WritersBeat.com
 

Go Back   WritersBeat.com > Write Here > Free Writing

Free Writing Plot bunnies, random musings, etc. No one-liners.


Thoughts about Hilary

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 10-18-2016, 07:50 AM
Tor
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Thoughts about Hilary


The first word to come to mind is Liar. The next is thief. There are endless examples of her being both. Not only a thief but one that robs the poorest among us. Her foundation only provides 10% of its income to the people that are the subjects of her ‘charity’. Taking money under the false pretense that most of the donations go to those in need. Like much of what lawyer Clinton does - not technically illegal.
All of this is crystal clear to any reasonable person. However, repeating her lies endlessly on coconspirator media seems to have blotted out any possibility of truth getting to the general population.

None of this is new information and for the most part little of it is contested by the Clinton campaign. All of it is ignored or given minimum space at low viewing times by the press and other media outlets.

As an involved and motivated citizen of this great country, I am dismayed. Democracy is the first casualty of the war against the truth. Propaganda is the most effective way to incapacitate our system of beliefs. Our system depends on a well informed population. That population can not be well informed if only one side is heard and what is heard is endlessly repeated biased information.

It is the duty of each citizen to ensure they are well informed regarding both sides’ positions and to not be seduced by emotional beatings by the media to any side. This is a lot to ask given our emersion in the sea of technology. We have become used to an app. on a smart phone deciding how we solve a problem.
Sitting and thinking after absorbing as much information as possible is not often attempted.

So don’t stand and yell - sit, learn and think. Otherwise you will get the government you deserve - unfortunately the rest of us will get what you deserve, as well.

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-18-2016, 02:26 PM
Myers's Avatar
Myers (Offline)
Word Wizard
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 636
Thanks: 114
Thanks 136
Default

Originally Posted by Tor View Post
The first word to come to mind is Liar. The next is thief. There are endless examples of her being both. Not only a thief but one that robs the poorest among us. Her foundation only provides 10% of its income to the people that are the subjects of her ‘charity’.
Believe me, I'm no Clinton fan, but that 10% figure (or 6%, depending on the source) is a myth based on the misconception that the Clinton Foundation is a typical foundation that funnels money to select charities. Some of it goes to outside charities, and that's where the 10% figure comes from. Otherwise, The Clinton Foundation spends it's money directly by providing assistance themselves through their own organization.

Last I checked, CharityWatch gave the foundation an A rating, which I believe means over 75% of money taken in goes to charity.

It can be hard to sort out with so much conflicting information. But when you hear the 10% figure, it's a sure sign that the information is coming from sources with a conservative, anti-Hilary bias.

Probably without too much effort, you could come up with better examples of impropriety and shenanigans concerning Hilary and the Clinton Foundation, but this isn't one of them. All this shows is that you are willing to pass on questionable information without really looking into it. Which leads us to...

Originally Posted by Tor View Post
That population can not be well informed if only one side is heard and what is heard is endlessly repeated biased information.
Exactly.

Last edited by Myers; 10-18-2016 at 03:50 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-18-2016, 08:39 PM
brianpatrick's Avatar
brianpatrick (Offline)
Always Online
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 2,749
Thanks: 246
Thanks 579
Default

All politicians are liars. Professional liars.

If one of them told the truth:

http://youtu.be/HdHrHaO-na0
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-19-2016, 04:21 AM
siri453 (Offline)
Let me introduce myself
New Author
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 7
Thanks: 2
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Despite her faults I hope people see that she is a much better candidate then Trump. It would be great for America to have female President.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-19-2016, 08:01 AM
Tor
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

There you go again, taking me to task for not following my own words. If you think quick search of the internet means you are well informed, you are incorrect. There is more to it than that. Being well informed requires more effort then that. I don’t know about your options but mine are thought through and based on a number of differing sources. Like them or not they are my own.

But that is not the issue here. It is a way to devalue the message by devaluing the source. Your self appointed position, seems to be deciding who is wrong or right while taking no position in the discussion. But I digress.

