100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
| Topic: A folksy lie | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I was reading an article not long ago by the brilliant writer and polemicist Christopher Hitchens. He was writing about Hillary and her almost unquenchable need for attention, her seemingly all-consuming belief (if not general disposition) that the presidency is all but owed to her come November and he mentioned a story that she told back in 1995.
While in Nepal in 1995 she met (oddly enough) Sir Edmund Hillary. Hillary along with Tenzing Norgay were the first (and second) climbers to reach the summit of Mt. Everest. And if that feat was amazing as a stand-alone consider the fact that word reached Britain on the day of Queen Elizabeth's II coronation. The good Senator (back then the First Lady) told the story of how her mother had named her after Sir Edmund Hillary. What a heart-warming story when one considers now the glass ceiling broken where there is a third less oxygen than at sea level and the glass ceiling of the first woman running for president who actually (perhaps even still) looks to have a chance. There is only one problem. It's not true. Perhaps the good Senator should have consulted a calendar (or at the very least, a history book) for had she, she would have likely realized that while she was born in 1947, Hillary and Norgay didn't summit Everest until 1953. Unless Senator Clinton's mother waited until she was six before naming her daughter, it just didn't happen. And so what's the big deal? I mean, we've all told a lie and we've all tried to find links to something that makes us appear as more "someone" or "something." So, again, what's the big deal? Well, it's not. As lies go, it's a minor one, almost an ironic one. But that is what makes it almost sad. It's not hubris, it's pathetic. It's a lie for no reason, it's a lie so beneath her capable intellect but almost makes her look robotic. Most people in politics can't really raise expectations and when that is the case all you can hope for is to meet them. But she had a chance to confound expectations and to shake the party structure to its core. Instead she left a trail of this type of story behind which when considered is nothing more than a visionary woman telling the world she was named after a visionary man. Well, almost. -Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what is your point?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was reading an article not long ago by the brilliant writer and polemicist Christopher Hitchens. He was writing about Hillary and her almost unquenchable need for attention, her seemingly all-consuming belief (if not general disposition) that the presidency is all but owed to her come November and he mentioned a story that she told back in 1995. While in Nepal in 1995 she met (oddly enough) Sir Edmund Hillary. Hillary along with Tenzing Norgay were the first (and second) climbers to reach the summit of Mt. Everest. And if that feat was amazing as a stand-alone consider the fact that word reached Britain on the day of Queen Elizabeth's II coronation. The good Senator (back then the First Lady) told the story of how her mother had named her after Sir Edmund Hillary. What a heart-warming story when one considers now the glass ceiling broken where there is a third less oxygen than at sea level and the glass ceiling of the first woman running for president who actually (perhaps even still) looks to have a chance. There is only one problem. It's not true. Perhaps the good Senator should have consulted a calendar (or at the very least, a history book) for had she, she would have likely realized that while she was born in 1947, Hillary and Norgay didn't summit Everest until 1953. Unless Senator Clinton's mother waited until she was six before naming her daughter, it just didn't happen. And so what's the big deal? I mean, we've all told a lie and we've all tried to find links to something that makes us appear as more "someone" or "something." So, again, what's the big deal? Well, it's not. As lies go, it's a minor one, almost an ironic one. But that is what makes it almost sad. It's not hubris, it's pathetic. It's a lie for no reason, it's a lie so beneath her capable intellect but almost makes her look robotic. Most people in politics can't really raise expectations and when that is the case all you can hope for is to meet them. But she had a chance to confound expectations and to shake the party structure to its core. Instead she left a trail of this type of story behind which when considered is nothing more than a visionary woman telling the world she was named after a visionary man. Well, almost. -Drew Excellent posts, Drew. First the Apple Computer one, now this. You're on a roll! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what is your point? Are you serious? I didn't write it in code. Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was reading an article not long ago by the brilliant writer and polemicist Christopher Hitchens. He was writing about Hillary and her almost unquenchable need for attention, her seemingly all-consuming belief (if not general disposition) that the presidency is all but owed to her come November and he mentioned a story that she told back in 1995. While in Nepal in 1995 she met (oddly enough) Sir Edmund Hillary. Hillary along with Tenzing Norgay were the first (and second) climbers to reach the summit of Mt. Everest. And if that feat was amazing as a stand-alone consider the fact that word reached Britain on the day of Queen Elizabeth's II coronation. The good Senator (back then the First Lady) told the story of how her mother had named her after Sir Edmund Hillary. What a heart-warming story when one considers now the glass ceiling broken where there is a third less oxygen than at sea level and the glass ceiling of the first woman running for president who actually (perhaps even still) looks to have a chance. There is only one problem. It's not true. Perhaps the good Senator should have consulted a calendar (or at the very least, a history book) for had she, she would have likely realized that while she was born in 1947, Hillary and Norgay didn't summit Everest until 1953. Unless Senator Clinton's mother waited until she was six before naming her daughter, it just didn't happen. And so what's the big deal? I mean, we've all told a lie and we've all tried to find links to something that makes us appear as more "someone" or "something." So, again, what's the big deal? Well, it's not. As lies go, it's a minor one, almost an ironic one. But that is what makes it almost sad. It's not hubris, it's pathetic. It's a lie for no reason, it's a lie so beneath her capable intellect but almost makes her look robotic. Most people in politics can't really raise expectations and when that is the case all you can hope for is to meet them. But she had a chance to confound expectations and to shake the party structure to its core. Instead she left a trail of this type of story behind which when considered is nothing more than a visionary woman telling the world she was named after a visionary man. Well, almost. -Drew Excellent posts, Drew. First the Apple Computer one, now this. You're on a roll!
