Evita's Uh-huh Head Bobbing "Listening" Tour At A New Hampshire Childrens' Toy Factory 2015

[Selene]

This fifty-three or so minutes will replace water boarding as an interrogation tool.
 
We learned a lot about content analysis in grad school which was a positive rhetorical analytical tool that was produced by the behavioralists that had value.
 
With this atrocious performance by Evita, her staff should never let her see the light of day again.
 
This could be elevated into a new college drinking game.
 
The categories would be:
 
1)     affirmative head bobs   -       
 
 
2)     meaningless conversational "uh-huhs"  -             
 
 
3)     "Official" Evita Cackles                  -                   
 
 
4)     There is a Tournament Rule that                   -           Jackpot  
         is optional which is to identify any other
         incredibly inept and Alzheimerish acts
         like the first time she tries to count on her
         pork counting pudgy fingers
 
 
Evita does so much of 1 and 2 that it is wise to put a 10+ number on them for a drink, so as to avoid hospitalization.
 

 
The first ten to fifteen minutes is sufficient to cause increased counting ability, insanity, or, complete inebriation...
 
Evita speaks at about the 4:50 minute and the audio torture begins:
 

SECRETARY CLINTON: EVITA ..."WELL, THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH FOR INVITING ME AND GIVING ME A CHANCE NOT ONLY TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THIS BUSINESS, WHICH IS A FAMILY BUSINESS, 112 YEARS YOUNG, AND TO MEET SOME OF THE PEOPLE WHO WORK HERE, AS I DID WHEN I WAS WALKING THROUGH AND AS YOU JUST INTRODUCED YOURSELVES. I AM EXCITED TO HEAR FROM YOU ABOUT WHAT IT TAKES TO GET A SMALL BUSINESS UP AND GOING AND KEEP IT GROWING IN AN INCREASINGLY COMPETITIVE GLOBAL ECONOMY. SMALL BUSINESS IS THE BACKBONE OF THE AMERICAN ECONOMY. HERE IN NEW HAMPSHIRE, 96% OF ALL BUSINESSES ARE CONSIDERED SMALL BUSINESSES. AND THEY EMPLOY MORE THAN HALF OF THE WORKERS, THE EMPLOYEES IN THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. SO NEW HAMPSHIRE IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHAT IT TAKES TO START AND GROW A SMALL BUSINESS. I COME FROM A SMALL BUSINESS FAMILY. MY FATHER HAD A VERY SMALL BUSINESS. HE PRINTED DRAPERY FABRIC. HE DID MUCH OF THE WORK HIMSELF, SOMETIMES WITH DAY LABORERS, WITH MY MOTHER, MY BROTHERS, AND ME, TAKING THE SQUEEGEE, YOU GO DOWN, YOU GO TO THE NEXT, AND YOU KEEP GOING. I SAW NOW THERE IS A MACHINE THAT YOU JUST DO THE PRINTING ON ALL KINDS OF MATERIAL, AND I'M THINKING BACK TO THOSE YEARS AT MY FATHER'S PLANT."

 
Her father didn't build that you bourgeois bitch...!!
 
A...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here here!

Michael

[Selene]

Where did I put my portable torpedos again....

[Brant Gaede]

The Republicans and their lackeys are going to bury her for being a bad girl, but Americans really don't care about that so all the animadversion upon her character and past won't work except to ironically publicize her candidacy. Her husband was elected in 1992 and everybody knew he was a bad boy then. The difference between her and her husband is simple: If he had been caught in bed with a boy he would have been politically ruined. If she would, ho hum.

--Brant

but if a Marine, she'd be a shoo-in (memo to Hillary: go find a Gunnery Sergeant--one with lots of medals)

[Selene]

The Republicans and their lackeys are going to bury her for being a bad girl, but Americans really don't care about that so all the animadversion upon her character and past won't work except to ironically publicize her candidacy. Her husband was elected in 1992 and everybody knew he was a bad boy then. The difference between her and her husband is simple: If he had been caught in bed with a boy he would have been politically ruined. If she would, ho hum.

