Crossing the unpresidential line: Media excoriates Clinton for banning a reporter from NH campaign

[TemplarKormac]

Everyone lies. Sometimes lying is the best option in a given circumstance.

Yes, sometimes lying is warranted. But lying with evil intent is another animal, it can't be justified.

This is why I don't deal in generalities.

That is your prerogative.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Don't come back!

Shut the fuck up.

Heyyyyy

You still never responded to my pm

We don't discuss those on the open forums.

We're not... Now ducking reply!

I'm not ducking anything, friend. I have a real life to attend to.

 

[Liffy]

Shut the fuck up.

Heyyyyy

You still never responded to my pm

We don't discuss those on the open forums.

We're not... Now ducking reply!

I'm not ducking anything, friend. I have a real life to attend to.

This going back you've been doing in this thread since last night indicates otherwise

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Everyone lies. Sometimes lying is the best option in a given circumstance.

Yes, sometimes lying is warranted. But lying with evil intent is another animal, it can't be justified.

This is why I don't deal in generalities.

That is your prerogative.

How exactly can you determine evil intent?

Seriously, don't you see how ridiculous this is?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

If you don't mean "offense", then why bother insulting me?

Because I remember you saying similar things in long past discussions, Doc. I remember you labeling me as "obtuse" or other similar terms. Perks of an eidetic memory. This was a tu quoque moment.

"Real" transparency doesn't exist, and if it did, the world would cease to function.

Well, there's a slippery slope argument if I ever saw one.

Does it bother you when a bird shits on your head?

Damn it, Doc, answer the question! :O

Stop trying to change the subject to vague concepts.

It's not vague my good man, those are realities

We're talking about reality.

So, you're saying that there isn't real transparency, it isn't worth fighting for, and fighting for it is a fantasy. Is that what I'm getting?

My question about birdshit is as relevant to Hillary's treatment of her press corps as yours was.

Everyone lies. Sometimes lying is the best option in a given circumstance.

Say what?

I didn't stutter.

If an undercover cop is doing a drug bust, should he tell the truth when the dealer asks him if he's police?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Everyone lies. Sometimes lying is the best option in a given circumstance.

Yes, sometimes lying is warranted. But lying with evil intent is another animal, it can't be justified.

This is why I don't deal in generalities.

That is your prerogative.

How exactly can you determine evil intent?

Seriously, don't you see how ridiculous this is?

If it's a Clinton and it has intent you can bank it's evil

 

[SassyIrishLass]

If you don't mean "offense", then why bother insulting me?

Because I remember you saying similar things in long past discussions, Doc. I remember you labeling me as "obtuse" or other similar terms. Perks of an eidetic memory. This was a tu quoque moment.

"Real" transparency doesn't exist, and if it did, the world would cease to function.

Well, there's a slippery slope argument if I ever saw one.

Does it bother you when a bird shits on your head?

Damn it, Doc, answer the question! :O

Stop trying to change the subject to vague concepts.

It's not vague my good man, those are realities

We're talking about reality.

So, you're saying that there isn't real transparency, it isn't worth fighting for, and fighting for it is a fantasy. Is that what I'm getting?

My question about birdshit is as relevant to Hillary's treatment of her press corps as yours was.

Everyone lies. Sometimes lying is the best option in a given circumstance.

Say what?

I didn't stutter.

If an undercover cop is doing a drug bust, should he tell the truth when the dealer asks him if he's police?

Give t a rest "doc" I still don't take you serious. You're one of those goofs that struts around expecting it....not happening

 

[theDoctorisIn]

If you don't mean "offense", then why bother insulting me?

Because I remember you saying similar things in long past discussions, Doc. I remember you labeling me as "obtuse" or other similar terms. Perks of an eidetic memory. This was a tu quoque moment.

"Real" transparency doesn't exist, and if it did, the world would cease to function.

Well, there's a slippery slope argument if I ever saw one.

Does it bother you when a bird shits on your head?

Damn it, Doc, answer the question! :O

Stop trying to change the subject to vague concepts.

It's not vague my good man, those are realities

We're talking about reality.

So, you're saying that there isn't real transparency, it isn't worth fighting for, and fighting for it is a fantasy. Is that what I'm getting?

My question about birdshit is as relevant to Hillary's treatment of her press corps as yours was.

Everyone lies. Sometimes lying is the best option in a given circumstance.

Say what?

I didn't stutter.

If an undercover cop is doing a drug bust, should he tell the truth when the dealer asks him if he's police?

Give t a rest "doc" I still don't take you serious. You're one of those goofs that struts around expecting it....not happening

Oh, woe is me! Some anonymous clown on the internet doesn't "take me seriously". However will I sleep at night?

 

[Liffy]

If you don't mean "offense", then why bother insulting me?

Because I remember you saying similar things in long past discussions, Doc. I remember you labeling me as "obtuse" or other similar terms. Perks of an eidetic memory. This was a tu quoque moment.

"Real" transparency doesn't exist, and if it did, the world would cease to function.

Well, there's a slippery slope argument if I ever saw one.