I think that a 75% to the recipient of services is low and only reinforces the position of charity as an industry. The numbers aside, caring for the less fortunate in our society is a responsibility we all share. No one should make a living at it or become rich because of it.

The Bill and Hillary have operated outside of ethical behavior their entire careers at best, and outside the law at worst. That is a fact that no reasonable person could dispute. You are correct that the examples of wrong doing and incompetence for herself are endless.

My point was just that Hillary is a liar and thief. That is my considered opinion. You are welcome to yours. I will listen to it - if you state it. But your evaluation of me means nothing to me.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-19-2016, 08:07 AM
Tor
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

A person that would over look Hillary's incompetence, at best and crimes at worst, and vote for her because she is a woman is stunning. As I have said before, that group will get what they deserve - unfortunately the rest of us will get what they reserve, as well.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-19-2016, 10:44 AM
Myers's Avatar
Myers (Offline)
Word Wizard
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 636
Thanks: 114
Thanks 136
Default

Originally Posted by Tor View Post
If you think quick search of the internet means you are well informed, you are incorrect.
Actually, when it comes to a specific talking point, like this 10% thing, it should only take a relatively quick search, if you know what you are doing.

I can't remember where I first heard it, Limbaugh or Hannity maybe, but Carly Fiorina hammered on it in the republican primaries.

Anyway, I thought, boy that sounds REALLY low, even for the Clintons, so I decided to look into it. It didn't take long to come up with a plausible explanation that showed the figure was a half-truth, at best.

Of course, when you do your search, you're going to get a variety of options, both conservative and liberal leaning, because as you likely know, there's virtually no such thing as an unbiased source. (Whether or not this really matters to you is another issue.)

The thing is, if you are dealing with what you suspect is at best a half-truth, then you know you're going to have to get BOTH halves by reading information from BOTH sides. That means a conservative might have to hold his nose and read an article in The New York Times, or a liberal might have to do the same and read an article in the National Review. And then you have to put on your thinking cap and decide for yourself.

I'd bet that 95% of the people who say the do this or think they do are suffering from confirmation bias, which means they just go to the sources that are likely to confirm what they already believe.

I'll go out on a limb here and say because you've just repeated this 10% myth, you did JUST that. Otherwise, you would have come up with something else about the Clinton Foundation to make your point.

Originally Posted by Tor View Post
I think that a 75% to the recipient of services is low and only reinforces the position of charity as an industry.
Beside the point. 75% is not 10%

Originally Posted by Tor View Post
My point was just that Hillary is a liar and thief. That is my considered opinion. You are welcome to yours. I will listen to it - if you state it. But your evaluation of me means nothing to me.
But you used a bogus number to make your point. If you can just shrug that off or pretend it doesn't matter, then why should I or anyone take your opinion seriously?

And I hate to break it to you, but an opinion piece is a direct reflection on you, especially if it depends on the veracity of the information you present. Readers are not going to draw that line.

If that's something you can't accept, then perhaps you shouldn't be posting your thoughts on a public forum.

Last edited by Myers; 10-19-2016 at 11:11 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-19-2016, 01:25 PM
Tor
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

You just can't stop - that is fine. I'll post my opinion you post yours and let the readers decide who they want to read. But once again - although I will read your opinion - I don't care what you think of me or if you ever read any of mine. I Don't feel the need to argue with you.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-19-2016, 03:11 PM
Myers's Avatar
Myers (Offline)
Word Wizard
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 636
Thanks: 114
Thanks 136
Default

I won't be posting my opinion, certainly not on this or any related topic.

I can recognize that I don't have the depth of knowledge or the political insight or the time to write something interesting or original, or something that hasn't been said a bazillion times already in one way or the other.

In other words, I have no desire to formally add another opinion to the tsunami of bullshit related to this election.

But you keep up the good work; and God bless America.