--Brant

but if a Marine, she'd be a shoo-in (memo to Hillary: go find a Gunnery Sergeant--one with lots of medals)

Brant, I don't know if you watched the first ten or so minutes, the nodding head ...

over and

over like a bobble-head doll in the back of a Puerto Ricans Street Rod in Brooklyn ... just does not work ...

and the repeated uh - huhs, that even a Kardashian voter would find annoying lose the image war on a non-verbal, non-rational level...

A...

[Brant Gaede]

Oh, okay. I went back and looked. I lasted three minutes.

--Brant

sorry--this is a humor thread

[Selene]

Oh, okay. I went back and looked. I lasted three minutes.

--Brant

sorry--this is a humor thread

lol

I forced myself to go to about 15 minutes just to be fair and I watched it as if I were her image consultant and I was mortified that anyone would let their candidate perform that horrendously.

I am going to go back and watch it with the transcript and the sound off so I can just focus on her eyes.

A...

[william.scherk]

Clinton Derangement Syndrome?

[Selene]

Clinton Derangement Syndrome?

I understand why you suffer from that syndrome.

Have faith, there is a cure.

A...

[Brant Gaede]

Clinton Derangement Syndrome?

I understand why you suffer from that syndrome.

Have faith, there is a cure.

A...

Yep. There sure is.

[william.scherk]

Clinton Derangement Syndrome?

I understand why you suffer from that syndrome.

Really? I'd like to know how you came to the conclusion, that you understand -- and I would love to see you struggle to explain the why. I'd offer you a challenge, if I thought you had the jam to respond.

What the hell -- Adam, I challenge you to offer a full diagnosis of my derangement, using my words as posted in OL comments.

The 'derangement' syndrome was first used in relation to George W Bush, of course. I remember the tone and tenor and topics of those who opposed Bush to the point of derangement. Everything he did in his life not only subject to the leftist lorgnette, but also subject to the wildest claims. This deranged aspect of Bush opposition was remarkable. Not only were his policies steeped in evul, but his entire waking existence was evul. A New World Order maniac who would stop at nothing to impose his monstrous dreams upon American and the world.

This kind of deranged all-or-nothing black/white thinking of left loonies is perfectly reflected by the right loonies since the election of Obama. The most evul man in the universe, a non-American, a Muslim, a Marxist, a New World Order maniac who will stop at nothing to impose his monstrous dreams.

Now the Obama Derangement Syndrome has to make room on the loonie bunk for a renewed bout of Clinton Derangement Syndrome.

But, in a twist, it is William who suffers from the syndrome, according to Adam Selene. Like any syndrome, it has a symptom profile. And this symptom profile is I hope what Adam is now painstakingly assembling in response to my challenge.

Does the symptom profile contain pointless name-calling and epithets, private language, repeated denunciations of the candidate for ugliness of person and soul, ugliness of voice? Does the profile consist of raising the rhetorical floor so that every mention of Clinton is spun to emphasize her evul nature?

I will defer to Adam's judgment, and await his full diagnostic workup before commenting further on who here approaches derangement. I will note that the actual syndrome -- whether it infects right or left loonies -- does no favours to the 'side' that displays it.

Adam, there are many months ahead before the November 7 2016 ballots are counted. You might consider what effect you will have on voters here (none, not a soul will vote Clinton) and on the larger campaign (none).

Brant, your one-liner-plus-video suggests that the cure for my purported Clinton Derangement Syndrome is to behead me, execute me. Nothing like jacking up the rhetorical ratchet to the maximum. It leaves you little wiggle room.

Edited April 27, 2015 by william.scherk

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Clinton Derangement Syndrome?

William,

Guilty as charged.

And proud of it.

I'm not a big fan of sleaze.