Does it bother you when a bird shits on your head?

Damn it, Doc, answer the question! :O

Stop trying to change the subject to vague concepts.

It's not vague my good man, those are realities

We're talking about reality.

So, you're saying that there isn't real transparency, it isn't worth fighting for, and fighting for it is a fantasy. Is that what I'm getting?

My question about birdshit is as relevant to Hillary's treatment of her press corps as yours was.

Everyone lies. Sometimes lying is the best option in a given circumstance.

Say what?

I didn't stutter.

If an undercover cop is doing a drug bust, should he tell the truth when the dealer asks him if he's police?

I was following you up until this post wtf

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Because I remember you saying similar things in long past discussions, Doc. I remember you labeling me as "obtuse" or other similar terms. Perks of an eidetic memory. This was a tu quoque moment.


Well, there's a slippery slope argument if I ever saw one.


Damn it, Doc, answer the question! :O


It's not vague my good man, those are realities

So, you're saying that there isn't real transparency, it isn't worth fighting for, and fighting for it is a fantasy. Is that what I'm getting?

My question about birdshit is as relevant to Hillary's treatment of her press corps as yours was.

Everyone lies. Sometimes lying is the best option in a given circumstance.

Say what?

I didn't stutter.

If an undercover cop is doing a drug bust, should he tell the truth when the dealer asks him if he's police?

Give t a rest "doc" I still don't take you serious. You're one of those goofs that struts around expecting it....not happening

Oh, woe is me! Some anonymous clown on the internet doesn't "take me seriously". However will I sleep at night?

I suspect the usual way, drink yourself into oblivion?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

If you don't mean "offense", then why bother insulting me?

Because I remember you saying similar things in long past discussions, Doc. I remember you labeling me as "obtuse" or other similar terms. Perks of an eidetic memory. This was a tu quoque moment.

"Real" transparency doesn't exist, and if it did, the world would cease to function.

Well, there's a slippery slope argument if I ever saw one.

Does it bother you when a bird shits on your head?

Damn it, Doc, answer the question! :O

Stop trying to change the subject to vague concepts.

It's not vague my good man, those are realities

We're talking about reality.

So, you're saying that there isn't real transparency, it isn't worth fighting for, and fighting for it is a fantasy. Is that what I'm getting?

My question about birdshit is as relevant to Hillary's treatment of her press corps as yours was.

Everyone lies. Sometimes lying is the best option in a given circumstance.

Say what?

I didn't stutter.

If an undercover cop is doing a drug bust, should he tell the truth when the dealer asks him if he's police?

I was following you up until this post wtf

What is it that you take issue with?

 

[TemplarKormac]

How exactly can you determine evil intent?

Seriously? How do you determine evil intent? Evil, as in malevolence. As in the absence of good, benevolence.

Or, as I glean from legal dictionaries, evil intent is the action or attempt at maligning without any real justification. "Evil intent" or "malice" is:

"The intentional commission of a wrongful act, absent justification, with the intent to cause harm to others; a mental state indicating a disposition in disregard of social duty and a tendency toward malfeasance."

That I how I, at least, determine what "evil intent" is. As ridiculous as it may sound to you.

 

[Wyld Kard]

Yep. Hillary is now picking and choosing whom can cover her campaign. She banned Daily Mail and designated print pool reporter David Martosko from covering her campaign because he dared criticize her campaign's lack of transparency. And for that, every media giant in the US descended on her campaign like a pack of angry wolves. The 14 organizations that made up Clinton’s traveling pool sent out a statement today:

“We would like to see all campaign events open to the public and the full press corps, but when that is not possible we have agreed to pool coverage. We haven't yet had a clear explanation about why the pool reporter for today's events was denied access. But any attempt by the campaign to dictate who is in the pool is unacceptable. The pool is open to any print organization willing to take part."

Now, a print pool works something like this: rather than send fifty reporters from fifty news outlets to a given event, press organizations typically set up “pools” of reporters who take turns attending events and filing pool reports of what happened. Essentially it is a chosen rotation of reporters as decided on by the press.

Such blatant disregard for freedom of the press is...not surprising coming from Hillary Clinton. Just imagine what will happen if she wins the White House. Freedom of the press is a core premise set forth by the 1st Amendment. It is not up to Hillary and her minions to dictate whom and what covers her campaign.

The Clinton campaign denied access to the designated print pool reporter in New Hampshire this morning.

David Martosko of DailyMail.com was told by Hillary for New Hampshire staffer Meredith Thatcher that he was not approved for Monday's pooled events.

When Martosko asked Thatcher to phone her boss, Harrell Kirstein, he was again told that he had not been approved by the campaign.

Martosko pressed further and asked Thatcher if he was being prohibited from getting on either of the pool vans, to which she replied; 'I'm afraid that's right.'

When he asked why, she responded; 'All I know is what Harrell has told me. I got an email saying the print pooler would be changed for today. Sorry.'

Hillary Clinton campaign denies access to Daily Mail s political editor Daily Mail Online

Anyone who would vote for this woman would also vote for Adolph Hitler.

