Is it possible that Hillary! is being less than truthful about her and Rwanda?
I think it’s a lot more likely that she either didn’t advocate action on Rwanda at all, or did so only in passing. If so, this would have to be the definitive example of her attempt to claim responsibility for everything good that happened during her husband’s presidency, while disavowing all responsibility for his mistakes. This was, in my opinion, the most shameful moment of the Clinton administration. It ought, by rights, to have a place in Hillary Clinton’s “thirty five years of experience working for change.” Or perhaps she might claim that she wasn’t that interested in foreign policy at the time, or that for whatever reason she just didn’t pick up on the genocide in Rwanda until it was too late to act. That would at least be honest.
But if, in fact, Clinton missed the chance to urge her husband to help stop the Rwandan genocide, then she should not pretend that she was, in fact, right there on the side of the angels all along. That’s just grotesque.
In a related question, do bears defecate in the sylvan wilderness?
“Grotesque” doesn’t start to describe the former First Couple.
I don’t care WHAT you read about Hitlary, she is just wrong on every point. And when she speaks to either her past or our future, it only gets worse!
It’s almost as if the longer her run goes on, she is morphing into a sad caricature of herself.
Billary lying?
Say it ain’t so!
“Grotesque” doesn’t start to describe the former First Couple.
I believe you that you do not see yourself as hating the Clintons. But you keep coming back to how terrible they are. By your account, they are bad in just about every way imaginable. You’ve written enough on this subject to fill a book. So at this point, it would be a relief to everyone if you just went ahead and hated them. Probably including you, because you expend vastly more energy not hating the Clintons than it would take to hate them. It would be a catharsis if you crossed the line.
I believe you that you do not see yourself as hating the Clintons. But you keep coming back to how terrible they are.
I can think something is terrible without hating it. Are you so overwrought and emotional that you are unable to do so?
By your account, they are bad in just about every way imaginable.
I can only conclude that you either haven’t actually read my “account,” or you haven’t done so for comprehension, or that you suffer from a severe paucity of imagination. Of course, none of the above would surprise me, given your other output with which you almost continually troll and pollute my web site.
I can think something is terrible without hating it.
Sure, I know that it’s possible. But in the extreme it becomes a crushing burden, to dwell so long on how bad they are without actually hating them. I’m not saying that you can’t do it, but it’s masochistic to try to be an emotionless android.
I can only conclude that you either haven’t actually read my “account,”
I have seen many of your numerous postings on the bad nature of the Clintons. Maybe it’s only the tip of the iceberg, but still, I have seen a lot. Clearly you think that their flaws deserve a whole book of explanations, since basically you have already written one. On the other hand, you think that their virtues deserve hardly any words from you, or backhanded praise at best, if you even think that they have any virtues.
Sure, I know that it’s possible. But in the extreme it becomes a crushing burden, to dwell so long on how bad they are without actually hating them. I’m not saying that you can’t do it, but it’s masochistic to try to be an emotionless android.
Sorry, to disappoint (well, actually, considering it’s you, I’m not), but it’s not “extreme,” and it’s just not that big a deal. But then, maybe for you, it’s not. If so, it would explain a lot. It’s quite possible to not “hate” and still not be an “emotionless android.”
But perhaps, your world is a lot more simple, and black and white, than mine, which is actually quite sophisticated and nuanced.
Clearly you think that their flaws deserve a whole book of explanations, since basically you have already written one.
No, a lot of other people have done that. I could provide some citations if you have any interest. I’ve just written a few blog posts.
it’s just not that big a deal
If it’s not that big of a deal, why have you posted about it hundreds of times on your blog? Or at one point, you said that you think that Clinton is a rapist. How can it be no big deal for the president to be a rapist? Your message here isn’t consistent at all.
I’ve just written a few blog posts.
What do you mean by “a few”? Maybe you’ve just lost count? Few people would call a hundred denigrations “a few”. Again, if you don’t care to add any praise to it, then you’d be better off if you took the plunge and hated the Clintons. It would be a catharsis.
If it’s not that big of a deal, why have you posted about it hundreds of times on your blog?
“Hundreds of times”? Really? Can you document that?
Or at one point, you said that you think that Clinton is a rapist. How can it be no big deal for the president to be a rapist?
It’s not that it’s not a big deal for the president to be a rapist. Obviously it is (or perhaps, it’s not to you). But it’s not something worth marinating in “hate” for. That’s what the topic was. I’m not sure why you want to change the topic. But I have my suspicions.
Your message here isn’t consistent at all.
Of course it is. Though, perhaps, this is just another symptom of your inability to follow the conversation.
What do you mean by “a few”? Maybe you’ve just lost count?
??
Lost count? Why in the world would I even bother to keep count? I can’t imagine anyone doing so, other than someone obsessed with how much I post about the Clintons.
Know anyone like that? I do…
Few people would call a hundred denigrations “a few”.
First it was “hundreds,” and now it’s “a hundred.” Don’t you understand the difference between the two phrases, that you use both within the very same comment? Again, have you been keeping a tally, with which you can substantiate your apparent hysteria?
As I said, you seem overwrought, and are apparently projecting your emotionalism on to me, in your continuing desperate and simian attempts to fling feces on my blog. Not, of course, to imply that projection is anything new for you, or leftists in general…
“Hundreds of times”? Really? Can you document that?