Last edited by Myers; 10-20-2016 at 03:22 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-20-2016, 09:06 AM
Tor
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

lucky for you, pomposity is its own reward. I don't care about your opinion but would read it if you had the wherewithal to state it. But clearly, hiding behind sarcasm and pseudo-intellectual claptrap Is all you are interested in. I am done indulging you. If you respond to any more of my writing I will not communicate with you.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-20-2016, 09:33 AM
Myers's Avatar
Myers (Offline)
Word Wizard
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 636
Thanks: 114
Thanks 136
Default

Like Clint Eastwood said, "A man's gotta know his limitations."

Unfortunately, when it comes to posting political "thoughts" on the internet, a whole lot of people don't.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-20-2016, 12:50 PM
Myers's Avatar
Myers (Offline)
Word Wizard
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 636
Thanks: 114
Thanks 136
Default

And course, I'll never know now...

But I wonder what I've said that could possibly be considered pseudo-intellectual? Because I think I just said in pretty plain language that you should do your homework.

If that's what is considered pseudo-intellectual these days, then we're in worse trouble than I thought.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-20-2016, 04:22 PM
SteveHarrison (Offline)
Abnormally Articulate
Official Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 118
Thanks: 10
Thanks 43
Default

From the other side of the world, it's quite astounding to see how Clinton, a vastly experienced career politician (with both the good and bad that term implies) has been so vilified.

Unlike Trump, there appears to be absolutely no evidence that she is a bad person or that she would be a bad President. All indications are that she would make a fine President and make a very positive contribution to repairing the current fractured US society.

It's a shame a large number of people seem incapable of understanding the bigger picture and would rather elect an incompetent buffoon. (OK, I know they elected George W Bush twice, but Trump is at a whole other level.)
__________________
Web
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
TimeStorm FB page
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to SteveHarrison For This Useful Post:
max crash (10-20-2016)
  #14  
Old 10-20-2016, 05:42 PM
Myers's Avatar
Myers (Offline)
Word Wizard
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 636
Thanks: 114
Thanks 136
Default

That's rather naive. There are plenty of reasons to question her record, her proposed policies and suitability to hold office. And that's coming from someone who isn't an irrational Hillary hater.

I could attempt to enumerate them here, but even if I did, it would take a good deal of effort on your part to either verify or discount what I've said. Of course, you could take the time to look into it for yourself if you really wanted to.

A lot of people who live elsewhere are looking at her almost exclusively in comparison to Trump, along with with the rhetoric coming out of her current campaign, and they don't know anything about her record going back 30 years so, including her time as first lady, the senate and as Secretary of State.

The reality is, if the republicans hadn't shot themselves in the foot by nominating Trump, almost anyone, with the possible exception of Ted Cruz could have beaten her. She had one of the highest unfavorability ratings for a presidential candidate ever going into the general election, and not without reason.

As Trump continues go further and further off the deep end, Hilary just looks better and better, but it's mostly by default.

Last edited by Myers; 10-20-2016 at 07:23 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-20-2016, 08:44 PM
SteveHarrison (Offline)
Abnormally Articulate
Official Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 118
Thanks: 10
Thanks 43
Default

Originally Posted by Myers View Post
That's rather naive. There are plenty of reasons to question her record, her proposed policies and suitability to hold office. And that's coming from someone who isn't an irrational Hillary hater.

I could attempt to enumerate them here, but even if I did, it would take a good deal of effort on your part to either verify or discount what I've said. Of course, you could take the time to look into it for yourself if you really wanted to.

A lot of people who live elsewhere are looking at her almost exclusively in comparison to Trump, along with with the rhetoric coming out of her current campaign, and they don't know anything about her record going back 30 years so, including her time as first lady, the senate and as Secretary of State.

The reality is, if the republicans hadn't shot themselves in the foot by nominating Trump, almost anyone, with the possible exception of Ted Cruz could have beaten her. She had one of the highest unfavorability ratings for a presidential candidate ever going into the general election, and not without reason.

As Trump continues go further and further off the deep end, Hilary just looks better and better, but it's mostly by default.
I agree that she would likely lose to any half-decent Republican candidate, but she's a no-brainer decision against a loser like Trump.

