Author Hillary Clinton  (Read 236534 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #8340 on: September 12, 2017, 10:18:31 PM »



Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #8341 on: September 13, 2017, 01:37:32 AM »
She supposed to have three. ???

What difference between the legs of a supposition or 'pository, derp, at this


ediot: mmm

Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #8342 on: September 13, 2017, 09:52:36 AM »


Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #8343 on: September 13, 2017, 10:16:24 AM »

Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #8344 on: September 13, 2017, 10:19:41 AM »



At least Trump doesn't tell his toothless brethren that he'd pay their legal fees if they beat up protesters at his rallies...Oh wait...

Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #8345 on: September 13, 2017, 10:21:19 AM »

At least Trump doesn't tell his toothless brethren that he'd pay their legal fees if they beat up protesters at his rallies...Oh wait...

Are you drunk again already?! It's not even 9 am there yet.  ::)

Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #8346 on: September 13, 2017, 10:51:11 AM »
Gotta love a woman who blames everyone but herself for her failures. To quote a friend of mine who's a Democrat, we didn't want her in 2008, we didn't want her in 2016, and for fuck's sake we don't want her in 2020. How in the hell can someone run again who got busted rigging the primaries? Also the excerpts from her book are hilarious. Just imagine hours of the 'deal me in' voice. 

Edit: Did any of you see how she twisted the meaning of 1984? She took the one passage that says to rely on the media and government. Seriously what the hell is she smoking? Yeah, let's all trust the media and the government.
 :o
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clinton-doesnt-get-george-orwells-nineteen-eighty-four/article/2634245

2nd Edit: The media is owned by five companies. Look it up. Just like 1984 talks about there is also controlled opposition too.

Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #8347 on: September 13, 2017, 11:03:13 AM »
Seriously what the hell is she smoking?

More like they should've got her to smoke something. Then she probably would've woken up to the fact that she and her whole crew were nothing but crony criminals, freaked out and then dropped out of the race to "find herself."  ;)

Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #8348 on: September 13, 2017, 11:04:23 AM »

Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #8349 on: September 13, 2017, 11:05:25 AM »
More like they should've got her to smoke something. Then she probably would've woken up to the fact that she and her whole crew were nothing but crony criminals, freaked out and then dropped out of the race to "find herself."  ;)
Bottom line she's just not likable. People don't like phonies. And I am not a Trump supporter either. But at this point she needs to let it go. One of the biggest traits of a narcissist is blaming everyone else for your failures except you.

Example : see Falkie thread.  ;D

Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #8350 on: September 13, 2017, 11:06:44 AM »

At least Trump doesn't tell his toothless brethren that he'd pay their legal fees if they beat up protesters at his rallies...Oh wait...

No, once again you're accusing Trump of what the people you support do.  ::)




Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #8351 on: September 13, 2017, 11:28:40 AM »

Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #8352 on: September 13, 2017, 11:36:14 AM »
Gotta love a woman who blames everyone but herself for her failures. To quote a friend of mine who's a Democrat, we didn't want her in 2008, we didn't want her in 2016, and for fuck's sake we don't want her in 2020. How in the hell can someone run again who got busted rigging the primaries? Also the excerpts from her book are hilarious. Just imagine hours of the 'deal me in' voice. 

Edit: Did any of you see how she twisted the meaning of 1984? She took the one passage that says to rely on the media and government. Seriously what the hell is she smoking? Yeah, let's all trust the media and the government.
 :o
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clinton-doesnt-get-george-orwells-nineteen-eighty-four/article/2634245

2nd Edit: The media is owned by five companies. Look it up. Just like 1984 talks about there is also controlled opposition too.

I am curious. Which of the 4 old white guys that ran in the 2016 Democratic primaries did your friend prefer over the anointed one?

Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #8353 on: September 13, 2017, 11:42:22 AM »
I am curious. Which of the 4 old white guys that ran in the 2016 Democratic primaries did your friend prefer over the anointed one?
Oh she is all Bernie. I'm not saying I agree with her, as a libertarian I don't really care. But she was very anti-Hillary. And both of us got told we weren't feminists because we wouldn't vote for her. It was sad really. And like I have said many, many times before I believe all sides are crooked. Libertarian just fits me best if I have to identify.

Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #8354 on: September 13, 2017, 11:48:45 AM »
Bottom line she's just not likable. People don't like phonies. And I am not a Trump supporter either. But at this point she needs to let it go. One of the biggest traits of a narcissist is blaming everyone else for your failures except you.

Example : see Falkie thread.  ;D

Actually, the bottom line is she's a corrupt, big government hack.

That means she's dishonest, and willing to sell us out for cash, has already done so on many ocassions, and so has Bill; supports an ever expanding wasteful, unaccountable, unresponsive government, with ever higher taxes; and will always put what's best for her and her party before the good of the country.

That she's unlikable is just another reason some didn't vote for her.  For me, Trump is just as unlikable.  The personalities of the candidates are near the bottom in determining who to vote for.

Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #8355 on: September 13, 2017, 11:55:26 AM »
For me, Trump is just as unlikable.

I was with you up to here. He's rough around the edges but so far as I can tell up this point he's not a corrupt criminal hack. I'd say that makes him just a bit more likeable, at least.  ;)

Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #8356 on: September 13, 2017, 11:56:34 AM »
No, once again you're accusing Trump of what the people you support do...

This is what happens when the media stop doing their jobs, and throw in with one of the major parties.  The watchdog no longer exists, and that party is free to lie and do whatever underhanded schemes they like.

It's why people like Obama, the Clintons, Nancy Pelosi, any Democrat really, can tell any lie, make any accusation, abuse their offices, or pretty much commit any crime that furthers them or their party - they know it will never be challenged in the main-stream media. 

Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #8357 on: September 13, 2017, 11:58:30 AM »
Meanwhile people like Pud are focused on lies and exaggeration Trump tells that don't really matter.  Because the media they've been trained to trust focus on that as well.

Next time he's whinging on about some lie Trump told, perhaps he could tell us why it matters.

Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #8358 on: September 13, 2017, 11:59:15 AM »
Oh she is all Bernie. I'm not saying I agree with her, as a libertarian I don't really care. But she was very anti-Hillary. And both of us got told we weren't feminists because we wouldn't vote for her. It was sad really. And like I have said many, many times before I believe all sides are crooked. Libertarian just fits me best if I have to identify.

Thanks. I have never seen the attraction towards Bernie Sanders.

Must be a combination of kids that don't want to leave their parent's home coupled with old ladies that don't want their kids leaving. Why would anyone trust a candidate that never held a real job?

Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #8359 on: September 13, 2017, 12:06:10 PM »
Thanks. I have never seen the attraction towards Bernie Sanders.

Must be a combination of kids that don't want to leave their parent's home coupled with old ladies that don't want their kids leaving. Why would anyone trust a candidate that never held a real job?
I think it was the appeal of something different and lots of equality for everyone financially. Someone once asked me if I truly thought all of the systems of government (capitalism, socialism, communism,republic, anarchy) were bad why didn't I come up with a new one? I honestly couldn't answer that. I think the problem lies in the nature of man. Corruption is going to happen. Power does bizarre and wicked things to people.


Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #8360 on: September 13, 2017, 12:08:32 PM »
Why would anyone trust a candidate that never held a real job?



Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #8361 on: September 13, 2017, 12:33:40 PM »
I think it was the appeal of something different and lots of equality for everyone financially. Someone once asked me if I truly thought all of the systems of government (capitalism, socialism, communism,republic, anarchy) were bad why didn't I come up with a new one? I honestly couldn't answer that. I think the problem lies in the nature of man. Corruption is going to happen. Power does bizarre and wicked things to people.

Bernie Sanders is a Marxist.  All those years in the House, and then the Senate, he wasn't a registed as a Democrat, and ran as an ''Independent''.  The Democrat Party wasn't left-wing enough for him, even during the last decade when it moved well to the Left.  He didn't register as a Democrat until he needed to do so in order to run for president.