It would be a formidable project to count every epithet that you have aimed at the Clintons in this blog, so let’s just take a slice of the question. In December 2007, you denigrated the Clintons at least 13 times, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 plus two with hosed links. That doesn’t count yet more criticism in the comments. A rate of more than ten denigrations per month easily adds up to hundreds, since you have had the blog for more than six years.
Why in the world would I even bother to keep count?
You might have estimated it, because you said it was just “a few”. If your perception of hundreds of criticisms is “a few”, then maybe you just don’t know yourself very well.
Once again, it would be a little different if you expressed even 1/10 as much praise as this copious volume of criticism. If you don’t think that they deserve any such praise, then it would be a relief to decide to hate these terrible people.
It would be a formidable project to count every epithet that you have aimed at the Clintons in this blog, so let’s just take a slice of the question.
But despite that, you toss numbers around anyway. We laugh.
In December 2007, you denigrated the Clintons at least 13 times, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 plus two with hosed links.
I see. So you cherry pick a single month, and extrapolate it? And you expect us to take you seriously?
it would be a little different if you expressed even 1/10 as much praise as this copious volume of criticism. If you don’t think that they deserve any such praise, then it would be a relief to decide to hate these terrible people.
I guess I missed the part where it was my job to praise the Clintons. If someone has been paying me to do this, and I’ve neglected my duties, I guess I might see your point, but I don’t have any recollection of such a deal.
And even if I don’t think that they deserve praise (FWIW, I do think that they did a good job of free trade, until Hillary! decided to run for president), that still doesn’t impose on me any responsibility to hate them. There are a gazillion people who I don’t praise, but who I also don’t hate. Sorry.
If you’re a budding psychoanalyst, don’t give up your day job. Unless it’s just to be the first two syllables of that word. And even in that case, it doesn’t pay all that well. Though maybe it’s working out all right for you.
And by “denigrate,” I assume that this is a word that, to Democrat defenders, has the same meaning as the word “Swiftboat”?
That is, to tell the truth about a Democrat politician?
So you cherry pick a single month, and extrapolate it?
Actually I picked it without looking. That month is pretty typical — the criticism is coming even faster this month, in March. Let’s say that in an off month, you might only bash the Clintons 5 times instead of 13. After six years, that still adds up to hundreds, as I said. Google has its own count which also runs into the hundreds.
And even if I don’t think that they deserve praise (FWIW, I do think that they did a good job of free trade, until Hillary! decided to run for president), that still doesn’t impose on me any responsibility to hate them.
I’m not saying that you have any “job” to praise the Clintons or “responsibility” to hate them. All I’m saying is that it would be a relief if you did take the plunge and hate them, given your copious criticism.
By the way, that parenthetical, that the Clintons did a good job with free trade, is indeed an unusual note of praise, although you snatched it away again. Given your view that Clinton is a rapist, a liar, a mafioso, a liberal (so-called), a betrayer of national security, and a derelict and corrupt president, why on earth would he do a good job with free trade?
I’m not saying that you have any “job” to praise the Clintons or “responsibility” to hate them. All I’m saying is that it would be a relief if you did take the plunge and hate them, given your copious criticism.
A “relief” to whom? Certainly not to me.
By the way, that parenthetical, that the Clintons did a good job with free trade, is indeed an unusual note of praise, although you snatched it away again. Given your view that Clinton is a rapist, a liar, a mafioso, a liberal (so-called), a betrayer of national security, and a derelict and corrupt president, why on earth would he do a good job with free trade?
How would I know?
Rand,
you’re wasting time. Jim is a dyed in the wool, kool-aid swilling, Clintonista. He leans so far left that it has affected his vision and ability to know right from wrong. He does the old liberal knee-jerk trick of placing words in other peoples mouths instead of listening. If you disagree with a liberal, you “hate”. And God forbid that the liberal in question be of other than white skin, then you are a racist also. I find it odd that the same people who claim that they are open minded and all encompassing in their lives are so willing to name call when anyone dare dislike or point out the Clinton’s pasts.
The very fact that ANYONE can doubt that Bill Clinton is capable of rape, given his proven sexual appetite, is laughable. Anyone who doesn’t question how Hillary was surrounded with shady land dealers and sleazy lawyers, and yet she remained pure as driven snow, is blind to the real adult world.
Jim is one such.
Rand, I feel sure you have better things to do, than spar with the immovable and un-teachable.
A humorous lexicon contains this definition:
fractal wrongness:
The state of being wrong at every conceivable scale of resolution. That is, from a distance, a fractally wrong person’s worldview is incorrect; and furthermore, if you zoom in on any small part of that person’s worldview, that part is just as wrong as the whole worldview.
Debating with a person who is fractally wrong leads to infinite regress, as every refutation you make of that person’s opinions will lead to a rejoinder, full of half-truths, leaps of logic, and outright lies, that requires just as much refutation to debunk as the first one. It is as impossible to convince a fractally wrong person of anything as it is to walk around the edge of the Mandelbrot set in finite time.
If you ever get embroiled in a discussion with a fractally wrong person on the Internet–in mailing lists, newsgroups, or website forums–your best bet is to say your piece once and ignore any replies, thus saving yourself time.
I think that sums up Jim Harris pretty well.
That is amusing. It reminds me of Randy Waterhouse’s description in Cryptonomicon of his acquaintance whose life wasn’t just weird, but fractally weird.
Instant bookmark there and Rand topped it off with a Cryptonomicon reference, a fractal double whammy ^_^