Besides, if Iran gets a nuke using USA uranium just so Hillary can line her pockets with a few bucks, to me that has the characteristics of a quintessential progressive target. So, actually, we should be on the same page.

Michael

[Selene]

Brant, your one-liner-plus-video suggests that the cure for my purported Clinton Derangement Syndrome is to behead me, execute me. Nothing like jacking up the rhetorical ratchet to the maximum. It leaves you little wiggle room.

William, it is OK.

I understand. You have it so bad that you actually accused poor innocent Brant of suggesting bodily harm to you!

A man whom he worships for your research.

He clearly meant Evita.

It is OK, we can help you through this crisis.

A...

[william.scherk]

I understand. You have it so bad that you actually accused poor innocent Brant of suggesting bodily harm to you!

You are telling me and the rest of the readers that I have "Clinton Derangement Syndrome" so bad. Even the stupidest person on this forum understands that CDS means 'opposed' to Clinton. Just as Bush Derangement Syndrome was from the opposition, the wack far-left opposition. Just as Gore Derangement Syndrome came from the anti-Gore realm.

So, your insistence is inapposite, misplaced, ludicrous. Do you really need to have it spelled out for you?

There are many, manifold reasons to be opposed to a Clinton presidency. I can list but a few:

• She is a Democrat
• She is a Democrat
• If elected she will be inaugurated with First Gentleman Bill
• She is or has been embroiled in scandalous behaviour
• The Clinton Foundation
• Lust for office

Or/And

• She has cankles
• She reminds dull people of Evita Peron
• She is ugly
• She is shrill
• She is a whore
• She has thunder thighs
• She is a hag

It is OK, we can help you through this crisis.

Well, this could be interesting, if you follow through. Did you want some kind of quid pro quo for the help?

As for Brant's mock-execution video, he meant that someone with the awful affliction that is CDS could be, er, well, I have no idea. In vino veritas or maybe in vino stupor.

Edited April 27, 2015 by william.scherk

[Brant Gaede]

I made a mistake for I don't agree with Adam about William about his having any CDS. I was just grabbing at some humor and that video was hilarious. Sorry, Bill.

--Brant

Edited April 27, 2015 by Brant Gaede

[Selene]

Just a few questions William.

You understand, it is just for the file. You know how pesky these government run State exchanges are.

First, did you watch the C-span video?

Second, did I misrepresent the head bobbing?

Oops

Third, did I misrepresent the "uh-huhs?"

A...

[Selene]

Gee, I was just trying to be funny with the idea of a "cure." That video was hilarious.

--Brant

I never threaten; that's telling someone you're coming; in between stuff is bullshit; having the upper hand is everything; I haven't done anything like that for nearly 50 years now and never intend to again, but I'm not innocent; the innocent only know innocence, not that which is not

Maybe because this is in the humor thread?

A...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There are many, manifold reasons to be opposed to a Clinton presidency. I can list but a few:

• She is a Democrat
• She is a Democrat
• If elected she will be inaugurated with First Gentleman Bill
• She is or has been embroiled in scandalous behaviour
• The Clinton Foundation
• Lust for office

Or/And

• She has cankles
• She reminds dull people of Evita Peron
• She is ugly
• She is shrill
• She is a whore
• She has thunder thighs
• She is a hag

William,

That's actually a pretty good start.

Approved!

(btw - You left out sleaze. )

Michael

[william.scherk]

Clinton Derangement Syndrome?

William,

Guilty as charged.

And proud of it.

Okay. If I understand this you are opposed to a Clinton presidency, and have strong opinions. That makes sense to me. What doesn't makes sense to me is suggesting that you are deranged. I find most of your political opinions hinge on actual political issues, issues of state, issues of great importance.

I mean, I would disagree that you have shown any symptoms of the profile.

What is puzzling is the notion that I also have CDS -- put forward by Adam. Because if you willingly accept the CDS diagnosis, coming from an anti-Clinton political position, then how can a Northern Red like me be said to share the diagnosis? It don't make sense.

I'm not a big fan of sleaze.

I get that. Clinton is the embodiment of sleaze from your perspective. Your reaction fits your principles. Current headlines surrounding the Clinton Foundations embody the rigorous examination any candidate should be subject to -- it is to be expected and a part of American political tradition.

Besides, if Iran gets a nuke using USA uranium just so Hillary can line her pockets with a few bucks, to me that has the characteristics of a quintessential progressive target. So, actually, we should be on the same page.

If the Iran negotiations bear fruit for Obama and the others in the P+5 nations, the bucks to be made by a reduction in international sanctions will be large. Iran will be less of a pariah state in the eyes of the Western powers.

I don't know enough yet about the proto-scandal involving the Clinton's foundation -- I mean I don't know which of the speculated connections are true. If I was an anti-Clintonian to the bone, I would make a case that the conflicts of interest, Clinton's seeming thrall to foreign interests, are dangerous in any stripe of candidate -- that these apparently sleazy hijinks are antithetical to American democratic governance. I would target the undecideds and Democratic-leaning voters with a campaign exposing the sleaze.

I could do all those things and not exhibit derangement.

Here's a sign from earlier in this thread, all the way back to page one, when it was speculated that Clinton would challenge Obama for the nomination in 2012. The commenter seemed to be saying he would druther see a Hillary Clinton in the White House than a second term for Obama:

However, would you trade her [Clinton] for O'biwan [Obama] the incredible shrinking boy President right now?

Hell, I would and always viewed her as an unmitigated disaster, but since we have much worse than that now, I would gladly make the retroactive trade.

Edited April 27, 2015 by william.scherk

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What doesn't makes sense to me is suggesting that you are deranged.

William,

One of the blessings of the English language is the richness of interpretation.

Hillary Derangement Syndrome could mean the person targeted is deranged, or it could mean Hillary is deranged.

Helpfully,

Michael

btw - I'm confused about Adam's thing, too. I would peg you for a Hillary supporter over a Hillary critic.

[Selene]

I get that. Clinton is the embodiment of sleaze from your perspective.

Seriously?

Are you at all familiar about what Whitewater was actually about?

Essentially, Evita and her associates set up a land contract that was marketed to a certain "niche" of folks.

You got the land and you paid a mortgage. However, there was a clever little clause in the contract wherein, if you were late with one (1) payment [late being 30 days], the property automatically reverted to the land trust.

So, if you paid 59 payments on a 5 year note, and were 35 days late with the final payment, you lost everything. You never developed any equity.

A...

[Brant Gaede]

Gee, I was just trying to be funny with the idea of a "cure." That video was hilarious.

--Brant

I never threaten; that's telling someone you're coming; in between stuff is bullshit; having the upper hand is everything; I haven't done anything like that for nearly 50 years now and never intend to again, but I'm not innocent; the innocent only know innocence, not that which is not

Maybe because this is in the humor thread?

A...

While I edited this out of the original post not being aware of cross-posting, I stand by it.

--Brant

[william.scherk]

for the record, I don't believe in CDS outside some silly mainstream immature media and refusal to focus on what's important--the rest of which might be thought of as a desire to simply get her elected for that's who they in MSM want elected absent some Republican who could do better for their power mongering, for MSM and their corporate lackeys control this country with a pile on by the federal bureaucracy which brown-noses any current administration to the extent needed to keep doing what it wants to do, which is interesting for a big chunk of it literally wants war

That's a sentence and a half. I agree strongly with half. Looking back at Bush Derangement Syndrome (as invented by Krauthammer), he was labelling, rightly or wrongly, a whole suite of behaviour. If voters can be moved by deranged attacks, then they will be. It didn't work against GWB. It didn't work against Obama's re-election. It may or may not work against Clinton's coronation. I don't know. I gave my prediction a couple of times -- it's not what I want, it is what I expect. It is my rational calculation of the odds. Deranged attacks are factored in, but are of small effect -- generally hardening of the anti-vote.

To your media points run on, I don't know. Mass media is no longer the established legacy media, the networks, the newsmagazines, the op-eds, the chains of influence. We are in a weird age. Social media (like this outpost) is ever more crazy at its edges than anything delivered up against Bush. It is hard to discern the weight of media in its slices now. On the larger point that 'mainstream' media has a liberal bent in America, you must understand that what we call well-balanced media (eg, CBC) will resemble a giant pink Pravda to you. So, to my eyes, your mainstream (CNN, FOX, NBC, CBS, ABC) is to the right of what we get in from our big cheese broadcasters.

To the larger point that the media as a whole is a monster with limited attention-span unable to focus on deeds, this is belied by the investigative reporting of the NYT/Washington Post who broke ground on the Clinton foundation scandal. This is belied by FOXnews points traveling the highway beyond FOX. I would not conclude that American media throws every election. They may collectively do everything in their power to thumb the scales, but that power is limited by the actual voters and the party machines, the nitty-gritty of a modern campaign.

Besides that, you are totally right. The media in the midst of electoral campaigning from the first primaries to the electoral college is a fearsome loud beast. We have nothing like the full striking power of the corporate USA media. Our political campaigns are tough battles with attentive media scrums, but our scrums are smaller and the dollars spent are simply not in proportion. The storm of attention that accompanies American campaigns is a marvel, a horror and a fact. I am glad we don't have your system of rigid party duality.

Which brings me to my mistake: not taking a humourous tack in my reactions above, not giving charity to Adam, not feeding the fun with more fun but with a knobbish critique. So not right for a humour thread. Smiley.gif smiley.gif

Sorry for being such a knob. My one-liner was asking for it.

Just a few questions William.

Nope. No fishing diversion until you address the "William has Clinton Derangement Disorder" quip and the challenge in my comments up above. Deal with that in a fun fashion, and I will give you something back in tragi-comedy gold. I will give you eleven paragraphs of closely argued Clinton commentary, under the loose rubric of "Why I think Hillary Clinton should not be elected President." I don't know who I ought address it to, a Red faction or a Blue faction, or try for both. Your suggestions will be helpful ... if Brant has any cues for research directions I am at the bar, thirsty for instruction.

From the Best Of Hillary Clinton archive at The Cagle Post, published back in 2013.

All Rights Reserved Image.

Edited April 27, 2015 by william.scherk

[Brant Gaede]

I get that. Clinton is the embodiment of sleaze from your perspective.

Seriously?

Are you at all familiar about what Whitewater was actually about?

Essentially, Evita and her associates set up a land contract that was marketed to a certain "niche" of folks.

You got the land and you paid a mortgage. However, there was a clever little clause in the contract wherein, if you were late with one (1) payment [late being 30 days], the property automatically reverted to the land trust.

So, if you paid 59 payments on a 5 year note, and were 35 days late with the final payment, you lost everything. You never developed any equity.

A...

If you're quoting Bill he may actually have CDS if only out of ignorance. CDS is inability to think straight about her whether you're for or against her.

--Brant

but only a faux psychiatric disorder

[Selene]

I get that. Clinton is the embodiment of sleaze from your perspective.

Seriously?

Are you at all familiar about what Whitewater was actually about?

Essentially, Evita and her associates set up a land contract that was marketed to a certain "niche" of folks.

You got the land and you paid a mortgage. However, there was a clever little clause in the contract wherein, if you were late with one (1) payment [late being 30 days], the property automatically reverted to the land trust.

So, if you paid 59 payments on a 5 year note, and were 35 days late with the final payment, you lost everything. You never developed any equity.

A...

If you're quoting Bill he may actually have CDS if only out of ignorance. CDS is inability to think straight about her whether you're for or against her.

--Brant

but only a faux psychiatric disorder

Geez, thank God you got what I was doing Brant.