I've followed US politics closely since the early 90s, so I'm very familiar with Clinton's career and, aside from Obama, I believe she will do as good or better a job than any of the other Presidents during that time and longer.

She's no stranger to scandal and controversy, sure, but that's pretty much what you would expect in such a long political career. There are a lot of checks and balances in the system, so she can't do anything she likes, and, if the Republicans retain the House and Senate, they can continue their self-destructive obstructionism.
__________________
Web
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
TimeStorm FB page
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-20-2016, 11:15 PM
Myers's Avatar
Myers (Offline)
Word Wizard
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 636
Thanks: 114
Thanks 136
Default

What you would expect?

Where are you really from, Uzbekistan?
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-21-2016, 05:44 AM
Myers's Avatar
Myers (Offline)
Word Wizard
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 636
Thanks: 114
Thanks 136
Default

BTW, Steve, I more or less posted my extended response in the "Clinton Trump Debate" thread.

I'm not going to draw any more attention to this guy who can't handle any criticism of his "thoughts," such as they are, or even a little sarcasm. Kind of sad.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-27-2016, 11:49 AM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 3,391
Thanks: 292
Thanks 583
Default

Originally Posted by siri453 View Post
Despite her faults I hope people see that she is a much better candidate then Trump. It would be great for America to have female President.
Why?
__________________
If you surrender a civilization to avoid social disapproval, you should know that all of history will curse you for your cowardliness - Alice Teller

If John of Patmos would browse the internet today for half an hour, I don't know if the Book of Revelations would be entirely different or entirely the same.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-27-2016, 11:52 AM
Tor
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mohican,

Indeed!
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-27-2016, 12:22 PM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 3,391
Thanks: 292
Thanks 583
Default

Originally Posted by Myers View Post
The reality is, if the republicans hadn't shot themselves in the foot by nominating Trump, almost anyone, with the possible exception of Ted Cruz could have beaten her. She had one of the highest unfavorability ratings for a presidential candidate ever going into the general election, and not without reason. .
Originally Posted by Myers View Post
That's rather naive.
If you look at the 200 people in the original 2016 Republican Beauty Pageant I see only Marco Rubio as a the person who could possibly cleanly beat Hillary. And he'd have difficulty, because so much of the base is pissed off about illegal immigration. Rubio was one of the 2010 Tea Party victories in 2010, and upon reaching DC completely forgot about the Tea Party and joined in with the McCains Grahams etc that like lots of illegal immigration, lots of foreign entanglements, and lotsa big government. He'd be one of those rare birds that if he could win the nomination might win it all.

My preferred Republican Candidate was Doctor Randall Paul - and I don't think he's half the man his daddy is. He's a firm maybe. His nomination would have split the GOP as bad/worse than tRUMP for different reasons.

The GOP probably wanted another dynastic rematch - aka Yeb Bush versus Clinton. Hillary wins that one. Yeb Bush loses to Hillary.

FIorina? Woman against woman? Her HP career had a few blemishes. A firm maybe.

Rick Santorum's second attempt? Nope, wouldn't beat her.

Ted Cruz? Smart but slimy. (Cruz or Rubio could/would have a fairly valid eligibility issue raised against them) Would receive fake support from GOP I agree with the Myers assessment that Cruz loses to Hillary.

Bobby Jindall - liked as a Governor. Would probably lose to Hillary.

Mike Huckleberry? Would a former minister and Arkansas Governor win out in the DC den of depravity? Would probably loose to Hillary.

Dr. Ben Carson? Maybe.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie? Would lose to Hillary.

As repugnant as tRUMP is, I can see a positive Rubio, several maybes and a lot of people that no matter how unfavorable Hillary is, She'd still beat them.