Yep.

That's because the stupid liberals don't give a damn just how corrupt and dishonest the Hildabeast really is.

They just want to make history.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

How exactly can you determine evil intent?

Seriously? How do you determine evil intent? Evil, as in malevolence. As in the absence of good, benevolence.

Or, as I glean from legal dictionaries, evil intent is the action maligning without any real justification. "Evil intent" or malice is:

"The intentional commission of a wrongful act, absent justification, with the intent to cause harm to others; a mental state indicating a disposition in disregard of social duty and a tendency toward malfeasance."

That I how I, at least, determine what "evil intent" is. As ridiculous as it may sound to you.

Take a breath and think about this.

How do you determine what someone else's intent is?

 

[Liffy]

Because I remember you saying similar things in long past discussions, Doc. I remember you labeling me as "obtuse" or other similar terms. Perks of an eidetic memory. This was a tu quoque moment.


Well, there's a slippery slope argument if I ever saw one.


Damn it, Doc, answer the question! :O


It's not vague my good man, those are realities

So, you're saying that there isn't real transparency, it isn't worth fighting for, and fighting for it is a fantasy. Is that what I'm getting?

My question about birdshit is as relevant to Hillary's treatment of her press corps as yours was.

Everyone lies. Sometimes lying is the best option in a given circumstance.

Say what?

I didn't stutter.

If an undercover cop is doing a drug bust, should he tell the truth when the dealer asks him if he's police?

I was following you up until this post wtf

What is it that you take issue with?

The question, which I assume to be rhetorical, about the cop. Why are you asking it?

And I'll answer it. Yes he should if it's his long lost brother and he wants to help his brother to make more loot and keep him out of prison!

 

[TemplarKormac]

How exactly can you determine evil intent?

Seriously? How do you determine evil intent? Evil, as in malevolence. As in the absence of good, benevolence.

Or, as I glean from legal dictionaries, evil intent is the action maligning without any real justification. "Evil intent" or malice is:

"The intentional commission of a wrongful act, absent justification, with the intent to cause harm to others; a mental state indicating a disposition in disregard of social duty and a tendency toward malfeasance."

That I how I, at least, determine what "evil intent" is. As ridiculous as it may sound to you.

Take a breath and think about this.

How do you determine what someone else's intent is?

By their actions. By a pattern of behavior. Habits. Their feelings and opinions to and of other people and how they act on them.

 

[Liffy]

How exactly can you determine evil intent?

Seriously? How do you determine evil intent? Evil, as in malevolence. As in the absence of good, benevolence.

Or, as I glean from legal dictionaries, evil intent is the action maligning without any real justification. "Evil intent" or malice is:

"The intentional commission of a wrongful act, absent justification, with the intent to cause harm to others; a mental state indicating a disposition in disregard of social duty and a tendency toward malfeasance."

That I how I, at least, determine what "evil intent" is. As ridiculous as it may sound to you.

Take a breath and think about this.

How do you determine what someone else's intent is?

One way is to what happens after they do something. If they're really clever what happens after isn't their intent but what happens after what happens is their intent... Know what I mean? Or you can just ask them. That works. But ultimately they can always lie... So there is no sure way to determine someone's intent. So...

 

[theDoctorisIn]

My question about birdshit is as relevant to Hillary's treatment of her press corps as yours was.

Everyone lies. Sometimes lying is the best option in a given circumstance.

Say what?

I didn't stutter.

If an undercover cop is doing a drug bust, should he tell the truth when the dealer asks him if he's police?

I was following you up until this post wtf

What is it that you take issue with?

The question, which I assume to be rhetorical, about the cop. Why are you asking it?

And I'll answer it. Yes he should if it's his long lost brother and he wants to help his brother to make more loot and keep him out of prison!

I gave an example because SassyIrishLass seemed to not understand my statement that lying can sometimes be the best option in a given situation.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

How exactly can you determine evil intent?

Seriously? How do you determine evil intent? Evil, as in malevolence. As in the absence of good, benevolence.

Or, as I glean from legal dictionaries, evil intent is the action maligning without any real justification. "Evil intent" or malice is:

"The intentional commission of a wrongful act, absent justification, with the intent to cause harm to others; a mental state indicating a disposition in disregard of social duty and a tendency toward malfeasance."

That I how I, at least, determine what "evil intent" is. As ridiculous as it may sound to you.

Take a breath and think about this.

How do you determine what someone else's intent is?

By their actions. By a pattern of behavior. Habits. Their feelings and opinions to and of other people and how they act on them.

In other words, you think you can determine someone's inner thoughts by their "pattern of behavior", as interpreted by your own mind?

That seems pretty subjective to me.

 

[TemplarKormac]

In other words, you think you can determine someone's inner thoughts by their "pattern of behavior", as interpreted by your own mind?

I have the distinct impression you are attempting to split hairs with me. Actions speak louder than words. I do as a hunter does. You track the footprints, and the habits and tendencies of your prey. That way you detect where it is going and how far.