Jump to content

Hillary Clinton: A Case Study in Self-Contradiction


Recommended Posts

Friday, October 21, 2016 Hillary Clinton: A Case Study In Self-Contradiction Hillary supporters are not critical thinkers. Either that, or they just really don't pay attention to what she says. Here are two examples in which Hillary contradicts herself within the breath of a couple of sentences, and makes completely no sense whatsoever.
The first example is from the third presidential debate just the other night. Answering a question about the Supreme Court Hillary said, "And I feel strongly that the Supreme Court needs to stand on the side of the American people. Not on the side of the powerful corporations and the wealthy…the Supreme Court should represent all of us…" Now, think about it. First, she says that she feels strongly that the Supreme Court needs to "stand on the side of the American people. Not on the side of powerful corporations…" So, in that statement she is openly admitting, in fact endorsing the idea that the Supreme Court should favor "the American people" over corporations when they make their judicial decisions. Of course, those of us rational thinkers know that corporations are made up of people. If in fact the Supreme Court is supposed to "stand on the side of the American people," but "not on the side of "powerful corporations," how pray tell is the Supreme Court supposed to "represent all of us?" It's not possible. So, in the breath of a couple of sentences Hillary Clinton contradicts herself by saying that she wants the Supreme Court to rule cases in favor of people over corporations, while at the same time representing all of us. Does she listen to herself when she speaks? More importantly, do her supporters listen to her when she speaks?


V0OSlp5.png
The second example is taken from one of Hillary's testimonies before Congress about the debacle in Benghazi. Her now infamous statement was so dramatic and over-the-top that no one, especially her supporters, took the time to really analyze what she had said. Let's do that now. In her testimony she said, "With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator." Once again, Hillary contradicts herself within the breath of a few words. Think about her statement rationally. If it is truly "our job to figure out what happened," but she has already previously admitted that when it comes to determining the reason for the attack on the Benghazi compound, whether it was due to a protest, or "it was because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they'd go kill Americans," she says, "what difference at this point does it make?"Any rational, thinking person would realize that if you really want to "figure out what happened," then one of the first steps you would take in your investigation would be to determine what was the origin of the attack. Was it a protest? Was it an organized terrorist attack? Or was it just a bunch "of guys out for a walk one night and decided they'd go kill some Americans?" Once again Hilary has made a completely nonsensical statement. If you don't care to determine the key factor leading to the attack on Benghazi, then how do you ever expect to "figure out what happened?"

9K5sagS.png
Think about it, how much sense did it make when she said in the third presidential debate that limits should be placed upon the Second Amendment right to bear arms in order to protect "toddlers," while on the other hand no limits should be placed on a woman's "right" to choose even if it results in the premature termination of the gestation of millions of unborn children?

1MuT2Dp.png
How rational is it when she says she wants to "do more to help small business," but in the next sentence says, "I want to raise the national minimum wage?" How does it help small businesses on razor thin budgets to force them to pay artificially higher wages to their employees than the actual labor market would dictate? Having never run a small business herself, it is obvious she simply does not understand that basic economic concept.
These are just a few of examples of the self-contradictory, nonsensical circular logic Hillary Clinton constantly employs in her speeches as she vainly attempts to appease her base while garnering audiences from the opposite side of the argument. Her desire please everyone results in making many of these silly, self-contradictory statements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's always hilarious when these bonehead cons like Poptart are embarrassed of their sources so that's why they don't give one.

You are an idiot. I wrote the editorial, you idiot. Perhaps you don't understand the most basic grammatical convention. When quotation marks are employed in an editorial, article, or other written material, the quote is directly attributed to the person who is referenced in the piece. For instance, you fucking idiot, when I said, "Hilary said…" And followed that with quotation marks around a group of words, those words were those that came out of that bitch's pie hole. Maybe you should go back to elementary school and take a refresher course on basic grammar. You fucking idiot…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hillary Clinton: A Case Study In Self-Contradiction

 

Hillary supporters are not critical thinkers. Either that, or they just really don't pay attention to what she says. Here are two examples in which Hillary contradicts herself within the breath of a couple of sentences, and makes completely no sense whatsoever.
The first example is from the third presidential debate just the other night. Answering a question about the Supreme Court Hillary said, "And I feel strongly that the Supreme Court needs to stand on the side of the American people. Not on the side of the powerful corporations and the wealthy…the Supreme Court should represent all of us…" Now, think about it. First, she says that she feels strongly that the Supreme Court needs to "stand on the side of the American people. Not on the side of powerful corporations…" So, in that statement she is openly admitting, in fact endorsing the idea that the Supreme Court should favor "the American people" over corporations when they make their judicial decisions. Of course, those of us rational thinkers know that corporations are made up of people. If in fact the Supreme Court is supposed to "stand on the side of the American people," but "not on the side of "powerful corporations," how pray tell is the Supreme Court supposed to "represent all of us?" It's not possible. So, in the breath of a couple of sentences Hillary Clinton contradicts herself by saying that she wants the Supreme Court to rule cases in favor of people over corporations, while at the same time representing all of us. Does she listen to herself when she speaks? More importantly, do her supporters listen to her when she speaks?



