Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby 82_28 » Thu Mar 24, 2016 10:32 pm

Alright. Begin discussion.
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
User avatar
82_28
 
Posts: 11194
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 am
Location: North of Queen Anne
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby Harvey » Thu Mar 24, 2016 10:59 pm

Because her husband humiliated her in front of the country she wants to punish for witnessing it.
And while we spoke of many things, fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing
You'll ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved
In return"


Eden Ahbez
User avatar
Harvey
 
Posts: 4165
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (20)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby Harvey » Thu Mar 24, 2016 11:02 pm

Discuss.
And while we spoke of many things, fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing
You'll ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved
In return"


Eden Ahbez
User avatar
Harvey
 
Posts: 4165
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (20)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby 82_28 » Thu Mar 24, 2016 11:05 pm

Personally she grates on my nerves just for beginners.
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
User avatar
82_28
 
Posts: 11194
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 am
Location: North of Queen Anne
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby Grizzly » Thu Mar 24, 2016 11:06 pm

“The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it.”

― Joseph mengele
User avatar
Grizzly
 
Posts: 4722
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby KUAN » Thu Mar 24, 2016 11:41 pm

.

whomever
KUAN
 
Posts: 889
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 5:17 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby Nordic » Fri Mar 25, 2016 12:07 am

I was kidding! (Because we have a Hillary thread)

But there's this:


http://www.clowncrack.com/2016/03/24/hey-shithead/

Image
Last edited by Nordic on Fri Mar 25, 2016 12:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby tapitsbo » Fri Mar 25, 2016 12:07 am

The continuous trickle of comprimising info on the Clintons from Epstein to emails and beyond tells me they are being blackmailed and controlled by some networks that are powerful indeed
tapitsbo
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 6:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby Iamwhomiam » Fri Mar 25, 2016 12:09 am

Oh, she's not that bad.

Just look at her. She's an harmless old grandmother, for goodness sake!

Just like Golda Meir.
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby Grizzly » Fri Mar 25, 2016 12:37 am

.

She is and has been involved with Dominionists.


article | posted March 19, 2008

Hillary's Nasty Pastorate

Barbara Ehrenreich

There's a reason Hillary Clinton has remained relatively silent during the flap over intemperate remarks by Barack Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. When it comes to unsavory religious affiliations, she's a lot more vulnerable than Obama.

You can find all about it in a widely under-read article in the September 2007 issue of Mother Jones, in which Kathryn Joyce and Jeff Sharlet reported that "through all of her years in Washington, Clinton has been an active participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as "The "Fellowship," also known as The Family. (Mother Jones article link, below)

The Family's most visible activity is its blandly innocuous National Prayer Breakfast, held every February in Washington. But almost all its real work goes on behind the scenes--knitting together international networks of right-wing leaders, most of them ostensibly Christian. In the 1940s, The Family reached out to former and not-so-former Nazis, and its fascination with that exemplary leader, Adolf Hitler, has continued, along with ties to a whole bestiary of murderous thugs. As Sharlet reported in Harper's in 2003:


http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080331/ehrenreich


Hillary's Prayer: Hillary Clinton's Religion and Politics

News: For 15 years, Hillary Clinton has been part of a secretive religious group that seeks to bring Jesus back to Capitol Hill. Is she triangulating—or living her faith?

By Kathryn Joyce and Jeff Sharlet
Illustration by: Andy Friedman

September 1, 2007

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature … rayer.html
“The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it.”

― Joseph mengele
User avatar
Grizzly
 
Posts: 4722
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby Project Willow » Fri Mar 25, 2016 12:47 am

Oh, FFS. She spends X-mas with the Kissingers. She's a Satanist, and she's been through the labs, just like her hubby, and a number of folks posting in this forum.

If people only knew, which is silly, because of course, they don't want to know. Practically everybody prefers to be dissociated.
User avatar
Project Willow
 
Posts: 4793
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 9:37 pm
Location: Seattle
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby Grizzly » Fri Mar 25, 2016 12:51 am

.

She is and has been involved with Dominionists.


article | posted March 19, 2008

Hillary's Nasty Pastorate

Barbara Ehrenreich

There's a reason Hillary Clinton has remained relatively silent during the flap over intemperate remarks by Barack Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. When it comes to unsavory religious affiliations, she's a lot more vulnerable than Obama.

