Comments by "Don Quixote" (@donquixote...) on "Forbes Breaking News"
channel.
-
23
-
19
-
15
-
10
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nildarodriguez3974 You know, in terms of just the coffee, I believe people have had so much contempt for SB that it colors their palate as well. And many just have a very light palate to begin with. Many really can't handle a richer darker roast coffee. But also a simple coffee isn't what they mostly sell (beverage wise). Their core bidness are espresso drinks (the lattes, etc.), which is a different animal altogether. In terms of just coffee, Dunkin's coffee is pretty weak, and relatively bland. If that's what you like because that's just where your particular palette is at, that's fine. The only one that I really like, is their new one that they don't serve in their stores, Dunkin Midnight. Of course my favorite SB coffee's are typically not served in their stores either (the espresso roast, french, italian, and the Christmas blend). Coffee, wines, and cigars have some commonalities, and what is said about cigars is that the best one, is the one you happen to like. So if your particular palate is light, you're going to typically prefer the cheaper, weaker flavored Folgers and Maxwell House's of the world, and express contempt for the richer, bolder blends. I guess I just prefer that a person's particular palate be left out of other issues.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@christophergriffin5551 At 0:40, an assertion was made, and he asked a separate question, which is true. She then answered that separate question, then responded to the assertion by saying she'd never represented that organization (slight of hand tactic). If she merely intended to clarify her role, she had the opportunity to do so. Instead, she dissociated herself altogether, not acknowledging any involvement with that organization (and since it'd been over ten years, qualifies as "never," of course). She acknowledged nothing until asked about it again later, when it was clear they knew she'd lied.
1
-
@christophergriffin5551 I never said that there was proof here that she supports this organization, so that is a mute point. Though, as others pointed out, she provided legal counsel for three years for free, hard to argue she doesn't support them. But whether she represented them in court, wasn't the question. She clarified nothing, she answered the assertion with a redirected answer. To your point, she gave an answer to a different question. That's misdirection, or slight of hand. But she inserted it as the answer to the question, which therefore was a lie. She could have simply said that she volunteered to provide legal advice, but did not represent them in court (as you're insisting), but she didn't.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1