V0OSlp5.png
The second example is taken from one of Hillary's testimonies before Congress about the debacle in Benghazi. Her now infamous statement was so dramatic and over-the-top that no one, especially her supporters, took the time to really analyze what she had said. Let's do that now. In her testimony she said, "With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator." Once again, Hillary contradicts herself within the breath of a few words. Think about her statement rationally. If it is truly "our job to figure out what happened," but she has already previously admitted that when it comes to determining the reason for the attack on the Benghazi compound, whether it was due to a protest, or "it was because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they'd go kill Americans," she says, "what difference at this point does it make?"Any rational, thinking person would realize that if you really want to "figure out what happened," then one of the first steps you would take in your investigation would be to determine what was the origin of the attack. Was it a protest? Was it an organized terrorist attack? Or was it just a bunch "of guys out for a walk one night and decided they'd go kill some Americans?" Once again Hilary has made a completely nonsensical statement. If you don't care to determine the key factor leading to the attack on Benghazi, then how do you ever expect to "figure out what happened?"

9K5sagS.png
Think about it, how much sense did it make when she said in the third presidential debate that limits should be placed upon the Second Amendment right to bear arms in order to protect "toddlers," while on the other hand no limits should be placed on a woman's "right" to choose even if it results in the premature termination of the gestation of millions of unborn children?

1MuT2Dp.png
How rational is it when she says she wants to "do more to help small business," but in the next sentence says, "I want to raise the national minimum wage?" How does it help small businesses on razor thin budgets to force them to pay artificially higher wages to their employees than the actual labor market would dictate? Having never run a small business herself, it is obvious she simply does not understand that basic economic concept.
These are just a few of examples of the self-contradictory, nonsensical circular logic Hillary Clinton constantly employs in her speeches as she vainly attempts to appease her base while garnering audiences from the opposite side of the argument. Her desire please everyone results in making many of these silly, self-contradictory statements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just that he usually works with crayons. He must be desperate

But, do you have anything to say that actually refutes the fact that Hillary Clinton often contradicts herself as I have shown? No, no, I didn't think so… Why don't you and schlep have your mutual butt fuck admiration society in another thread…

 

Hillary Clinton: A Case Study In Self-Contradiction

 

Hillary supporters are not critical thinkers. Either that, or they just really don't pay attention to what she says. Here are two examples in which Hillary contradicts herself within the breath of a couple of sentences, and makes completely no sense whatsoever.
The first example is from the third presidential debate just the other night. Answering a question about the Supreme Court Hillary said, "And I feel strongly that the Supreme Court needs to stand on the side of the American people. Not on the side of the powerful corporations and the wealthy…the Supreme Court should represent all of us…" Now, think about it. First, she says that she feels strongly that the Supreme Court needs to "stand on the side of the American people. Not on the side of powerful corporations…" So, in that statement she is openly admitting, in fact endorsing the idea that the Supreme Court should favor "the American people" over corporations when they make their judicial decisions. Of course, those of us rational thinkers know that corporations are made up of people. If in fact the Supreme Court is supposed to "stand on the side of the American people," but "not on the side of "powerful corporations," how pray tell is the Supreme Court supposed to "represent all of us?" It's not possible. So, in the breath of a couple of sentences Hillary Clinton contradicts herself by saying that she wants the Supreme Court to rule cases in favor of people over corporations, while at the same time representing all of us. Does she listen to herself when she speaks? More importantly, do her supporters listen to her when she speaks?


V0OSlp5.png

The second example is taken from one of Hillary's testimonies before Congress about the debacle in Benghazi. Her now infamous statement was so dramatic and over-the-top that no one, especially her supporters, took the time to really analyze what she had said. Let's do that now. In her testimony she said, "With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator." Once again, Hillary contradicts herself within the breath of a few words. Think about her statement rationally. If it is truly "our job to figure out what happened," but she has already previously admitted that when it comes to determining the reason for the attack on the Benghazi compound, whether it was due to a protest, or "it was because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they'd go kill Americans," she says, "what difference at this point does it make?"Any rational, thinking person would realize that if you really want to "figure out what happened," then one of the first steps you would take in your investigation would be to determine what was the origin of the attack. Was it a protest? Was it an organized terrorist attack? Or was it just a bunch "of guys out for a walk one night and decided they'd go kill some Americans?" Once again Hilary has made a completely nonsensical statement. If you don't care to determine the key factor leading to the attack on Benghazi, then how do you ever expect to "figure out what happened?"

 

9K5sagS.png

Think about it, how much sense did it make when she said in the third presidential debate that limits should be placed upon the Second Amendment right to bear arms in order to protect "toddlers," while on the other hand no limits should be placed on a woman's "right" to choose even if it results in the premature termination of the gestation of millions of unborn children?

 

1MuT2Dp.png

How rational is it when she says she wants to "do more to help small business," but in the next sentence says, "I want to raise the national minimum wage?" How does it help small businesses on razor thin budgets to force them to pay artificially higher wages to their employees than the actual labor market would dictate? Having never run a small business herself, it is obvious she simply does not understand that basic economic concept.

These are just a few of examples of the self-contradictory, nonsensical circular logic Hillary Clinton constantly employs in her speeches as she vainly attempts to appease her base while garnering audiences from the opposite side of the argument. Her desire please everyone results in making many of these silly, self-contradictory statements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's over. Deal with it

Just because "it's over" doesn't mean that Hillary isn't a sociopathic lawyer who contradicts herself all the time.

 

Hillary Clinton: A Case Study In Self-Contradiction

 

Hillary supporters are not critical thinkers. Either that, or they just really don't pay attention to what she says. Here are two examples in which Hillary contradicts herself within the breath of a couple of sentences, and makes completely no sense whatsoever.
The first example is from the third presidential debate just the other night. Answering a question about the Supreme Court Hillary said, "And I feel strongly that the Supreme Court needs to stand on the side of the American people. Not on the side of the powerful corporations and the wealthy…the Supreme Court should represent all of us…" Now, think about it. First, she says that she feels strongly that the Supreme Court needs to "stand on the side of the American people. Not on the side of powerful corporations…" So, in that statement she is openly admitting, in fact endorsing the idea that the Supreme Court should favor "the American people" over corporations when they make their judicial decisions. Of course, those of us rational thinkers know that corporations are made up of people. If in fact the Supreme Court is supposed to "stand on the side of the American people," but "not on the side of "powerful corporations," how pray tell is the Supreme Court supposed to "represent all of us?" It's not possible. So, in the breath of a couple of sentences Hillary Clinton contradicts herself by saying that she wants the Supreme Court to rule cases in favor of people over corporations, while at the same time representing all of us. Does she listen to herself when she speaks? More importantly, do her supporters listen to her when she speaks?


 

V0OSlp5.png

The second example is taken from one of Hillary's testimonies before Congress about the debacle in Benghazi. Her now infamous statement was so dramatic and over-the-top that no one, especially her supporters, took the time to really analyze what she had said. Let's do that now. In her testimony she said, "With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator." Once again, Hillary contradicts herself within the breath of a few words. Think about her statement rationally. If it is truly "our job to figure out what happened," but she has already previously admitted that when it comes to determining the reason for the attack on the Benghazi compound, whether it was due to a protest, or "it was because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they'd go kill Americans," she says, "what difference at this point does it make?"Any rational, thinking person would realize that if you really want to "figure out what happened," then one of the first steps you would take in your investigation would be to determine what was the origin of the attack. Was it a protest? Was it an organized terrorist attack? Or was it just a bunch "of guys out for a walk one night and decided they'd go kill some Americans?" Once again Hilary has made a completely nonsensical statement. If you don't care to determine the key factor leading to the attack on Benghazi, then how do you ever expect to "figure out what happened?"

 

9K5sagS.png

Think about it, how much sense did it make when she said in the third presidential debate that limits should be placed upon the Second Amendment right to bear arms in order to protect "toddlers," while on the other hand no limits should be placed on a woman's "right" to choose even if it results in the premature termination of the gestation of millions of unborn children?

 

1MuT2Dp.png

How rational is it when she says she wants to "do more to help small business," but in the next sentence says, "I want to raise the national minimum wage?" How does it help small businesses on razor thin budgets to force them to pay artificially higher wages to their employees than the actual labor market would dictate? Having never run a small business herself, it is obvious she simply does not understand that basic economic concept.

These are just a few of examples of the self-contradictory, nonsensical circular logic Hillary Clinton constantly employs in her speeches as she vainly attempts to appease her base while garnering audiences from the opposite side of the argument. Her desire please everyone results in making many of these silly, self-contradictory statements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BREAKING – Weiner Makes Shock Move to Take Down Hillary, Exposes THIS

Hillary might as well close up shop and take her girl Huma with her because if the Fox News report that was just released is as damning as it sounds, the jig is about to be up.

