Hillary's Enemy List

[TroutBum]

Say what?

A) I'd bang Hillary tomorrow. And I'm pretty sure my wife would let me and not even be mad. Although she did recently have a dream where she was mad because I was in an orgy and didn't invite her so maybe she wants in first. For a lady who's 66 she's probably well above average simply from being well preserved.

B) Fat? How much do you think she weighs? 150? 160 tops? That puts her at average to below average among American women.

C) Lazy? I have no idea where you'd get that. She's easily in the 99.9th percentile for accomplishments in one lifetime. That doesn't even depend on liking her, it's probably objectively verifiable.

I've been known to steal a hog from the trough in my day, but this is just too much.

 

[babe]

I've been known to steal a hog from the trough in my day, but this is just too much.

woot!!!!


woot woot!!!!!

There might be women I'd put up eating crackers and chocolates in bed, still. . . . well, let's just say I don't live to complain at just whatever can be complained about, at least. . . . well. . . . sometimes. . . . .

Hillary wouldn't ever be OK with me, in any context. She could confess Jesus and quit the CFR and the UN and Bill, and be any size, shape, tone, color, smell. . . . or even take up flattering me endlessly. . . .sorry, I just lost my lunch. . . . .

 

[sirkickyass]

I'll be honest, I've never understood the Right's obsession with Hillary.

The response is grossly disproportionate to anything she's ever actually done. I sometimes wonder if people still believe she ordered the death of Vincent Foster or something.

 

[babe]

I'll be honest, I've never understood the Right's obsession with Hillary.

The response is grossly disproportionate to anything she's ever actually done. I sometimes wonder if people still believe she ordered the death of Vincent Foster or something.

I don't know if I'm "the Right". I know that's what you would like to think, perhaps, but the whole categorization schema is made-up trash with no relevance to the things I care about.

Bill and Hillary caught a ride on a political train run by the Rockefeller family, and during their stay in the White House they took the Democratic Party on a wild fling with the Rich and Famous, and left the people in the ditch. During that period, the "Right", if you mean the Republicans, the Bourgeoise, the super-wealthy, the elites, the Corporatists, the Cartelists, or even the British Royals, or the international banksters, moved forward with the UN fascist regime which is government of unelected bigshots subservient only to the moneybag crowd. . . .and lawyers like you moved forward with the concepts of "Administrative Law" whereby judges appointed by politicians or panels of the legal in-crowd give themselves airs to make fundamental decisions over people's lives above and beyond legislated provisions in the federal or state codes, and in every way the little man has lost the rights and privileges once raved as "freedom", and we have been returned wholesale to a virtual medieval leige status, sitting on the roadside hoping the privileged class will deign to find us useful in their service.

And yah, I don't think Hillary or Bill would flinch at doing anyone in, if it was in their interest and power to do so.

 

[PearlWatson]

LOL!

It is funny how outraged liberals are when you mock their old hags after the way they treat conservative women.

Also, they still think their rep system is somehow an effective "deterrent" for such audacity.

 

[The Thriller]

I'll be honest, I've never understood the Right's obsession with Hillary.

The response is grossly disproportionate to anything she's ever actually done. I sometimes wonder if people still believe she ordered the death of Vincent Foster or something.

I was going to ask the exact same question this morning but didn't have enough time.

Why does the right have an obsession with the Clinton's? Why is there so much vitriol towards Hillary?

Clinton was a moderate, was president overly a relatively peaceful and economically prosperous time, and ran budget surpluses (isn't that what the right has always wanted?).

It's almost like sour grapes because the GOP father and son between Clinton sucked so bad. Admitting that Clinton was a good President shows in contrast just how suck the Bushes were. Hell, I've never seen another President turn tail so quickly as W. Even Barbara and 41 in a wheelchair are more involved than he. I'm guessing that even W knows that he Fed things up pretty bad (and knows that he completely failed in exceeding his father's legacy). I suspect the powers behind the GOP try their best to divorce themselves from Bush too, like a ******* child. Just admitting that he was a Republican only hurts the GOP's image. So rather than actually claim 41 or W as their own, they would rather attack Clinton.

Rather than give Clinton credit, they have to constantly demean him. And they do it by bringing up Monica and bashing Hillary.

It's so weird to me.

 

[TroutBum]

I have no beef with Hilary other than she's uglier than nine miles of undercooked *******.