I don't put too much into her unfavorable ratings because there could be a revelation that she was the Bride of Satan and people would still vote for her. I'd say half of her voters think she's an untrustworthy pussbag, and will still hit the witch icon on the computer voting screen......
__________________
If you surrender a civilization to avoid social disapproval, you should know that all of history will curse you for your cowardliness - Alice Teller

If John of Patmos would browse the internet today for half an hour, I don't know if the Book of Revelations would be entirely different or entirely the same.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 10-27-2016, 01:17 PM
Myers's Avatar
Myers (Offline)
Word Wizard
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 636
Thanks: 114
Thanks 136
Default

Originally Posted by Mohican View Post
Why?
In response to "It would be great for America to have female President," I say why not?

I have two daughters. As far as what they can achieve goes, I'd like them to see that the barriers are coming down.

It's long been the cliche in this country that anyone can become president. Of course, that's a stretch, but until recently it's been practically impossible for a woman.

As long as it's someone with integrity (or what passes for integrity these days) who is otherwise qualified.

Even if I disagreed with her politically, if all things were otherwise equal in comparison to a man, I think it would be cause for celebration.

Of course if you're voting for or against someone simply because she's a women, that's a problem. Hard to say if siri453 meant that or not.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 10-27-2016, 01:36 PM
Myers's Avatar
Myers (Offline)
Word Wizard
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 636
Thanks: 114
Thanks 136
Default

Originally Posted by Mohican View Post
If you look at the 200 people in the original 2016 Republican Beauty Pageant I see only Marco Rubio as a the person who could possibly cleanly beat Hillary. And he'd have difficulty, because so much of the base is pissed off about illegal immigration. Rubio was one of the 2010 Tea Party victories in 2010, and upon reaching DC completely forgot about the Tea Party and joined in with the McCains Grahams etc that like lots of illegal immigration, lots of foreign entanglements, and lotsa big government. He'd be one of those rare birds that if he could win the nomination might win it all.

My preferred Republican Candidate was Doctor Randall Paul - and I don't think he's half the man his daddy is. He's a firm maybe. His nomination would have split the GOP as bad/worse than tRUMP for different reasons.

The GOP probably wanted another dynastic rematch - aka Yeb Bush versus Clinton. Hillary wins that one. Yeb Bush loses to Hillary.

FIorina? Woman against woman? Her HP career had a few blemishes. A firm maybe.

Rick Santorum's second attempt? Nope, wouldn't beat her.

Ted Cruz? Smart but slimy. (Cruz or Rubio could/would have a fairly valid eligibility issue raised against them) Would receive fake support from GOP I agree with the Myers assessment that Cruz loses to Hillary.

Bobby Jindall - liked as a Governor. Would probably lose to Hillary.

Mike Huckleberry? Would a former minister and Arkansas Governor win out in the DC den of depravity? Would probably loose to Hillary.

Dr. Ben Carson? Maybe.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie? Would lose to Hillary.

As repugnant as tRUMP is, I can see a positive Rubio, several maybes and a lot of people that no matter how unfavorable Hillary is, She'd still beat them.

I don't put too much into her unfavorable ratings because there could be a revelation that she was the Bride of Satan and people would still vote for her. I'd say half of her voters think she's an untrustworthy pussbag, and will still hit the witch icon on the computer voting screen......
I disagree. I think the near beatification of Hillary since the convention is largely a reaction to Trump.

Given that, and how unpopular Hillary was going into the general election, I think any republican who could have distinguished himself or herself from the pack other than Cruz could have have won against Hillary.

But that was not to be, because Trump sucked up all the oxygen in the room.

In addition to that, just about any other candidate would not have gone out his way to shoot himself in the foot on an almost daily basis. Republicans historically haven't been the best at consistent and coherent messaging, but ANYONE could have done a better job than Trump and his uber-lame campaign organization.

Trump's idiocy and pussy grabbing exploits aside, that's one of the disadvantages of being a so-called outsider; you don't know how to play the game.

Otherwise, your breakdown is essentially guesswork. So I'll say my guess is as good as yours and we can leave it at that.