Anthony Weiner, the soon to be ex-husband of Huma, is singing to the feds BIG LEAGUE…

 

In the criminal world, rats are the lowest form of life

 

BUT, considering Anthony is a sex addict and alleged pedophile, I don’t really think anyone is surprised he is selling the mother of his child and her boss down the river for a break in his case.

Hillary has Weiner to thank for the announcement that was released on Friday about her investigation being opened back up.

It was information revealed in the course of the Weiner investigation that shed a little more light on the Hillary email scandal.

Now, though, Weiner appears to want to give the FBI a first-hand account of what was going on so whatever Huma told him during pillow talk or during her rants when she came home after Hillary dumped on her all day is fair game!

There are statutes in place where a spouse cannot be compelled to testify against his wife, but my guess is there is currently no love lost between these two after Huma finally wised up and left him after his latest sexting episode.

I simply cannot imagine the fear that is flowing through the Hillary camp right now. Huma has recently been costing Hillary more than benefitting her and this announcement is not going to sit very well with her at all.

Don’t be surprised if we see a headline in few days that Huma and Anthony met for dinner to consider a reconciliation and they accidentally drove into a river instead.

Huma knows what Hillary does when someone stands in her way and right now, both Huma and Anthony are severe liabilities blocking her presidential bid.

http://www.angrypatr...einer-big-move/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Hillary Clinton: A Case Study In Self-Contradiction

 

Hillary supporters are not critical thinkers. Either that, or they just really don't pay attention to what she says. Here are two examples in which Hillary contradicts herself within the breath of a couple of sentences, and makes completely no sense whatsoever.
The first example is from the third presidential debate just the other night. Answering a question about the Supreme Court Hillary said, "And I feel strongly that the Supreme Court needs to stand on the side of the American people. Not on the side of the powerful corporations and the wealthy…the Supreme Court should represent all of us…" Now, think about it. First, she says that she feels strongly that the Supreme Court needs to "stand on the side of the American people. Not on the side of powerful corporations…" So, in that statement she is openly admitting, in fact endorsing the idea that the Supreme Court should favor "the American people" over corporations when they make their judicial decisions. Of course, those of us rational thinkers know that corporations are made up of people. If in fact the Supreme Court is supposed to "stand on the side of the American people," but "not on the side of "powerful corporations," how pray tell is the Supreme Court supposed to "represent all of us?" It's not possible. So, in the breath of a couple of sentences Hillary Clinton contradicts herself by saying that she wants the Supreme Court to rule cases in favor of people over corporations, while at the same time representing all of us. Does she listen to herself when she speaks? More importantly, do her supporters listen to her when she speaks?


 

V0OSlp5.png

The second example is taken from one of Hillary's testimonies before Congress about the debacle in Benghazi. Her now infamous statement was so dramatic and over-the-top that no one, especially her supporters, took the time to really analyze what she had said. Let's do that now. In her testimony she said, "With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator." Once again, Hillary contradicts herself within the breath of a few words. Think about her statement rationally. If it is truly "our job to figure out what happened," but she has already previously admitted that when it comes to determining the reason for the attack on the Benghazi compound, whether it was due to a protest, or "it was because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they'd go kill Americans," she says, "what difference at this point does it make?"Any rational, thinking person would realize that if you really want to "figure out what happened," then one of the first steps you would take in your investigation would be to determine what was the origin of the attack. Was it a protest? Was it an organized terrorist attack? Or was it just a bunch "of guys out for a walk one night and decided they'd go kill some Americans?" Once again Hilary has made a completely nonsensical statement. If you don't care to determine the key factor leading to the attack on Benghazi, then how do you ever expect to "figure out what happened?"

 

9K5sagS.png

Think about it, how much sense did it make when she said in the third presidential debate that limits should be placed upon the Second Amendment right to bear arms in order to protect "toddlers," while on the other hand no limits should be placed on a woman's "right" to choose even if it results in the premature termination of the gestation of millions of unborn children?

 

1MuT2Dp.png

How rational is it when she says she wants to "do more to help small business," but in the next sentence says, "I want to raise the national minimum wage?" How does it help small businesses on razor thin budgets to force them to pay artificially higher wages to their employees than the actual labor market would dictate? Having never run a small business herself, it is obvious she simply does not understand that basic economic concept.

These are just a few of examples of the self-contradictory, nonsensical circular logic Hillary Clinton constantly employs in her speeches as she vainly attempts to appease her base while garnering audiences from the opposite side of the argument. Her desire please everyone results in making many of these silly, self-contradictory statements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...