 

[Scat]

B) Fat? How much do you think she weighs? 150? 160 tops? That puts her at average to below average among American women.

It's not the weight that makes you fat. It's the fat that makes you fat.

 

[babe]

I was going to ask the exact same question this morning but didn't have enough time.

Why does the right have an obsession with the Clinton's? Why is there so much vitriol towards Hillary?

Clinton was a moderate, was president overly a relatively peaceful and economically prosperous time, and ran budget surpluses (isn't that what the right has always wanted?).

It's almost like sour grapes because the GOP father and son between Clinton sucked. So rather than give Clinton credit, they have to constantly demean him. And they do it by bringing up Monica and bashing Hillary.

It's so weird to me.

I never said either Bush was any better. The Bushes and the Clintons are actually friends if not bedfellows, and enjoy their good times hanging out together. It's a case of Tweedle Dem and Tweedle Dumb fascist/statist/corporatists riding the same self-serving train to notoriety.

 

[LogGrad98]

It's not the weight that makes you fat. It's the fat that makes you fat.

This is true. I am kind of heavy for my weight, but it's ok because I am kind of tall for my height.

 

[LogGrad98]

Hillary did kind of take the fall for benghazi so there is that.

 

[The Thriller]

Hillary did kind of take the fall for benghazi so there is that.

As she should.

Hillary should definitely take the fall for the Tea Party's insistence that cuts to embassy security be made...

It's all on Hillary and not on camera addicted ******** like this guy:

 

[babe]

As she should.

Hillary should definitely take the fall for the Tea Party's insistence that cuts to embassy security be made...

It's all on Hillary and not on camera addicted ******** like this guy:

yah, sure. You always say we should spend more on military and security measures, don't you. Obama and Hillary made all the decisions on that issue, and they got all the money they asked for on that score.

Chaffetz is trying to get the facts about what happened. Hillary and Obama did this little death-dance pow-wow and decided it is better to stick together and put a lid on it. Both are unworthy to lead America precisely because they put American lives beneath their own ideology/agendas.

 

[Hantlers]

I love seeing liberals who believe the left side can do no wrong argue about how stupid conservatives are for thinking they can do no wrong.

Both sides suck, but The Thriller sucks more than all of them.

 

[One Brow]

It is funny how outraged liberals are when you mock their old hags after the way they treat conservative women.

I would have made the same points in you had posted these images as things Barbara Bush, Laura Bush, Sarah Palin, etc., hated. However, you would never have used to images to mock those women, so I never have the opportunity to do so.

 

[babe]

I would have made the same points in you had posted these images as things Barbara Bush, Laura Bush, Sarah Palin, etc., hated. However, you would never have used to images to mock those women, so I never have the opportunity to do so.

Knowing you to the extent I do, I think this is probably an accurate self-revelation to the point you make. But by the same measure, I think it's probably true that the only reason you would have raised the issue if Pearl had done the same line on a Republican woman is because of your special misogyny for Pearl herself. It deeply bothers you. . . . to the very core. . . . that she can pop off and say the things she says. If it were a guy doing that, you'd brush it off just calling him a guy. I see a lot of material in this forum that I think is demeaning to women, but by large measure it's locker room man talk and leering at sexy pics. I haven't seen you raise the issue on that stuff to defend the true value of women as mature, thinking, and caring persons in our society. A little objectivization of sexuality is more or less "to be expected". Kicky's objectivization of Hillary just a few posts above didn't trigger anything from you. Fun to throw out labels, isn't it. Not so interesting to look at ourselves with the same level of criticism.

I learned a long time ago, before the age most kids start getting sexual, and as the consequence of being abused by older people, that it was necessary to get past the objectivization of sexual abuse and analyze the situation in terms of other attributes people possess. I made a decision to refuse to think of humans in solely sexual terms, and to put that aspect way back in my assessment of the entire person. I see porn as a mental/neurological/reflexive addiction as powerful as any hallucinogenic drug, and I see people who are in the mode of leering at human beings, or dressing to the mode, for sexual emphasis, as seriously maladjusted. That is part of the reason I see the whole GLBT crowd as, well. . . . sad cases of humans gone wrong. Nobody should be labeled first of all, or considered solely in terms of neurological responses to sexual attraction. Why will you demean yourself in doing that? Why will you demean others by doing that in your mind?