Marxism is very appealing, until a person realizes it is simply incompatable with human nature.  It sounds great, especially when it's presented as a few new ideas, and not as ''Marxism''.   Of course free college, free medical care, free all sorts of things are going to appeal to college students.  Of course Bernie Sanders is going to appeal to old '60s lefties.  Of course he's going to appeal to people who vote Democrat and don't realize they've been pulled Left along with the rest of their party.  Of course he's going to look great in comparison to Hilary Clinton. 

And just as the Media didn't ask candidate Obama too many questions about his world view, they did their best in shielding ol' Bernie  from that scrutiny as well.  He would have been a horrible choice, probably the worst choice of everyone running in either primary.


Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #8363 on: September 13, 2017, 12:54:40 PM »
Bernie Sanders is a Marxist.  All those years in the House, and then the Senate, he wasn't a registed as a Democrat, and ran as an ''Independent''.  The Democrat Party wasn't left-wing enough for him, even during the last decade when it moved well to the Left.  He didn't register as a Democrat until he needed to do so in order to run for president.

Marxism is very appealing, until a person realizes it is simply incompatable with human nature.  It sounds great, especially when it's presented as some new ideas, instead of being presented under the banner of Marxism.   Of course free college, free medical, free all sorts of things are going to appeal to college students.  Of course Bernie Sanders is going to appeal to old campus lefties.  Of course he's going to appeal to people who vote Democrat and don't even realize they've been pulled Left along with the rest of their party.  Of course he's going to look great in comparison to Hilary Clinton. 

And just as the Media didn't ask Obama too many questions about his world view, they did their best in shilding him from that scrutiny as well.  He would have been a horrible choice.

I remain as skeptical of these claims as I do the claims of Trump (or conservatives in general) being racists. He's certainly a leftist politically speaking but Marxist? I doubt the country would've been magically transformed into a socialist nation were he elected, though I too am skeptical of his platform; and of course there is always a danger of slowly creeping towards socialism, as we did under Obama but I think that this kind of demagoguery (left or right) is just bad for politics in general. It foments overreactions that sometimes have bad real life consequences (Scalise shooting, etc.). The great thing this about this nation is that it was created to avoid the tyranny of any one political ideology. The primary emphasis was on preserving freedom and individual liberty because founders were escaping tyrannical forces that were preventing that but it also made room for limited applications of socialism where the populace saw fit. The problem is that this power of the people has been slowly eroded over time by those who would benefit from tyranny. While some of the changes that happened under Reagan were actually good this kind of anti-union, anti-left rhetoric that came with it was overall not good for our country. Things have flipped 180 now but it's just the same kind of demonization that was being directed toward the left in the 80s.

Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #8364 on: September 13, 2017, 01:03:26 PM »
Marxism is very appealing, until a person realizes it is simply incompatable with human nature.  It sounds great, especially when it's presented as a few new ideas, and not as ''Marxism''.   Of course free college, free medical care, free all sorts of things are going to appeal to [naive] college students"

Free stuff is great until someone has to pay for it. Unfortunately nothing is provided or produced for free. And when people aren't required to pay for something, it loses its value. Free college, healthcare, and whatever else the Demokkkrats come up with the buy votes, are all worthless. Look at community college, and the way it's valued. Someone says they have an AA it sounds worse than saying you have a high school diploma. Look at free healthcare. None of it is free. And what's provided now compared to 10 years ago is crap and costs 5x as much. Because it's "free".

Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #8365 on: September 13, 2017, 01:06:27 PM »
Free stuff is great until someone has to pay for it. Unfortunately nothing is provided or produced for free. And when people aren't required to pay for something, it loses its value. Free college, healthcare, and whatever else the Demokkkrats come up with the buy votes, are all worthless. Look at community college, and the way it's valued. Someone says they have an AA it sounds worse than saying you have a high school diploma. Look at free healthcare. None of it is free. And what's provided now compared to 10 years ago is crap and costs 5x as much. Because it's "free".

You found that nothing is free when you started the scam links on your twitter account.. How is that going? Getting an income from the referrals?  ;)

Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #8366 on: September 13, 2017, 01:13:29 PM »
Free stuff is great until someone has to pay for it. Unfortunately nothing is provided or produced for free. And when people aren't required to pay for something, it loses its value. Free college, healthcare, and whatever else the Demokkkrats come up with the buy votes, are all worthless. Look at community college, and the way it's valued. Someone says they have an AA it sounds worse than saying you have a high school diploma. Look at free healthcare. None of it is free. And what's provided now compared to 10 years ago is crap and costs 5x as much. Because it's "free".

Given that we all understand that nothing is free I still think there's room for drafting a budget differently. The problem as I see it is that no matter what WE THE PEOPLE want there are corporate gate keepers controlling the limits of debate and it's been that way for quite some time under both Democratic and Republican leadership.

Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #8367 on: September 13, 2017, 01:27:48 PM »
... The great thing this about this nation is that it was created to avoid the tyranny of any one political ideology. The primary emphasis was on preserving freedom and individual liberty because founders were escaping tyrannical forces that were preventing that but it also made room for limited applications of socialism where the populace saw fit. The problem is that this power of the people has been slowly eroded over time by those who would benefit from tyranny....

The Constitution was written to avoid tyranny period, meaning preserving freedom and individual liberty, as you said. 

I'm not sure there even were political ideologies at that time, other than the Enlightenment and opposition to tyranny, at least not fully formed.  Socialism is the opposite of individual liberty - while no system can be 100% pure anything, we've gone far beyond ''limited applications'' of it.

None of that has a thing to do with unions, except that if workers wish to form one that is fully consistent with individual liberty.  Opposing union power when it reaches the point of breaking the law, endangers public safety, or is damaging to the economy is a short term political issue to be resolved, not really something I see as Right or Left (I still don't even know what right-wing is, there is either government intrusion - the Left - or a lack of it).



Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #8368 on: September 13, 2017, 01:35:57 PM »
The Constitution was written to avoid tyranny period, meaning preserving freedom and individual liberty, as you said. 

I'm not sure there even were political ideologies at that time, other than the Enlightenment and opposition to tyranny, at least not fully formed.  Socialism is the opposite of individual liberty - while no system can be 100% pure anything, we've gone far beyond ''limited applications'' of it.

None of that has a thing to do with unions, except that if workers wish to form one that is fully consistent with individual liberty.  Opposing union power when it reaches the point of breaking the law, endangers public safety, or is damaging to the economy is a short term political issue to be resolved, not really something I see as Right or Left (I still don't even know what right-wing is, there is either government intrusion - the Left - or a lack of it).

Sure but even in the early days there was debate as to how to go about this that roughly falls under the same ideological debate going on today.


Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #8369 on: September 13, 2017, 01:38:31 PM »
I remain as skeptical of these claims as I do the claims of Trump (or conservatives in general) being racists. He's certainly a leftist politically speaking but Marxist? I doubt the country would've been magically transformed into a socialist nation were he elected, though I too am skeptical of his platform; and of course there is always a danger of slowly creeping towards socialism, as we did under Obama but I think that this kind of demagoguery (left or right) is just bad for politics in general. It foments overreactions that sometimes have bad real life consequences (Scalise shooting, etc.). The great thing this about this nation is that it was created to avoid the tyranny of any one political ideology. The primary emphasis was on preserving freedom and individual liberty because founders were escaping tyrannical forces that were preventing that but it also made room for limited applications of socialism where the populace saw fit. The problem is that this power of the people has been slowly eroded over time by those who would benefit from tyranny. While some of the changes that happened under Reagan were actually good this kind of anti-union, anti-left rhetoric that came with it was overall not good for our country. Things have flipped 180 now but it's just the same kind of demonization that was being directed toward the left in the 80s.

Bernie Sanders is bad news.  Look at him.  Listen to him talk.  Understand that all these years the Democrat Party wasn't Left-wing enough for him. 

Keep in mind these people are only going to say what they think people want to hear - whether that is something that sounds good but is meaningless, a lie, or just the portion of their plans they think will go over while they keep the rest of it to themselves.

And yes, sometimes what these people represent needs to be pointed out.  It's called viligence.  More of it should be done so we don't get the Clintons, the Obamas, the Rinos, and the rest.