You can find all about it in a widely under-read article in the September 2007 issue of Mother Jones, in which Kathryn Joyce and Jeff Sharlet reported that "through all of her years in Washington, Clinton has been an active participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as "The "Fellowship," also known as The Family. (Mother Jones article link, below)

The Family's most visible activity is its blandly innocuous National Prayer Breakfast, held every February in Washington. But almost all its real work goes on behind the scenes--knitting together international networks of right-wing leaders, most of them ostensibly Christian. In the 1940s, The Family reached out to former and not-so-former Nazis, and its fascination with that exemplary leader, Adolf Hitler, has continued, along with ties to a whole bestiary of murderous thugs. As Sharlet reported in Harper's in 2003:


http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080331/ehrenreich


Hillary's Prayer: Hillary Clinton's Religion and Politics

News: For 15 years, Hillary Clinton has been part of a secretive religious group that seeks to bring Jesus back to Capitol Hill. Is she triangulating—or living her faith?

By Kathryn Joyce and Jeff Sharlet
Illustration by: Andy Friedman

September 1, 2007

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature … rayer.html


Also see, http://m.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/4/490211/-
Hillary Clinton member of "cell church" run by "The Family"
“The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it.”

― Joseph mengele
User avatar
Grizzly
 
Posts: 4722
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby 82_28 » Fri Mar 25, 2016 5:46 am

I lived next to a "cell church" down the street from me. Even as a kid I was WTF is this? Not many details other than that the house was yellow. They would invite me all the fucking time to come in. I just couldn't be persuaded. Thank the good lord. I also lived next to Mormons who tried to rope me in. My parents while liberal were also religious and fundie for a time. Couldn't rope me in. But as Willow alludes to above there was a shit ton of "activity" as I remember it in those days. I just thought it was normal but ultimately found it all dumb and boring with the added anxiety that I was doing the wrong thing. That's when I said fuck this shit. I put up a wall at a very young age for acceptance of any sort in fealty to anything. Joined the Colorado Humanists and the old people loved me and "championed" me as a person who could reach out to youth. They were full of hate in their meetings. So I dumped them.

OK so point being is that people are easily manipulated. And I have as far as I know never been knowingly manipulated. Perpetually skeptical. I always do the opposite of what I am told. When you're told to do something do the opposite. I dumped atheism because they said I was supposed to not believe in god. I dumped agnosticism because it's okay to be on the fence -- you're just searching. Fuck all control. Yet the early control must be insurmountable when you reach the apex of being a figurehead. I hope Sanders is my/all of our dream come true.
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
User avatar
82_28
 
Posts: 11194
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 am
Location: North of Queen Anne
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby stillrobertpaulsen » Fri Mar 25, 2016 3:48 pm

Clinton: 'Coal Will Be Part of the Energy Mix For Years to Come, Both in the U.S. and Around the World'

Hillary Clinton’s record is remarkably consistent, in serving the people at the top, by serving to them the people at the bottom.

By Eric Zuesse / AlterNet
March 21, 2016

The “Down with Tyranny” blog quotes Hillary Clinton’s statement in a recent letter to Democratic U.S. Senator from West Virginia, Joe Manchin, assuring him that as President she won’t be overly aggressive to reduce the coal industry, because coal-mining jobs are at stake; thus: “Coal will be part of the energy mix for years to come, both in the U.S. and around the world.”

That blogger, who styles himself “Gaius Publius,” has excellent sources in the national Democratic Party, and he comments:

Clinton uses job-concern as a reason to seem like we should proceed carefully. But after all, a great many people in the U.S. are out of jobs — many in disappearing industries — and yet I’ll be willing to bet money she either signs TPP or refuses to renegotiate it; then signs TTIP and TISA, and with them, says goodbye to the last jobs worth having, save those near the top.

So, jobs? Maybe she cares only in this case? Or maybe she cares about something else as well.

Personally, I don’t take her worrying about coal jobs any more seriously than I take her worrying about, say, manufacturing jobs. Remember, the Pennsylvania primary is coming soon, with West Virginia shortly after. And if she really cares about mitigating the aggressive destruction of the coal industry, there are ways to bail out people too, not just big carbon corporations and the banks that lend to them. …

I don’t think this is an unfair criticism of her, though some do think so. I find it an interesting implicit dog-whistle. “Don’t worry, coal bosses; we’ll foam your landing strip too.”