I see learning to govern yourself on principle as the way to be a man or woman of character. Failure to do that in any department of your life only takes away from your possible humanity, your potential to act on principle, and your privilege of governing yourself.

I see the entire Democratic Party in America as "bowled over" with lesser values, as people failing to live by good character. I see a lot of Republicans in the same boat. But I see people like Pearl as at least symbolically trying to seek a higher standard, for personal conduct and for consistency with truth. A lot of the fundamentalist Christians at least have that working in the background despite whatever their deficits may be. People trying to become better people, and people with internal standards of character seeking consistency with those standards from their government are the only hope we have as a people, or as a nation. I wish more Democrats would take that stand. You might be able to take back the Democratic party as the party for the people in this country.

But you won't be able to that by following the lead of our CFR folks, or the Rockefellers, Bushes, or even Romneys and McCains of our political crowd. Not even McConnel or Boehner. We owe the financial soundness of the Clinton administration to Newt Gingrich and his little band in Congress, perhaps, but even Newt falls short on the score I'm talking about. I sorta understand the criticisms of even Ron Paul as set out by Democrats of the FDR cult crowd, who see the government as a tool for solving problems for the people, but at least he has personal integrity.

Without deep-seated personal integrity in our representatives, we are a rudderless ship in a stormy sea. I've held on to friendships with even genuine Marxists for the sake of what I perceived as principled integrity. My bud would have, and did, put his own job on the line for the sake of principle, a principle as small as refusing to train management personnel to replace workers during contract negotiations in preparation for a possible strike.

When you decide who to label derisively and try to shout down, try to pick on someone who actually has problems in the integrity department. Or you'll find me sticking up for them.

I guess I suspect that if she were a Democrat, you'd cut her some slack for that reason, too. Certainly, you cut a whole lot of slack for people who are in your progressive boat. If I saw you out in the trenches taking the same principled stand for the slackers within your own political camp, it would. . .. almost. . . . shut me up as your critic.

 

[sirkickyass]

LOL!

It is funny how outraged liberals are when you mock their old hags after the way they treat conservative women.

Also, they still think their rep system is somehow an effective "deterrent" for such audacity.

Who are these conservative women that we treat so poorly?

If you're discussing Sarah Palin, I would submit to you that there is a substantial difference between pointing out that someone doesn't know anything and frequently makes ignorant statements and saying that another person is fat and ugly.

BTW: You are aware that the Duck Dynasty guys are making fun of their fans with their hyper backwoods schtick right? These are the Duck Dynasty guys in all their bro-tastic glory.

I don't know why I'm even bothering to respond to the trolls.

 

[One Brow]

But by the same measure, I think it's probably true that the only reason you would have raised the issue if Pearl had done the same line on a Republican woman is because of your special misogyny for Pearl herself. It deeply bothers you. . . . to the very core. . . . that she can pop off and say the things she says. If it were a guy doing that, you'd brush it off just calling him a guy.

[sarcasm]Because I never criticize guys for saying sexist things, or whites for saying racist things, or straight people for saying homophobic things, etc.[\sarcasm]

I'll acknowledge I don't criticize every single sexist, racist, etc. comment I see, because it gets really old, even for me.

I haven't seen you raise the issue on that stuff to defend the true value of women as mature, thinking, and caring persons in our society.

I accept that you have not seen it. Unless people object to it and try to pretend it's not happening, it tends to get lost in the subsequent posts anyhow. For example, in this thread, you didn't bother to respond to my initial post, and waited until I responded to PearlWatson's pretense that the objections were based in partisanship instead of legitimately bad acts.

A little objectivization of sexuality is more or less "to be expected". Kicky's objectivization of Hillary just a few posts above didn't trigger anything from you. Fun to throw out labels, isn't it. Not so interesting to look at ourselves with the same level of criticism.

I think, to some degree, every person's mental image of another person is an objectification.

I specified "caricature, paranoia, body-shaming, and misogyny" in my initial complaint. Going through sirkickyass' comments on Clinton:
1. she's sexually desirable
2. she's not fat
3. she's not lazy

I have a mild objection to 2., because whether Clinton is fat or not is irrelevant, and 2. indirectly supports the notion of fat-shaming. However, since the fat-shaming was not direct, the objection was mild. I don't see anything wrong with finding Clinton sexually desirable as one trait in a long list of traits about Clinton, most of which are not are attractiveness (I am sex-positive, at least in intent). If the only thing he had mentioned was her desirability, that would be more problematic.

