Posted by Tina
-
Recent Posts
Archives
Categories
- Art (88)
- Behavior and Psychology (20)
- Business, Industry and Finance (63)
- Constitution and Law (370)
- Consumer Affairs (4)
- Culture (17)
- Deep State (5)
- Economy (3)
- Education (238)
- Environment (74)
- Fraud Alert (8)
- Global Issues (1)
- Health and Medicine (149)
- History (8)
- Humour (94)
- Military (115)
- Morals and Ethics (149)
- News Media (11)
- Police, Crime, Security (215)
- Politics and Government (144)
- Religion (91)
- Science and Technology (19)
- Veterans' Issues (13)
- World (12)
Recent Comments
- ClayPidgeon on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
- Michael Davis on Life In Chico and Other Places Infected by Bums
- Patricia Lieder on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
- Dawn on Thaddeus Kerns Boy Aviator
- scott sproat on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
Recent NorCal Blogs Posts
Why do you assume anger? Haven’t you an experience of other possible motivations? Is anger the only emotion you experience?
I posted the interview because I was going to be out all afternoon and it would give our Post Script friends something to discuss. You will notice that I didn’t add a single comment.
“The same reason you hate me.”
I don’t hate you Quentin! I think you’re wrong about some things, and I think you’re a bit of a pill, but I don’t hate you. I’ve tried to encourage you to share what you think or know from that classical liberal position. You seem to prefer attacking me.
I think a bigger case could be made that you hate me…and Jack…and Post Scripts, but that would be a waste of time and energy. I really am more interested in your ideas.
“…she cannot be accused of treason, like you can, Tina.”
You are free to accuse me of anything you please, including treason. Proving such a charge would be another thing, however! You failed to make this accusation with even the tiniest reference to support the smear. Could it be that anger, or hate, is just rearing its ugly head?
Oh, come on! Schultz exclaimed, quickly moving on and avoiding to answer the question. Typical of anyone who’s answer might suddenly start to reveal the bias of their argument. Ms Schultz clearly showed through out the interview her unwillingness to answer direct questions, (I.E. the Bain contributions) and really only appeared comfortable when offering the rhetoric she as Chairperson of the DNC wants heard. She also over-talked many follow up questions by a continuance of regurgitated prepared sound bites in a attempt to avoid the possibility of exposing her arguments shortcomings. As wrong as she appeared in the interview ,at least she did not assume the starring role of a pity party directed toward herself.