Last edited by Myers; 10-27-2016 at 02:57 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 10-27-2016, 01:39 PM
Myers's Avatar
Myers (Offline)
Word Wizard
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 636
Thanks: 114
Thanks 136
Default

Note to Tor:

This is how grownups discuss things and disagree on a public online forum. Maybe you should try it sometime.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 10-27-2016, 05:54 PM
Cityboy (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,279
Thanks: 19
Thanks 126
Default

Originally Posted by brianpatrick View Post
All politicians are liars. Professional liars.

If one of them told the truth:

http://youtu.be/HdHrHaO-na0
Wow. You're better than Wikileaks.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 10-27-2016, 05:55 PM
Cityboy (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,279
Thanks: 19
Thanks 126
Default

Originally Posted by Myers View Post
Last I checked, CharityWatch gave the foundation an A rating, which I believe means over 75% of money taken in goes to charity.




Exactly.

75% goes into Bill's pocket. Wikileaks is more accurate than CharityWatch.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 10-27-2016, 05:56 PM
brianpatrick's Avatar
brianpatrick (Offline)
Always Online
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 2,749
Thanks: 246
Thanks 579
Default

Originally Posted by Cityboy View Post
Wow. You're better than Wikileaks.


Thanks! I appreciate your nod to my genius. And, it's: WikiLeaks. Looks funny the way you have it.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 10-27-2016, 05:57 PM
Cityboy (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,279
Thanks: 19
Thanks 126
Default

Originally Posted by Myers View Post
Note to Tor:

This is how grownups discuss things and disagree on a public online forum. Maybe you should try it sometime.
Low blow. Holy One.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 10-27-2016, 06:30 PM
Myers's Avatar
Myers (Offline)
Word Wizard
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 636
Thanks: 114
Thanks 136
Default

Originally Posted by Cityboy View Post
75% goes into Bill's pocket. Wikileaks is more accurate than CharityWatch.
Wikileaks reveals Bill made millions from speaking engagements and "consulting" and that there were likely conflicts of interest with foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation.

That doesn't mean that more than 75% of donations overall didn't go to directly to the charities as specified by independent audits of the Clinton foundation; as opposed to what Tor said, that only 10% of donations went directly to charities.

Did you read and try to comprehend all my comments or did you just hone in on something you could contradict without thinking?

There are enough shenanigans involving the Clintons. There's no need to make things up.

Last edited by Myers; 10-27-2016 at 10:44 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 10-27-2016, 06:37 PM
Myers's Avatar
Myers (Offline)
Word Wizard
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 636
Thanks: 114
Thanks 136
Default

Originally Posted by Cityboy View Post
Low blow. Holy One.
Did you read Tor's response to my criticism of his piece?

Basically, it was "I don't care what you think and I'm not going to respond to you anymore."

Boo hoo hoo.

All because I called him on not doing his homework.

How exactly is pointing that out a low blow?

Last edited by Myers; 10-27-2016 at 06:48 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 10-28-2016, 05:53 AM
Cityboy (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,279
Thanks: 19
Thanks 126
Default

Originally Posted by Myers View Post
Did you read Tor's response to my criticism of his piece?

Basically, it was "I don't care what you think and I'm not going to respond to you anymore."

Boo hoo hoo.

All because I called him on not doing his homework.

How exactly is pointing that out a low blow?
There isn't much in his reply to you that should ruffle the feathers of a grownup. You don't have to think when it comes to the Clintons and corruption. You can smell the odor. The same could be said about Trump. The only loser in this election is the citizens of U.S.A.

Last edited by Cityboy; 10-28-2016 at 05:56 AM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

  WritersBeat.com > Write Here > Free Writing


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Great Thoughts Tor Free Writing 0 11-05-2015 12:25 PM
Thoughts please...First piece i've posted, very start of a novel i'm planning. Thinkpassion Fiction 7 07-20-2012 05:29 AM
Dagger To The Heart - Any Thoughts? Its long sorry NovelNoobie Fiction 2 11-16-2010 05:03 AM
Suspect Thoughts Press Jay Writing Markets 0 06-03-2006 10:34 PM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:58 PM.

vBulletin, Copyright © 2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.