Now, if instead of sirkickyass, you had mentioned E.J. Wells, you would have had a point. His comments were demeaning and fat-shaming, and I debated whether they merited an additional response. Since they didn't pretend to defend or say the initial post was defensible, I did not. Perhaps my own sexism played a role in deciding not to respond after all. I'll have to think on that some more.

That is part of the reason I see the whole GLBT crowd as, well. . . . sad cases of humans gone wrong. Nobody should be labeled first of all, or considered solely in terms of neurological responses to sexual attraction. Why will you demean yourself in doing that? Why will you demean others by doing that in your mind?

Gender is about so much more than who is sexually attracted to you.

I guess I suspect that if she were a Democrat, you'd cut her some slack for that reason, too. Certainly, you cut a whole lot of slack for people who are in your progressive boat. If I saw you out in the trenches taking the same principled stand for the slackers within your own political camp, it would. . .. almost. . . . shut me up as your critic.

I regularly find myself on the same side of a discussion as Stoked or LogGrad98, yet I have no problem arguing with them. I find myself agreeing with colton on many things, yet have reproved him on occasion.

If I find sirkickyass saying things that are blatantly anti-(pick your choice of minority), I'll say something. Do you have a better example than this thread?

 

[The Thriller]

I love seeing liberals who believe the left side can do no wrong argue about how stupid conservatives are for thinking they can do no wrong.

Both sides suck, but The Thriller sucks more than all of them.

Right.

Because I totally believe the left to be infallible because I find the Benghazi Witch Hunt to be nothing more than a desperate attempt from the GOP to smear Hillary Clinton (the left's #1 potential candidate for 2016).

January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al Qaeda attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of "Bali Bombings." No fatalities.

February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al Qaeda terrorists storm the diplomatic compound, killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name "David Foy." This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what's considered American soil.)

September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting "Allahu akbar" storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

March 18, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

September 17, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.

Where were the cries from the right to investigate any of these embassy attacks? Where was your concern that Bush's administration was hiding something? Why is Benghazi more sinister than any of the attacks listed above?

Chaffetz is trying to get the facts about what happened. Hillary and Obama did this little death-dance pow-wow and decided it is better to stick together and put a lid on it. Both are unworthy to lead America precisely because they put American lives beneath their own ideology/agendas.

There were literally 6 embassy attacks and 57 deaths between the 2000 and 2004 elections. Who did you vote for? Bush/Cheney? Who was unworthy to lead America precisely because they put American lives beneath their own ideology/agenda? It would seem to me that a 9/11 attack combined with 6 embassy attacks would have forced you to vote for someone else, no?

Why weren't you questioning the attacks on our embassies then?

I'm just trying to get the facts about what happened and understand why the attack in Benghazi is priority uno while the 10+ attacks during Bush resulting in far more death and destruction aren't mentioned at all. If the security of our embassies were really a GOP priority, why wasn't it mentioned before when our embassies were being attacked on a near monthly basis?

 

[The Thriller]

yah, sure. You always say we should spend more on military and security measures, don't you. Obama and Hillary made all the decisions on that issue, and they got all the money they asked for on that score.

Chaffetz is trying to get the facts about what happened. Hillary and Obama did this little death-dance pow-wow and decided it is better to stick together and put a lid on it. Both are unworthy to lead America precisely because they put American lives beneath their own ideology/agendas.

Do you really want to go here with me? Really?

IMO, shut down half the embassies we have around the world. Get out of these places where our presence is clearly not wanted. Pull our ambassadors out of these hostile places. GTFO of the Middle East.

You admit that I am no proponent of our runaway and completely unsustainable military spending. However, you are incorrect to assume that while I support drastic cuts in defense that I do not support an overall withdraw of our American Empire. That I somehow desire our presence to still be maintained without security. Sorry sir, but you clearly don't understand where I stand.

I am a huge proponent of American Isolationism. Let Allah sort out the Middle-East. Cut the Dept of Defense in half. Bring it back to sustainable levels. Cut the pork (like jet engines that even the Air Force doesn't want but Jon Boehner's district desires), shutdown some embassies, and no more nation building, PERIOD.