% an ad hominem couched in a psychoanalysis of people who follow conspiracy theories.

Instead of responding to the topic discussion, you leveled an accusation against him concluding by way of implication that he "wasn't as smart as he thinks he is" among other things.

Yes that is correct, because it pushes me into defending myself personally, from my position, rather than the debate of the actual topic or accusations being true or false. I don't mind people taking snipes at me calling me out as just a conspiracy theorist or what have you, even a little name calling is fine (I deserve it sometimes), but that was a bombing run hehe... then came back to strafe, and still added completely nothing to the debate of the topic other than to try to derail it.

Is she is or is she aint? That's the matter at hand, the purpose of the thread, that and entertainment value. I'm fine with people defending her, if they defend her, preferably with some logical discussions outside of just some pure opinion on her with nothing else. Though at least that still has entertaining value if only just opinion, this aint formal debates after all.

But trying to lay waste to the topic by attacking 'conspiracy theorists' alone... or people that believe in conspiracies as the poster put it, is just a lame ad hominem derail attempt. Especially due to the fact that everyone has believed in some conspiracy theory and no one has believed in them all.

[Csihar]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

still added completely nothing to the debate of the topic other than to try to derail it.

No. Not my intent. Just another conspiracy theory (get it? hehe).

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

But trying to lay waste to the topic by attacking 'conspiracy theorists' alone... or people that believe in conspiracies as the poster put it, is just a lame ad hominem derail attempt.

I'll put it much more plainly. I had my opinion of you, you posted something, I was in a dickish mood, you're often not a pleasant person to other people on this forum (contributed to me making the decision) so I posted my opinion of you. It was an off-topic post.

I don't know if Hillary is going crazy. I don't really care either. I will say that my opinion on it doesn't matter regardless because I'm simply not familiar with the topic enough. I am too ignorant of the topic to hold any valid opinion.

That's a very clear explanation.

In line with your argument: you are shifting the focus away from my criticism of you by focusing on an apparant logical fallacy that I made. It pushes me into defending myself personally, from my position, rather than the actual accusations being true or false. Therefore you are using an ad hominem*.

*Note: I don't think you are.

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by Csihar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It was an off-topic post.

I don't know if Hillary is going crazy. I don't really care either.

This is an off topic forum to the topic of EQ, not an off topic thread. I don't mind things going to side/parallel discussions, I do that too (actually I'm kinda notorious for it [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] but not usually early in the topic).
You know, if you don't want to discuss Hillary Clinton here, you are free to make a thread on "conspiracy theorists" here in OT, it's not an RnF topic as long as you don't treat it as such. You might even add something of substance to the OT forum in general.

[AzzarTheGod]

Originally Posted by Csihar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I don't know if Hillary is going crazy. I don't really care either. I will say that my opinion on it doesn't matter regardless because I'm simply not familiar with the topic enough. I am too ignorant of the topic to hold any valid opinion.

Then throw your ass outta here.

[Csihar]

Originally Posted by R Flair [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What you said was 100% an ad hominem couched in a psychoanalysis of people who follow conspiracy theories.

Instead of responding to the topic discussion, you leveled an accusation against him concluding by way of implication that he "wasn't as smart as he thinks he is" among other things.

Nope. And you fail to explain how it's an ad hominem. All you're saying is that I didn't respond to the topic (which is true) but instead attacked him (which is true). That is not the definition of an ad hominem.

If I in any way claimed or even implied that the validity of the video was affected by my assertion of his character than that would have been an ad hominem. It's a logical fallacy. Attacking someone is not a logical fallacy.
I have seen his posts and decided today to simply post my opinion of him. Unrelated to the thread.

It wasn't against people who follow conspiracy theories (note how I said 'so-called') persay. It was about a specific subsection of the people who do. I explained it in more detail in my second (I think) post. But if you think you know what I meant better than I do then that's perfectly fine for you to believe. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my first post but even if that's true I explained my position later on and now you know what I mean. This part has nothing to do with it being an ad hominem.

Interestingly enough it's almost becoming an ad hominem to accuse me of using an ad hominem.

[R Flair]

Search Results
ad ho·mi·nem
ˌad ˈhämənəm/
adverb & adjective
adverb: ad hominem; adjective: ad hominem

1.
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.




had you posted that same thing in an independent thread, yes it wouldn't have been an ad hominem but whether you like it or not, in the context of this thread, it was.


just stop

[Csihar]

Originally Posted by R Flair [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Search Results
ad ho·mi·nem
ˌad ˈhämənəm/
adverb & adjective
adverb: ad hominem; adjective: ad hominem

1.
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.




had you posted that same thing in an independent thread, yes it wouldn't have been an ad hominem but whether you like it or not, in the context of this thread, it was.


just stop

Poor argumentation. It's like trying to catch someone on a technicality. I will follow your advice to stop though.