Ahhh, thank you!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what is your point? Lindyy says: Well, Drew was kind enough to leave out the story about Clinton being being under 'sniper fire' Chelsea jogging around twin towers at the time of the attack, the 'saying' in the white house 'where there is danger send the first lady to handle it' and lots of other little goodies. In other words, Clinton is an habitual LIAR. You cannot believe anything she says and she is too stupid to realize the the news media is going to check everything out and expose her! Good grief. Lindyy 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
mnhiker
on
Sat 03/29/08 08:18 AM
|
|
I was reading an article not long ago by the brilliant writer and polemicist Christopher Hitchens. He was writing about Hillary and her almost unquenchable need for attention, her seemingly all-consuming belief (if not general disposition) that the presidency is all but owed to her come November and he mentioned a story that she told back in 1995. While in Nepal in 1995 she met (oddly enough) Sir Edmund Hillary. Hillary along with Tenzing Norgay were the first (and second) climbers to reach the summit of Mt. Everest. And if that feat was amazing as a stand-alone consider the fact that word reached Britain on the day of Queen Elizabeth's II coronation. The good Senator (back then the First Lady) told the story of how her mother had named her after Sir Edmund Hillary. What a heart-warming story when one considers now the glass ceiling broken where there is a third less oxygen than at sea level and the glass ceiling of the first woman running for president who actually (perhaps even still) looks to have a chance. There is only one problem. It's not true. Perhaps the good Senator should have consulted a calendar (or at the very least, a history book) for had she, she would have likely realized that while she was born in 1947, Hillary and Norgay didn't summit Everest until 1953. Unless Senator Clinton's mother waited until she was six before naming her daughter, it just didn't happen. And so what's the big deal? I mean, we've all told a lie and we've all tried to find links to something that makes us appear as more "someone" or "something." So, again, what's the big deal? Well, it's not. As lies go, it's a minor one, almost an ironic one. But that is what makes it almost sad. It's not hubris, it's pathetic. It's a lie for no reason, it's a lie so beneath her capable intellect but almost makes her look robotic. Most people in politics can't really raise expectations and when that is the case all you can hope for is to meet them. But she had a chance to confound expectations and to shake the party structure to its core. Instead she left a trail of this type of story behind which when considered is nothing more than a visionary woman telling the world she was named after a visionary man. Well, almost. -Drew Hillary just doesn't know when to quit. Though she is tenacious, I do not admire her for it when she will let her personal hubris and sense of entitlement help destroy any chance that a Democrat might get elected President in November. I just hope that she realizes the damage she is doing before it's too late. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with everything being said about Hillary, but Obama is going to catch up with her by the time this campaigning is finished. After all, look at all the lies about Rev. Wright. Then there is the one about the Kennedy family being responsible for airlifting his father from Africa.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with everything being said about Hillary, but Obama is going to catch up with her by the time this campaigning is finished. After all, look at all the lies about Rev. Wright. Then there is the one about the Kennedy family being responsible for airlifting his father from Africa. Well I don't know about that, but I know the 'Straight Talk Express' doesn't always tell it straight. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/16/mccain-stumbles-on-hiv-prevention/ Hah! He said Donald Rumsfeld was one of the worst Defense Secretaries in history! http://men.style.com/gq/features/full?id=content_5581 I agree with McCain on that one. Sweet and innocent? Donald Rumsfeld was neither. So why does McCain want to have any alliances whatsoever with the Bush Administration? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what is your point? Lindyy says: Well, Drew was kind enough to leave out the story about Clinton being being under 'sniper fire' Chelsea jogging around twin towers at the time of the attack, the 'saying' in the white house 'where there is danger send the first lady to handle it' and lots of other little goodies. In other words, Clinton is an habitual LIAR. You cannot believe anything she says and she is too stupid to realize the the news media is going to check everything out and expose her! Good grief. Lindyy
she is pretty full of **** |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So why does McCain want to have any alliances whatsoever with the Bush Administration?
because unlike the democrats, the rupublicans believe a united front is a better image for the public. how many repiblicans actually oppose bush? not that many |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So why does McCain want to have any alliances whatsoever with the Bush Administration?
because unlike the democrats, the rupublicans believe a united front is a better image for the public. how many repiblicans actually oppose bush? not that many Unfortunately Bush Jr.'s record as President is the tar baby that will stick to McCain no matter what. McCain gets stuck with Bush Jr.'s failures (which are many) as well as his successes (which are few). |
|
|
|
|