The blogger analogizes this to the bail-out of Wall Street, which Clinton supports: he says that she favored there, and still does, bailing out the lenders instead of bailing out the borrowers, and he thinks that in the coal issue she will protect the coal companies instead of protect their workers.

Hillary Clinton’s record, her vaunted experience, is remarkably consistent, in serving the people at the top, by serving to them the people at the bottom. Here are some of the relevant headlines::

“Hillary Clinton’s Global-Burning Record”

“Hillary Clinton Backs Fast-Track on Obama’s Trade Deals”

“Hillary Clinton Oversaw US Arms Deals to Clinton Foundation Donors”

“Hillary Clinton Is Backed by Major Republican Donors”

“Hillary Clinton’s Six Foreign-Policy Catastrophes”

“Hillary v. Bernie: Their Two Opposite Views of the Presidency”

She’s “the experience candidate,” in the view of voters, as if the content of that experience doesn’t matter, and as if what matters instead is the posts she has occupied: First Lady for 8 years, U.S. Senator for 4 years, then Secretary of State for 4 years.

By contrast, Bernie Sanders has a record of having been a civil-rights organizer for the Congress of Racial Equality while a student at the University of Chicago, then a mayor of Burlington, Vermont for eight years, the U.S. Representative from Vermont for 18 years, and a U.S. senator from Vermont for (so far) 10 years.

Donald Trump has no political record, except as a donor to the campaigns of Democrats and Republicans — and, of course, as the heir of NYC real-estate mogul Fred Trump, Fred’s son who continued the growth of Fred’s business.

To summarize: Hillary Clinton has a consistent record of having served well her billionaire donors. Donald Trump has a consistent record of having been served well by the politicians to whom he has donated. Bernie Sanders has a consistent record of having served well the public who elected him to public office. (That’s why he has the highest approval-rating of all 100 U.S. senators.)

It’s common for politicians to lie, and anyone who judges a candidate on the basis not of what he/she has done but instead on the basis of what he/she tells voters what that given politician will do is judging the candidate on an invalid basis.

So: would it be reasonable to assert that anyone (other than her major donors) who votes for Hillary Clinton is simply a sucker? Reader-comments here are welcomed to discuss this question, providing reasons why or why not that’s the case.


There are many ways in which she is seriously dangerous; her most recent speech at AIPAC is a perfect example of the kind of threat she is to the rest of the world. But the environment is an issue in which the Radical Establishment Media has always tried to sell Hillary as some great protector. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Not that I think that at this late date anything can really be done to reverse the damage that will destroy civilization. But anyone who thinks the type of "effort" exhibited above counts for progress is delusional. Probably just preaching to the choir, but there you have it.
"Huey Long once said, “Fascism will come to America in the name of anti-fascism.” I'm afraid, based on my own experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security."
-Jim Garrison 1967
User avatar
stillrobertpaulsen
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:43 pm
Location: California
Blog: View Blog (37)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Fri Mar 25, 2016 4:08 pm

Dearly beloved, perhaps we can all agree that there is one danger Hillary Clinton does not pose, to the United States or the world at large: uncertainty. We have a very detailed spec sheet on what to expect from 2016-2020.

This was a good take from a few back:
http://coreyrobin.com/2016/03/01/notes- ... -campaign/

1. Amid all the accusations that Hillary Clinton is not an honest or authentic politician, that she’s an endless shape-shifter who says whatever works to get her to the next primary, it’s important not to lose sight of the one truth she’s been telling, and will continue to tell, the voters: things will not get better. Ever. At first, I thought this was just an electoral ploy against Sanders: don’t listen to the guy promising the moon. No such thing as a free lunch and all that. But it goes deeper. The American ruling class has been trying to figure out for years, if not decades, how to manage decline, how to get Americans to get used to diminished expectations, how to adapt to the notion that life for the next generation will be worse than for the previous generation, and now, how to accept (as Alex Gourevitch reminded me tonight) low to zero growth rates as the new economic normal. Clinton’s campaign message isn’t just for Bernie voters; it’s for everyone. Expect little, deserve less, ask for nothing. When the leading candidate of the more left of the two parties is saying that — and getting the majority of its voters to embrace that message — the work of the American ruling class is done.
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10896
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests