More than half of Americans say they will never vote for evil witch Hillary Clinton!

[Guest Geoff]

mpautz@gmail.com wrote:

> On Jul 3, 3:10 pm, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:

>> mpa...@gmail.com wrote:

>>> On Jul 3, 2:43 pm, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:

>>>> mpa...@gmail.com wrote:

>>>>> On Jun 29, 4:44 pm, Amanda Williams <p...@fu.com> wrote:

>>>>>> "inkybla...@yahoo.com" <inkybla...@yahoo.com> allegedly said

>>>>>> innews:1183134352.220982.303860@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com:

>>

>>>>>> Hey, that's Madame President Clinton to the likes of a drooling

>>>>>> little

>>>>>> fuckwit like you...

>>

>>>>>> You should repeat it so you can get used to saying it for 8

>>>>>> years.

>>

>>>>> So, tell me; what is so wonderful about Hillary? Why,

>>>>> specifically, would you vote for her?

>>

>>>> For one thing, it's absolutely hilarious how you Republicans get

>>>> your panties in a bunch at the mere mention of her name.

>>

>>> What makes you think I am republican? You are wrong about that.

>>

>> Sorry. Let me rephrase that: "For one thing, it's absolutely

>> hilarious how

>> Republicans get their panties in a bunch at the mere mention of her

>> name."

>>

>

> OK, I will accept that. I personally don't think it is hilarious that

> Republicans get their panties in a bunch; I would expect them to do

> this. What bothers me is that Democrats don't get their panties in a

> bunch.

>

> I get the feeling that, when democrats express no outrage at Hillary,

> they express that they have no values or goals; anyone with a (D)

> after their name is OK.

 

Could it be possible that some people actually agree with her and not you?

Your moral outrage at Clinton is fine, but who are you to say what others

should think?

> If she get's into power, she will be detrimental to the country. As

> she exposes who she is, She will alienate the senators and congressmen

> from her party. As all of this happens, she will take down the

> democratic party.

 

Well, that's um like your opinion. I personally was hopeful that Gore would

enter the race. It's increasingly unlikely. Nonetheless, the Chicken Little

hysterics of certain people (including you) with respect to Hillary would be

laughable if it weren't for the realization that this opinion has been

crafted by 15 years of conservative propaganda.

> I am a fiscal conservative. I am also a liberal. By that, I mean

> that I believe in personal liberty as well as economic liberty. Being

> a fiscal conservative and believing in personal liberty, I can't be a

> republican. Believing in economic liberty means that I am not a

> socialist. That excludes me from the Democratic party.

>

> I am a person without a party.

 

Fine. So don't bitch and moan then when people that don't share your opinion

choose to exercise theirs.

 

As for having a party or not, you sound like a classic Libertarian,

typically self-absorbedm and opposed to anything resembling New Deal type

political structures.

 

I agree with some traditional Libertarian platforms myself. I am completely

opposed to legislating morality. To whit, I believe in reproductive rights

for women, I think most drugs should be decriminalized, prostitution should

be legalized....and dammit, I should be able to buy beer on Sundays at the

store.

 

But I also believe that the Federal government can be a positive societal

force, despite the excesses that we all clearly see. For example, I think

Federal leadership is necessary to help us wend our way to carbon

independence. It makes me cringe when I think what the possibilities could

be if the US had spent just 10% of what it has in Iraq on developing fusion

power or the like.

[Guest Geoff]

mpautz@gmail.com wrote:

>>> For one thing, it's absolutely hilarious how you Republicans get

>>> your panties in a bunch at the mere mention of her name.

>>

>> She is also a genius. Smarts scare righties.

>

> I agree that she is a genius. She is so smart that she has convinced

> you to vote for her, even though you have no clue what she stands for.

 

Of course, you have no basis for that claim.

 

But let's turn the tables and ask you. What of her policies/platform do you

object to?

[Guest 9 Trillion Dollar Republican Natio]

On Jul 1, 10:17 pm, "inkybla...@yahoo.com" <inkybla...@yahoo.com>

wrote:

> On Jul 1, 4:12 pm, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:

>

> "The only reason anyone thinks Hillary can win is the weak Republican

> field.

> Then again, everyone thought Bush II was a lightweight."

> -------------------------------------------------------------------------

= Fred Thompson is no lightweight, and will be a serious challenge to

= any Democratic candidate. I think Barack Obama has a good chance of

> beating Fred Thompson in a general election. Thompson has allot of

> appeal to voters, and it is amazing that he is now the leading

> Republican candidate even though he has not officially declared yet.

> If Democrats want to beat him, they had better not nominate a lying,

> two faced witch that the majority of Americans do not like.

>

> It looks like smarter Democrats are realizing that Hillary = doom for

> Democrats. Obama is beating her in the polls and raising more cash.

> Just being Bill Clinton's lying wife is not enough to become

> president. In the last election, I voted all Democrat, but I will

> never vote for the lying witch under any circumstances. I won't vote

> for Thompson either, but will write in Obama's name if Hillary wins

> the nomination. Let's hope it does not come to that.

>

> IB

 

Fuck off, you are no Dermocrat, stupid idiot.

[Guest NBC]

"9 Trillion Dollar Republican National Debt" <icadserve@yahoo.com> wrote in

message news:1183675989.412383.82790@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

> On Jul 1, 10:17 pm, "inkybla...@yahoo.com" <inkybla...@yahoo.com>

> wrote:

>> On Jul 1, 4:12 pm, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:

>>

>> "The only reason anyone thinks Hillary can win is the weak Republican

>> field.

>> Then again, everyone thought Bush II was a lightweight."

>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------

> = Fred Thompson is no lightweight, and will be a serious challenge to

> = any Democratic candidate. I think Barack Obama has a good chance of

>> beating Fred Thompson in a general election. Thompson has allot of

>> appeal to voters, and it is amazing that he is now the leading

>> Republican candidate even though he has not officially declared yet.

>> If Democrats want to beat him, they had better not nominate a lying,

>> two faced witch that the majority of Americans do not like.

>>

>> It looks like smarter Democrats are realizing that Hillary = doom for

>> Democrats. Obama is beating her in the polls and raising more cash.

>> Just being Bill Clinton's lying wife is not enough to become

>> president. In the last election, I voted all Democrat, but I will

>> never vote for the lying witch under any circumstances. I won't vote

>> for Thompson either, but will write in Obama's name if Hillary wins

>> the nomination. Let's hope it does not come to that.

>>

>> IB

>

> Fuck off, you are no Dermocrat, stupid idiot.

>

 

 

LOL, they turn their own when he comes to grips with reality!

Seriously, Hillary would destroy the Democratic party if she were elected!

Not that I would mind if that happened, but she would destroy the USA in the

process!

Many on the left already are coming to grips with this reality!

[Guest Geoff]

NBC wrote:

> LOL, they turn their own when he comes to grips with reality!

> Seriously, Hillary would destroy the Democratic party if she were

> elected! Not that I would mind if that happened, but she would

> destroy the USA in the process!

> Many on the left already are coming to grips with this reality!

 

Oh no...I'm a scared little con who hates the thought that another Clinton,

and a woman to boot, will get elected.

 

Here's a nickel. Buy yourself a clue. Bush already destroyed this country.

It's time to rebuild it.

[Guest NBC]

"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message

news:WPSdnWUhkINxtBPbnZ2dnUVZ_t6qnZ2d@giganews.com...

> NBC wrote:

>

>> LOL, they turn their own when he comes to grips with reality!

>> Seriously, Hillary would destroy the Democratic party if she were

>> elected! Not that I would mind if that happened, but she would

>> destroy the USA in the process!

>> Many on the left already are coming to grips with this reality!

>

> Oh no...I'm a scared little con who hates the thought that another

> Clinton, and a woman to boot, will get elected.

>

> Here's a nickel. Buy yourself a clue. Bush already destroyed this country.

> It's time to rebuild it.

>

 

 

Time to take your blinders off! Sure, I would rather a conservative be in

office but if a Democrat were to be in office, I would prefer just about any

of the other Democratic candidate than her!

[Guest Geoff]

NBC wrote:

> "Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message

> news:WPSdnWUhkINxtBPbnZ2dnUVZ_t6qnZ2d@giganews.com...

>> NBC wrote:

>>

>>> LOL, they turn their own when he comes to grips with reality!

>>> Seriously, Hillary would destroy the Democratic party if she were

>>> elected! Not that I would mind if that happened, but she would

>>> destroy the USA in the process!

>>> Many on the left already are coming to grips with this reality!

>>

>> Oh no...I'm a scared little con who hates the thought that another

>> Clinton, and a woman to boot, will get elected.

>>

>> Here's a nickel. Buy yourself a clue. Bush already destroyed this

>> country. It's time to rebuild it.

>>

>

>

> Time to take your blinders off! Sure, I would rather a conservative

> be in office but if a Democrat were to be in office, I would prefer

> just about any of the other Democratic candidate than her!

 

Well then why don't you just say that instead of making the baseless claim

that "Many on the left already are coming to grips with this reality"? Don't

you think anyone will value your opinion if you don't qualify it with the

supposed opinions of "many on the left". Tell us what you think and why. Let

that be the basis of your argument.

[Guest NBC]

"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message

news:R62dnZVIq70iEhLbnZ2dnUVZ_rmjnZ2d@giganews.com...

> NBC wrote:

>> "Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message

>> news:WPSdnWUhkINxtBPbnZ2dnUVZ_t6qnZ2d@giganews.com...

>>> NBC wrote:

>>>

>>>> LOL, they turn their own when he comes to grips with reality!

>>>> Seriously, Hillary would destroy the Democratic party if she were

>>>> elected! Not that I would mind if that happened, but she would

>>>> destroy the USA in the process!

>>>> Many on the left already are coming to grips with this reality!

>>>

>>> Oh no...I'm a scared little con who hates the thought that another

>>> Clinton, and a woman to boot, will get elected.

>>>

>>> Here's a nickel. Buy yourself a clue. Bush already destroyed this

>>> country. It's time to rebuild it.

>>>

>>

>>

>> Time to take your blinders off! Sure, I would rather a conservative

>> be in office but if a Democrat were to be in office, I would prefer

>> just about any of the other Democratic candidate than her!

>

> Well then why don't you just say that instead of making the baseless claim

> that "Many on the left already are coming to grips with this reality"?

> Don't you think anyone will value your opinion if you don't qualify it

> with the supposed opinions of "many on the left". Tell us what you think

> and why. Let that be the basis of your argument.

>

 

 

Because in my experience, every Democrat that I know (which is many), hates

Hillary!

Do you honest think that Hillary is good?

[Guest Geoff]

NBC wrote:

> "Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message

> news:R62dnZVIq70iEhLbnZ2dnUVZ_rmjnZ2d@giganews.com...

>> NBC wrote:

>>> "Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message

>>> news:WPSdnWUhkINxtBPbnZ2dnUVZ_t6qnZ2d@giganews.com...

>>>> NBC wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> LOL, they turn their own when he comes to grips with reality!

>>>>> Seriously, Hillary would destroy the Democratic party if she were

>>>>> elected! Not that I would mind if that happened, but she would

>>>>> destroy the USA in the process!

>>>>> Many on the left already are coming to grips with this reality!

>>>>

>>>> Oh no...I'm a scared little con who hates the thought that another

>>>> Clinton, and a woman to boot, will get elected.

>>>>

>>>> Here's a nickel. Buy yourself a clue. Bush already destroyed this

>>>> country. It's time to rebuild it.

>>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> Time to take your blinders off! Sure, I would rather a conservative

>>> be in office but if a Democrat were to be in office, I would prefer

>>> just about any of the other Democratic candidate than her!

>>

>> Well then why don't you just say that instead of making the baseless

>> claim that "Many on the left already are coming to grips with this

>> reality"? Don't you think anyone will value your opinion if you

>> don't qualify it with the supposed opinions of "many on the left".

>> Tell us what you think and why. Let that be the basis of your

>> argument.

>

>

> Because in my experience, every Democrat that I know (which is many),

> hates Hillary!

 

Oh...that many?!!! Wow, I have no idea why they waste good money on polls

when they could just ask you. ;-)

 

So what's the basis for yours and their hatred of her? Who do you think will

be a better candidate and why?

> Do you honest think that Hillary is good?

 

I haven't said one way or the other. Regardless, anything would be an

improvement over the current administration.

[Guest mpautz@gmail.com]

On Jul 5, 3:20 am, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:

> mpa...@gmail.com wrote:

> >>> For one thing, it's absolutely hilarious how you Republicans get

> >>> your panties in a bunch at the mere mention of her name.

>

> >> She is also a genius. Smarts scare righties.

>

> > I agree that she is a genius. She is so smart that she has convinced

> > you to vote for her, even though you have no clue what she stands for.

>

> Of course, you have no basis for that claim.

>

> But let's turn the tables and ask you. What of her policies/platform do you

> object to?

 

I have asked you twice to list why you feel that Hilary would be a

good president. You have failed on both occasions. So, I will tell

you the reasons why I would not vote for her, AND also why I think she

would be a bad president, AND also why I think she would be bad for

the democrat party.

 

1) Every Hillary supporter, including you, can not name one single

reason to vote for her. It should have been easy for you to list 2 or

3 attributes, but you failed. At best, you said she was smart. I

agree, but being smart is not a presidential qualification. Einstein

was a genius, but that doesn't mean that he would have made a good

president.

 

2) People claim Hillary is a socialist. That is not correct. She is

far worse than a socialist. In a socialist operation, the government

owns and controls the business. Public schools are an example; the

teachers work for the government. Hilary wants to seize government

control of privately owned business. That is not socialism, that is

statism. Hilary is a statist. Hilary Care is an example of statism.

The government will control the privately owned health care business.

 

3a) Hillary is opposed to economic freedom. When talking about Exxon,

Hilary stated, "I want to take those profits". Never mind that

Exxon's profit margin was only 10%; less than half that of Bank of

America. Never mind that Exxon already pays far more in taxes than it

collects in profits. So, who's profits does Hillary "want to take"?

The four top stockholders are fund companies that hold teacher's and

firemen's pension funds, and retirement funds. The teacher is already

paying 35% in corporate taxes on the stock she owns in here retirement

fund, now Hilary wants to take even more.

 

3b) Hillary is opposed to economic Liberty. "The unfettered

free market has been the most radically disruptive force in American

life in the last generation."

 

3c) Hillary is opposed to economic freedom. "We're going to

take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

 

4a) Hillary is opposed to personal liberty. "It's time to

put the common good, the national interest, ahead of individuals."

 

4b) Hillary is opposed to personal liberty. "We must stop

thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for

society."

 

Summary: Hillary is a statist, who is opposed to economic liberty and

opposed to personal liberty.

[Guest Biscuits and Books]

I was going to try to answer you, but you're a hopeless fool.

 

I was asking people whyu they wanted to vote for Bush in 2000. They didn't

cite one reason why Bush "would be a good president." They said he'd be

more fun to spend an afternoon with.

 

As to your list of reasons, it's _all_ bullshit. _None_ of it's true, so

why bother to try to tell you otherwise when you prefer to believe lies?

 

I'd start with the "statist" charge, but why waste my time on a 'tard? I

did try with a young 20-something whippersnapper on Friday, and he showed me

once again why it's useless to try to tell a right-tard anything. (For

example, he was conviced that Clinton had all kinds of sex in the WH with

several underaged teen girls. And he refused to acknowlege that Clinton put

the poeple who blew up the WTC in '93 in jail. He'd just refuse to consider

that what he "knew" was wrong. 'Tard.)

 

<mpautz@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1184010306.658314.188590@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

> On Jul 5, 3:20 am, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:

>> mpa...@gmail.com wrote:

>> >>> For one thing, it's absolutely hilarious how you Republicans get

>> >>> your panties in a bunch at the mere mention of her name.

>>

>> >> She is also a genius. Smarts scare righties.

>>

>> > I agree that she is a genius. She is so smart that she has convinced

>> > you to vote for her, even though you have no clue what she stands for.

>>

>> Of course, you have no basis for that claim.

>>

>> But let's turn the tables and ask you. What of her policies/platform do

>> you

>> object to?

>

> I have asked you twice to list why you feel that Hilary would be a

> good president. You have failed on both occasions. So, I will tell

> you the reasons why I would not vote for her, AND also why I think she

> would be a bad president, AND also why I think she would be bad for

> the democrat party.

>

> 1) Every Hillary supporter, including you, can not name one single

> reason to vote for her. It should have been easy for you to list 2 or

> 3 attributes, but you failed. At best, you said she was smart. I

> agree, but being smart is not a presidential qualification. Einstein

> was a genius, but that doesn't mean that he would have made a good

> president.

>

> 2) People claim Hillary is a socialist. That is not correct. She is

> far worse than a socialist. In a socialist operation, the government

> owns and controls the business. Public schools are an example; the

> teachers work for the government. Hilary wants to seize government

> control of privately owned business. That is not socialism, that is

> statism. Hilary is a statist. Hilary Care is an example of statism.

> The government will control the privately owned health care business.

>

> 3a) Hillary is opposed to economic freedom. When talking about Exxon,

> Hilary stated, "I want to take those profits". Never mind that

> Exxon's profit margin was only 10%; less than half that of Bank of

> America. Never mind that Exxon already pays far more in taxes than it

> collects in profits. So, who's profits does Hillary "want to take"?

> The four top stockholders are fund companies that hold teacher's and

> firemen's pension funds, and retirement funds. The teacher is already

> paying 35% in corporate taxes on the stock she owns in here retirement

> fund, now Hilary wants to take even more.

>

> 3b) Hillary is opposed to economic Liberty. "The unfettered

> free market has been the most radically disruptive force in American

> life in the last generation."

>

> 3c) Hillary is opposed to economic freedom. "We're going to

> take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

>

> 4a) Hillary is opposed to personal liberty. "It's time to

> put the common good, the national interest, ahead of individuals."

>

> 4b) Hillary is opposed to personal liberty. "We must stop

> thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for

> society."

>

> Summary: Hillary is a statist, who is opposed to economic liberty and

> opposed to personal liberty.

>

>

>

>

[Guest NBC]

"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message

news:WPSdnWUhkINxtBPbnZ2dnUVZ_t6qnZ2d@giganews.com...

> NBC wrote:

>

>> LOL, they turn their own when he comes to grips with reality!

>> Seriously, Hillary would destroy the Democratic party if she were

>> elected! Not that I would mind if that happened, but she would

>> destroy the USA in the process!

>> Many on the left already are coming to grips with this reality!

>

> Oh no...I'm a scared little con who hates the thought that another

> Clinton, and a woman to boot, will get elected.

>

> Here's a nickel. Buy yourself a clue. Bush already destroyed this country.

> It's time to rebuild it.

>

 

 

Even if that were true, Hillary is not the one to do it! You need to look

into it, Hillary should scare you too!

[Guest mpautz@gmail.com]

On Jul 9, 5:10 pm, "Biscuits and Books"

<Cheney_did_Bar...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> I was going to try to answer you, but you're a hopeless fool.

>

> I was asking people whyu they wanted to vote for Bush in 2000. They didn't

> cite one reason why Bush "would be a good president." They said he'd be

> more fun to spend an afternoon with.

>

> As to your list of reasons, it's _all_ bullshit. _None_ of it's true, so

> why bother to try to tell you otherwise when you prefer to believe lies?

>

> I'd start with the "statist" charge, but why waste my time on a 'tard? I

> did try with a young 20-something whippersnapper on Friday, and he showed me

> once again why it's useless to try to tell a right-tard anything. (For

> example, he was conviced that Clinton had all kinds of sex in the WH with

> several underaged teen girls. And he refused to acknowlege that Clinton put

> the poeple who blew up the WTC in '93 in jail. He'd just refuse to consider

> that what he "knew" was wrong. 'Tard.)

>

 

 

 

First, I am not on the right ( a 'tard, as you put it). If you had

read my post, I am for individual liberty. That alone pretty much

excludes me from the right. If you had read my post, one of the two

reasons I am against Hillary is because I believe that she would be

very bad for the democrat part.

 

Regarding your frustration at trying to talk to a know-it-all

whippersnapper, I understand your frustration. I no longer argue with

someone who wants to restrict individual liberty, someone who thinks

it is wrong to be homosexual or someone who thinks having more than

one spouse is immoral. These people do not debate with facts; they

only want to impose their own sense of morality. However, the brain-

dead are not limited to the right; there are plenty on the left.

 

I have had plenty of one sided debates with leftists who can't write a

single counter point, a single basis for their belief, and who's depth

of debating is limited to, "liar, liar pants on fire". In their

limited mind, anyone with a (D) after the name is sacristan and above

reproach. I have seen plenty of brain dead lefties who will call you

a rightard simply for berating a democrat candidate.

 

For example, you have had three challenges to name one single reason

why Hillary would be a good president, but you haven't. You failed.

Regarding my points, you offered no counter points, and you simply

said, "it's _all_ bullshit. _None_ of it's true" even though each one

of my points was illustrated with direct Hillary quotes.

 

 

> <mpa...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>

> news:1184010306.658314.188590@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

>

>

>

> > On Jul 5, 3:20 am, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:

> >> mpa...@gmail.com wrote:

> >> >>> For one thing, it's absolutely hilarious how you Republicans get

> >> >>> your panties in a bunch at the mere mention of her name.

>

> >> >> She is also a genius. Smarts scare righties.

>

> >> > I agree that she is a genius. She is so smart that she has convinced

> >> > you to vote for her, even though you have no clue what she stands for.

>

> >> Of course, you have no basis for that claim.

>

> >> But let's turn the tables and ask you. What of her policies/platform do

> >> you

> >> object to?

>

> > I have asked you twice to list why you feel that Hilary would be a

> > good president. You have failed on both occasions. So, I will tell

> > you the reasons why I would not vote for her, AND also why I think she

> > would be a bad president, AND also why I think she would be bad for

> > the democrat party.

>

> > 1) Every Hillary supporter, including you, can not name one single

> > reason to vote for her. It should have been easy for you to list 2 or

> > 3 attributes, but you failed. At best, you said she was smart. I

> > agree, but being smart is not a presidential qualification. Einstein

> > was a genius, but that doesn't mean that he would have made a good

> > president.

>

> > 2) People claim Hillary is a socialist. That is not correct. She is

> > far worse than a socialist. In a socialist operation, the government

> > owns and controls the business. Public schools are an example; the

> > teachers work for the government. Hilary wants to seize government

> > control of privately owned business. That is not socialism, that is

> > statism. Hilary is a statist. Hilary Care is an example of statism.

> > The government will control the privately owned health care business.

>

> > 3a) Hillary is opposed to economic freedom. When talking about Exxon,

> > Hilary stated, "I want to take those profits". Never mind that

> > Exxon's profit margin was only 10%; less than half that of Bank of

> > America. Never mind that Exxon already pays far more in taxes than it

> > collects in profits. So, who's profits does Hillary "want to take"?

> > The four top stockholders are fund companies that hold teacher's and

> > firemen's pension funds, and retirement funds. The teacher is already

> > paying 35% in corporate taxes on the stock she owns in here retirement

> > fund, now Hilary wants to take even more.

>

> > 3b) Hillary is opposed to economic Liberty. "The unfettered

> > free market has been the most radically disruptive force in American

> > life in the last generation."

>

> > 3c) Hillary is opposed to economic freedom. "We're going to

> > take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

>

> > 4a) Hillary is opposed to personal liberty. "It's time to

> > put the common good, the national interest, ahead of individuals."

>

> > 4b) Hillary is opposed to personal liberty. "We must stop

> > thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for

> > society."

>

> > Summary: Hillary is a statist, who is opposed to economic liberty and

> > opposed to personal liberty.- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -

[Guest Geoff]

mpautz@gmail.com wrote:

> I have asked you twice to list why you feel that Hilary would be a

> good president. You have failed on both occasions.

 

Well if I ever become a Clinton supporter, I guess I will have to justify my

vote.

> 1) Every Hillary supporter, including you, can not name one single

> reason to vote for her. It should have been easy for you to list 2 or

> 3 attributes, but you failed. At best, you said she was smart. I

> agree, but being smart is not a presidential qualification. Einstein

> was a genius, but that doesn't mean that he would have made a good

> president.

 

OK. We agree she is intelligent. I disagree with you that intelligence is

not necessary for being an effective leader. It certainly is. Our greatest

presidents have all been pretty damn smart. That being said, intelligence is

not a guarantee of a great leader. Look no further than Jimmy Carter. That

guy is arguably one of the smartest presidents ever but he got too mired in

details and couldn't deal with the situations dealt him by Nixon/Ford as

well as those of his own making.

 

Surely scientific intelligence probably isn't the right kind. That my friend

is a strawman.

> 2) People claim Hillary is a socialist. That is not correct. She is

> far worse than a socialist. In a socialist operation, the government

> owns and controls the business. Public schools are an example; the

> teachers work for the government. Hilary wants to seize government

> control of privately owned business. That is not socialism, that is

> statism. Hilary is a statist. Hilary Care is an example of statism.

> The government will control the privately owned health care business.

 

Nope. That is a blatant mischaracterization. Either you are repeating

neoconservative talking points or just recalling her self admitted mistakes

of the early 90's. Clinton is devoted to a bipartisan solution to the

worsening health care situation in the United States.

> 3a) Hillary is opposed to economic freedom. When talking about Exxon,

> Hilary stated, "I want to take those profits".

 

Oh come on. If you really think she wants to appropriate all of Exxon's

profits, then you really need to have your head examined.

> Never mind that

> Exxon's profit margin was only 10%; less than half that of Bank of

> America.

 

Completely irrelevent. Regardless, we are not at war with the world of

finance. We are at war with the world of oil, hot and cold.

 

We need to find a way to energy independence and away from carbon. I'm not

sure if taxing ExxonMobil's windfall profits is the way to go, but we are

never going to get anywhere relying on their leadership when there is still

a drop of oil to be had somewhere.

 

This is a strategic challenge on par with fighting fascism in 40's and the

Apollo program. I don't think it's possible relying solely on private

enterprise.

> 3b) Hillary is opposed to economic Liberty. "The unfettered

> free market has been the most radically disruptive force in American

> life in the last generation."

 

Quote mine. She also said: "...the market is the driving force behind our

prosperity...but that it cannot be permitted just to run roughshod over

people's lives as well."

 

Obviously you are well in tune with all the neocon punditry talking points.

I'm not going to bother addressing every one of them. It's a pointless

exercise. These are all taken out of context.

 

If you want, I can show you that Giuliani is a fascist. He said: "Freedom is

about authority." Now who in their right mind thinks he's a fascist? OK, bad

example. But you can certainly see that anyone can yurn quotes around.

 

So keep on trotting out your red herrings, quote mines, and lies. Keep

demonizing Hillary to your heart's content. You say you are an independent

registered Democrat (whatever that means). So change registrations. If you

don't like Hillary, you aren't going to like Obama any better. And Al Gore

must drive you absolutely insane.

 

Who among the Republicans is going to be the man to lead us in 2009? Most of

them are content to continue along with the disastrous policies of Dubya.

About the only one that has a modicum of originality is Rudy. And by

modicum, I mean just that.

[Guest Biscuits and Books]

<mpautz@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1184086227.538454.153800@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

> On Jul 9, 5:10 pm, "Biscuits and Books"

> <Cheney_did_Bar...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>> I was going to try to answer you, but you're a hopeless fool.

>>

>> I was asking people whyu they wanted to vote for Bush in 2000. They

>> didn't

>> cite one reason why Bush "would be a good president." They said he'd be

>> more fun to spend an afternoon with.

>>

>> As to your list of reasons, it's _all_ bullshit. _None_ of it's true, so

>> why bother to try to tell you otherwise when you prefer to believe lies?

>>

>> I'd start with the "statist" charge, but why waste my time on a 'tard? I

>> did try with a young 20-something whippersnapper on Friday, and he showed

>> me

>> once again why it's useless to try to tell a right-tard anything. (For

>> example, he was conviced that Clinton had all kinds of sex in the WH with

>> several underaged teen girls. And he refused to acknowlege that Clinton

>> put

>> the poeple who blew up the WTC in '93 in jail. He'd just refuse to

>> consider

>> that what he "knew" was wrong. 'Tard.)

>

>

> First, I am not on the right ( a 'tard, as you put it). If you had

> read my post, I am for individual liberty. That alone pretty much

> excludes me from the right. If you had read my post, one of the two

> reasons I am against Hillary is because I believe that she would be

> very bad for the democrat part.

 

But from your words (quote Emerson here if you like) you're a complete

delusional crazoid! "Hillary is opposed to economic Liberty." "Hillary is

opposed to economic freedom." "Hillary is opposed to personal Liberty."

This is nutcase stuff! Jeezus Kreist, why not say Hillary is against the

top staying on the salt shaker?

 

She is absolutely right about going after Exxon and other crooks.

 

You guys need to learn the distinction between a corporation and a real live

human being. I don't care what the Supremes said in the 1800s when they

didn't even know about germs and believed in the existence of Phlogiston.

Exxon is not Biscatti & Libretti! These bastards have robbed me & my

country blind and I want them in jail for war crimes against the United

States.

> Regarding your frustration at trying to talk to a know-it-all

> whippersnapper, I understand your frustration. I no longer argue with

> someone who wants to restrict individual liberty, someone who thinks

> it is wrong to be homosexual or someone who thinks having more than

> one spouse is immoral. These people do not debate with facts; they

> only want to impose their own sense of morality. However, the brain-

> dead are not limited to the right; there are plenty on the left.

>

> I have had plenty of one sided debates with leftists who can't write a

> single counter point, a single basis for their belief, and who's depth

> of debating is limited to, "liar, liar pants on fire". In their

> limited mind, anyone with a (D) after the name is sacristan and above

> reproach. I have seen plenty of brain dead lefties who will call you

> a rightard simply for berating a democrat candidate.

 

Dude, I write for a living. If you want good shit, pay me for it. When I

write for fun, I'm a little lax.

When I call you or someone a right-tard, it is because they parrot the same

old shit I've heard from them since 1972 when their Saint Tricky was

stealing another election.

> For example, you have had three challenges to name one single reason

> why Hillary would be a good president, but you haven't. You failed.

> Regarding my points, you offered no counter points, and you simply

> said, "it's _all_ bullshit. _None_ of it's true" even though each one

> of my points was illustrated with direct Hillary quotes.

 

There is no point, as I cite your words above, to even try to answer crap

like that.

 

Now, would Hillary Clinton be a BAD preident? I do not believe so. I did

say in 2000 that Bush would be a bad president, and I was right.

>> <mpa...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>>

>> news:1184010306.658314.188590@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

>>

>>

>>

>> > On Jul 5, 3:20 am, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:

>> >> mpa...@gmail.com wrote:

>> >> >>> For one thing, it's absolutely hilarious how you Republicans get

>> >> >>> your panties in a bunch at the mere mention of her name.

>>

>> >> >> She is also a genius. Smarts scare righties.

>>

>> >> > I agree that she is a genius. She is so smart that she has

>> >> > convinced

>> >> > you to vote for her, even though you have no clue what she stands

>> >> > for.

>>

>> >> Of course, you have no basis for that claim.

>>

>> >> But let's turn the tables and ask you. What of her policies/platform

>> >> do

>> >> you

>> >> object to?

>>

>> > I have asked you twice to list why you feel that Hilary would be a

>> > good president. You have failed on both occasions. So, I will tell

>> > you the reasons why I would not vote for her, AND also why I think she

>> > would be a bad president, AND also why I think she would be bad for

>> > the democrat party.

>>

>> > 1) Every Hillary supporter, including you, can not name one single

>> > reason to vote for her. It should have been easy for you to list 2 or

>> > 3 attributes, but you failed. At best, you said she was smart. I

>> > agree, but being smart is not a presidential qualification. Einstein

>> > was a genius, but that doesn't mean that he would have made a good

>> > president.

>>

>> > 2) People claim Hillary is a socialist. That is not correct. She is

>> > far worse than a socialist. In a socialist operation, the government

>> > owns and controls the business. Public schools are an example; the

>> > teachers work for the government. Hilary wants to seize government

>> > control of privately owned business. That is not socialism, that is

>> > statism. Hilary is a statist. Hilary Care is an example of statism.

>> > The government will control the privately owned health care business.

>>

>> > 3a) Hillary is opposed to economic freedom. When talking about Exxon,

>> > Hilary stated, "I want to take those profits". Never mind that

>> > Exxon's profit margin was only 10%; less than half that of Bank of

>> > America. Never mind that Exxon already pays far more in taxes than it

>> > collects in profits. So, who's profits does Hillary "want to take"?

>> > The four top stockholders are fund companies that hold teacher's and

>> > firemen's pension funds, and retirement funds. The teacher is already

>> > paying 35% in corporate taxes on the stock she owns in here retirement

>> > fund, now Hilary wants to take even more.

>>

>> > 3b) Hillary is opposed to economic Liberty. "The unfettered

>> > free market has been the most radically disruptive force in American

>> > life in the last generation."

>>

>> > 3c) Hillary is opposed to economic freedom. "We're going to

>> > take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

>>

>> > 4a) Hillary is opposed to personal liberty. "It's time to

>> > put the common good, the national interest, ahead of individuals."

>>

>> > 4b) Hillary is opposed to personal liberty. "We must stop

>> > thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for

>> > society."

>>

>> > Summary: Hillary is a statist, who is opposed to economic liberty and

>> > opposed to personal liberty.- Hide quoted text -

>>

>> - Show quoted text -

>

>

[Guest Wexford]

On Jul 10, 2:22 pm, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:

> mpa...@gmail.com wrote:

> > I have asked you twice to list why you feel that Hilary would be a

> > good president. You have failed on both occasions.

>

> Well if I ever become a Clinton supporter, I guess I will have to justify my

> vote.

 

??????????

> > 1) Every Hillary supporter, including you, can not name one single

> > reason to vote for her. It should have been easy for you to list 2 or

> > 3 attributes, but you failed. At best, you said she was smart. I

> > agree, but being smart is not a presidential qualification. Einstein

> > was a genius, but that doesn't mean that he would have made a good

> > president.

>

> OK. We agree she is intelligent. I disagree with you that intelligence is

> not necessary for being an effective leader. It certainly is. Our greatest

> presidents have all been pretty damn smart. That being said, intelligence is

> not a guarantee of a great leader. Look no further than Jimmy Carter. That

> guy is arguably one of the smartest presidents ever but he got too mired in

> details and couldn't deal with the situations dealt him by Nixon/Ford as

> well as those of his own making.

 

I think you're selling Carter short. He was smart enough not to get us

embroiled in a war with Iran and smart enough to preserve the lives of

Americans taken in Iran. He was smart enough to recognize that

inflation and interest rates could only be controlled by slowing down

monetary growth and he was smart enough to appoint Paul Volcker to the

federal reserve, which start the process and finally yielded results

when Reagan was president. He was smart enough to preserve the

controls on the Savings and Loan industry, which Regan finally

destroyed. All-in-all his presidency granted us peace when could have

had war and set us on the road to economic recovery.

>

> Surely scientific intelligence probably isn't the right kind. That my friend

> is a strawman.

>

> > 2) People claim Hillary is a socialist. That is not correct. She is

> > far worse than a socialist. In a socialist operation, the government

> > owns and controls the business. Public schools are an example; the

> > teachers work for the government. Hilary wants to seize government

> > control of privately owned business. That is not socialism, that is

> > statism. Hilary is a statist. Hilary Care is an example of statism.

> > The government will control the privately owned health care business.

>

> Nope. That is a blatant mischaracterization. Either you are repeating

> neoconservative talking points or just recalling her self admitted mistakes

> of the early 90's. Clinton is devoted to a bipartisan solution to the

> worsening health care situation in the United States.

 

Public education is not socialist. Christ, we've had public education

in the United States since the constitution was signed. Socialism

involves the government owning the basic industries, the basic

production units. We don't have that, never have had that, and

probably never will. Furthermore, no serious presidential candidate

has proposed it since Eugene V. Debs ran.

 

Regarding heath care, Hillary never, ever proposed that the state run

health care. She and Bill proposed a single-payer system backed by a

syndicate of health insurers. It would have been expensive but nothing

at all when compared to the aggregate costs individuals will have to

pay. Right now, Walmart is looking to do something similar. You trust

Walmart?

 

Hillary is very much a capitalist, but she's smart enough to know that

capitalism does not prosper in a country with no federal controls on

business. Lift the federal controls, and monopolists take over, invade

and corrupt government and stagnate everything. Bush and his cohorts

believe in oligopoly, at least in the enegy industry. They're anti-

free market.

>

> > 3a) Hillary is opposed to economic freedom. When talking about Exxon,

> > Hilary stated, "I want to take those profits".

>

> Oh come on. If you really think she wants to appropriate all of Exxon's

> profits, then you really need to have your head examined.

 

Hillary was referring to the gross profiteering indulged in by the oil

industry as a result of prices doubling (or tripling, depending on

your starting point) over the last few years. An oligopoly of oil

interests has us by the short hairs. We have every right to cut the

profits of people who exploit others by controlling a commodity we all

need.

 

> > Never mind that

> > Exxon's profit margin was only 10%; less than half that of Bank of

> > America.

 

I think I tried to explain this to you before. Banks are not in the

same business as oil companies. You can't compare them. You compare

banks to banks and oil companies to oil companies. Don't believe me,

look up Robert Morris reports. Besides, you haven't defined "profit

margin." Are you talking about operating income as a percentage of

revenue? Income after taxes? What?

>

> Completely irrelevent. Regardless, we are not at war with the world of

> finance. We are at war with the world of oil, hot and cold.

>

> We need to find a way to energy independence and away from carbon. I'm not

> sure if taxing ExxonMobil's windfall profits is the way to go, but we are

> never going to get anywhere relying on their leadership when there is still

> a drop of oil to be had somewhere.

>

> This is a strategic challenge on par with fighting fascism in 40's and the

> Apollo program. I don't think it's possible relying solely on private

> enterprise.

>

> > 3b) Hillary is opposed to economic Liberty. "The unfettered

> > free market has been the most radically disruptive force in American

> > life in the last generation."

>

> Quote mine. She also said: "...the market is the driving force behind our

> prosperity...but that it cannot be permitted just to run roughshod over

> people's lives as well."

 

Aside from which, an unregulated market is neither free nor fair. It

makes for oligopoly and monopoly and works to degenrate the government

into fascism.

> Obviously you are well in tune with all the neocon punditry talking points.

> I'm not going to bother addressing every one of them. It's a pointless

> exercise. These are all taken out of context.

>

> If you want, I can show you that Giuliani is a fascist. He said: "Freedom is

> about authority." Now who in their right mind thinks he's a fascist? OK, bad

> example. But you can certainly see that anyone can yurn quotes around.

 

Think Bush is bad? Elect randy Rudy. In my opinion his heart isn't in

liberty.

> So keep on trotting out your red herrings, quote mines, and lies. Keep

> demonizing Hillary to your heart's content. You say you are an independent

> registered Democrat (whatever that means). So change registrations. If you

> don't like Hillary, you aren't going to like Obama any better. And Al Gore

> must drive you absolutely insane.

>

> Who among the Republicans is going to be the man to lead us in 2009? Most of

> them are content to continue along with the disastrous policies of Dubya.

> About the only one that has a modicum of originality is Rudy. And by

> modicum, I mean just that.

 

There's not one in the bunch who wouldn't be a disaster. Want another

war? Elect a pug.

[Guest Geoff]

Wexford wrote:

>> Well if I ever become a Clinton supporter, I guess I will have to

>> justify my vote.

>

> ??????????

 

What? Do you think I've got a Hillary '08 bumper sticker on my car. Shit,

it's not even 2008 yet. Regardless, my vote in Georgia won't mean a lick

anyway.

>>> 1) Every Hillary supporter, including you, can not name one single

>>> reason to vote for her. It should have been easy for you to list 2

>>> or 3 attributes, but you failed. At best, you said she was smart.

>>> I agree, but being smart is not a presidential qualification.

>>> Einstein was a genius, but that doesn't mean that he would have

>>> made a good president.

>>

>> OK. We agree she is intelligent. I disagree with you that

>> intelligence is not necessary for being an effective leader. It

>> certainly is. Our greatest presidents have all been pretty damn

>> smart. That being said, intelligence is not a guarantee of a great

>> leader. Look no further than Jimmy Carter. That guy is arguably one

>> of the smartest presidents ever but he got too mired in details and

>> couldn't deal with the situations dealt him by Nixon/Ford as well as

>> those of his own making.

>

> I think you're selling Carter short. He was smart enough not to get us

> embroiled in a war with Iran and smart enough to preserve the lives of

> Americans taken in Iran. He was smart enough to recognize that

> inflation and interest rates could only be controlled by slowing down

> monetary growth and he was smart enough to appoint Paul Volcker to the

> federal reserve, which start the process and finally yielded results

> when Reagan was president. He was smart enough to preserve the

> controls on the Savings and Loan industry, which Regan finally

> destroyed. All-in-all his presidency granted us peace when could have

> had war and set us on the road to economic recovery.

 

That's all well and good, but do you honestly think he was a great

president? He certainly had some accomplishments and he was saddled with a

chronic inflation set on by a combination of Nixon price controls and easy

money courtesy of Fed chairman Arthur Burns (likely to spur the economy in

the runup to the '72 election).

 

But my point was that Carter is unquestionably one of the smartest fellas to

ever to sit in the big chair in the Oval Office, but he wasn't a great

president. I agree he was better than people give him credit for, but not

great.

>>> Never mind that

>>> Exxon's profit margin was only 10%; less than half that of Bank of

>>> America.

>

> I think I tried to explain this to you before. Banks are not in the

> same business as oil companies. You can't compare them. You compare

> banks to banks and oil companies to oil companies. Don't believe me,

> look up Robert Morris reports. Besides, you haven't defined "profit

> margin." Are you talking about operating income as a percentage of

> revenue? Income after taxes? What?

 

I'm assuming now that you are responding to mpautz.

[Guest inkyblacks@yahoo.com]

http://sonic.net/maledicta/clintons.html

 

"JEW MOTHERFUCKER" AND "NIGGER"

The Foulmouthed & Lying Clintons

by

Reinhold Aman, Ph.D.

 

Millions of Americans still admire Bill and Hillary Clinton, whose

habitual lies, gutter language, anti-Semitic outbursts, and anti-black

slurs have been documented by reliable writers but which have been --

and still are -- routinely suppressed by the so-called liberal media.

This article serves to counter and expose that shameless misleading of

the public about the true character of America's two supreme actors

and how they talk in private.

 

Lest you think I am a Republican, conservative, or member of the

imaginary "vast right-wing conspiracy": I am an apolitical anti-

politician. Because I despise blatantly lying politicians with all my

heart, I am presenting this uncensored record of some of the filthy

language and lies by the amoral Clintons -- the ex-President and the

aspiring first female President.

 

The Foulmouthed First "Lady" & Senator

 

The following five quotations are from Alec Flegon's Dictionary of

English Sex Quotations (London: Flegon Press, 1996):

 

L.D. Brown, a member of Clinton's former security staff and bodyguard

in Arkansas, stated that Hillary is "as foul-mouthed as any sailor

you'd ever meet." (p. 147)

As reported by Bill's security staff, Hillary frequently erupted in

expletive-filled tirades against him. "I can't believe you would ask a

fucking question like that!" Or, about his shaky driving, "You're

gonna get us fucking killed!" (p. 147)

She shouted at Bill over his unfaithfulness: "I need to be fucked more

than twice a year!" (p. 170)

Hillary to Larry Patterson, an Arkansas state trooper and Clinton

bodyguard from 1986 to 1993, who was bringing a judge's wife to the

Little Rock airport: "What the fuck do you think you're doing? I know

who that whore is." (p. 171)

Coming out of the Arkansas governor's mansion early morning on Labor

Day 1991, Hillary screamed: "Where is the goddamn fucking flag? I want

the goddamn fucking flag up every fucking morning at fucking

sunrise!" (p. 173).

Patterson observed Hillary standing at the bottom of the stairs in the

governor's mansion, and Bill at the top of the stairs with little

Chelsea beside him, as Hillary screamed at him at the top of her

lungs: "Goddamn stupid fucking fool!" [NewsMax, 15 July 2000]

 

Patterson stated that Bill and Hillary Clinton would frequently argue

with each other using the worst expletives known to mankind, sometimes

in the presence of their daughter Chelsea. Some of the anti-Semitic

slurs with which she commonly laced her tirades against Bill were "Jew

motherfucker," "Jew Boy" and "Jew Bastard." [NewsMax, 15 and 17 July

2000]

 

"If she disagreed with Bill Clinton or she disagreed with some of the

Jewish community in Little Rock -- or some of the ethnic community --

she would often make these statements." "She would say 'Jew Bastard'

or call her husband a 'Jew boy' or a 'motherfucking Jew'," Patterson

told the WABC New York radio audience. [Carl Limbacher and NewsMax

Staff, 17 July 2000]

 

Patterson said he heard Hillary "utter anti-Jewish epithets between 10

and 20 times over the course of his six years at the Arkansas

governor's mansion." [NewsMax, 17 July 2000]

 

Hillary's rages continued after she took up residence in the White

House, where she blew up at a Secret Service agent for declining to

carry her bags. When the agent explained that he needed to keep his

hands free in order to protect her, she replied: "If you want to

remain on this detail, get your fucking ass over here and grab those

bags." [Joyce Milton in The First Partner: Hillary Rodham Clinton

(1999), p. 259]

 

Hillary to a Secret Service agent, after she heard that a University

of California-Berkeley student had written a satirical column in The

Daily Californian about daughter Chelsea: "What the fuck is going

on?" [san Francisco Chronicle, 26 Nov. 1997]

 

Bill also badmouthed others and his dear Hillary. David Brock, ex-

American Spectator reporter: "From the back of his Lincoln, Bill

Clinton would say about Paula Jones, 'What does that whore think she's

doing to me?' He also referred to his ex-lover Gennifer Flowers as a

'fucking slut,' according to Larry Patterson." [Drudge Report, 9 March

1998]

 

When Hillary (once again) physically attacked Bill, Secret Service

agents had to separate them. "Keep that bitch away from me!" Bill

Clinton told one Secret Service agent. [The National Enquirer, 5 Jan.

1999]

 

"Nigger"

 

Larry Patterson confirmed that he frequently heard Bill Clinton use

"******" to refer to both Jesse Jackson and local Little Rock black

leader Robert "Say" McIntosh. Longtime Clinton paramour Dolly Kyle

Browning corroborated Patterson on Clinton's use of "******." "Not

only did he use the 'N' word, he called him a 'GDN' [goddamn ******],

if you catch my drift," Browning told Fox News in 1999. [NewsMax, 17

July 2000] Brown also told NewsMax that the president would regularly

make derogatory comments about African-Americans in private. "He has

used the 'N' word before. Bill would make snide remarks about blacks

behind their backs." [Carl Limbacher and NewsMax Staff, 17 July 2000]

 

Patterson said Hillary was no stranger to the "N" word either. He

heard her say "******" "probably six, eight, ten times. She would be

upset with someone in the black community and she would use the 'N'

word, like, you heard they've got the president's brother on tape

using the 'N' word." [NewsMax, 17 July 2000]

 

It's all in the family: Captured on videotape when Arkansas state

police had Hillary's brother-in-law Roger Clinton under surveillance

for dealing cocaine in 1984, Roger stated: "Some junior high ******

kicked Steve's ass while he was trying to help his brothers out;

junior high or sophomore in high school. Whatever it was, Steve had

the ****** down. However it was, it was Steve's fault. He had the

****** down, he let him up. The ****** blindsided him." [NewsMax, 17

July 2000]

 

"You Fucking Jew Bastard!"

 

Jerry Oppenheimer's book State of the Union: Inside the Complex

Marriage of Bill and Hillary Clinton (2000) quotes former campaign

aide Mary Lee Fray, who says that Hillary exploded in a rage after

Bill lost his first bid for elective office, a run for Congress in

Arkansas's Third Congressional District against John Paul

Hammerschmidt. Hillary blamed Fray's husband, Paul, for the campaign's

bungled political strategy. The slur was uttered at a heated, finger-

pointing session at Bill Clinton's Fayetteville, Ark., campaign

headquarters on election night in 1974, following his defeat. "You

fucking Jew bastard!" Hillary yelled at Paul, Mary Lee confirmed --

even though Paul Fray is not Jewish. [NewsMax, 15 July 2000]

 

In the room that night were Bill Clinton; his then-girlfriend Hillary

Rodham; Paul Fray, Clinton's campaign manager; and Fray's wife, Mary

Lee. Another campaign worker, Neill McDonald, was just outside the

door and heard everything. [Daily News, 17 July 2000] Paul Fray is a

Baptist but his heritage is Jewish; his paternal grandmother was

Jewish, and Bill and Hillary knew of his heritage.

 

Mary Lee Fray said that Hillary not only used an anti-Semitic slur but

she shouted it so loudly "it rattled the walls." "It was very clear,"

she said. "Bill Clinton's face became white as a ghost." [FOXNews.com,

AP and New York Post, 18 July 2000]

 

Former Clinton campaign aide Neill McDonald, who has always been a

Clinton supporter [Jewish World Review, 19 July 2000], confirmed the

story, according to the New York Daily News. [Reuters, 17 July 2000]

He heard the obscenity as he stood outside the room. [FOXNews.com, AP,

New York Post, 18 July 2000]

 

The Usual Media Coverup

 

Sources in Arkansas told mainstream reporters as early as 1999 about

Hillary Clinton's use of anti-Semitic language, but they and their

editors decided to withhold the bombshell revelation from the American

people. [NewsMax, 18 July 2000]

 

Vanity Fair writer Gail Sheehy, who has enjoyed special access to Mrs.

Clinton over the years, interviewed Mary Lee Fray for her book

Hillary's Choice. Sheehy told Newsday that even though Mary Lee's

account included Mrs. Clinton's vile slur, her husband made no mention

of it in a separate interview. Sheehy does not say that Mr. Fray

denied the story -- only that the subject did not come up. Apparently

the author herself decided to avoid the topic, thereby ruling out any

chance that a second source for Hillary's anti-Semitic shocker would

compel publication. [NewsMax, 18 July 2000]

 

Sheehy said that she had heard the story of the alleged anti-Semitic

comment several years ago from Fray's wife. But Sheehy said she left

it out of her book because it was "off the wall. It was totally

without credibility." [NewsMax, 18 July 2000]

 

NBC-TV's Andrea Mitchell admitted that Fray recounted the incident,

complete with Hillary's anti-Semitic slur, during an interview for the

network's "Dateline NBC" program in 1999. But NBC News editors decided

to kill the report on the sensational allegation because the story

lacked corroboration, Mitchell said. [NewsMax, 18 July 2000]

 

The folks at NBC must not have tried too hard to substantiate Fray's

account, since his wife, Mary Lee, was more than willing to

corroborate the charge -- as she has for dozens of reporters since the

story resurfaced. [NewsMax, 18 July 2000]

 

One-time Clinton consultant Dick Morris gave Gail Sheehy an exclusive

account of his now legendary story about Hillary's use of a Jewish

stereotype during an argument she had with him. "Money -- that's all

you people care about is money," Morris said Hillary yelled after he

asked for a pay raise in 1986. In November 1999 Morris went public

with the story, noting that he'd told it to Sheehy for her then-

upcoming Hillary biography, Hillary's Choice. But when the book hit

the stands in December, Morris's explosive report was nowhere to be

found. [NewsMax, 18 July 2000]

 

Hillary's Lying & Denying

 

Hillary called a news conference on her Chappaqua front lawn and

angrily and tearfully said, "I wanted to unequivocally state it never

happened, I hate this type of politics of destruction." [uPI, 17 July

2000]

 

Senate candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton angrily denied having uttered

an anti-Jewish slur 26 years ago. "I've never said anything like that

in my entire life," the first lady said. [Reuters, 16 July 2000]

 

Mrs. Clinton angrily denied making the ethnic slur, saying the report

was "absolutely false." [FOXNews.com, AP and New York Post, 18 July

2000]

 

Angry and emotional, Hillary Rodham Clinton firmly denied allegations

from a forthcoming book that she used an anti-Semitic slur 26 years

ago. [AP, 16 July 2000]

 

"I can only state unequivocally it did not happen," she said. "Any

reasonable person looking at the evidence in this case would conclude

there's no credibility on the other side." [Reuters, 17 July 2000]

 

Hillary: "I want to state unequivocally that it never happened and

very clearly point out that it goes against my entire life," she said.

"In the past, I may have called someone a name, but I have never used

ethnic, racial, anti-Semitic, bigoted, discriminatory, prejudiced

accusations against anybody. I've never done it. I've never thought

it. So why people are accusing me of this is certainly beyond my

understanding." [Daily News, 17 July 2000]

 

"I have a lot of confidence in the fundamental good judgment of New

Yorkers to see through these kinds of charges," Mrs. Clinton said

during a press conference on Ellis Island. [AP, 18 July 2000]

 

In addition to the above-cited anti-Semitic and anti-Black slurs by

Hillary (and Bill), she used an anti-Italian slur against then-Senate

candidate Al D'Amato in 1998 by publicly ridiculing him as 'Senator

Tomato'." [NewsMax, 17 July 2000]

 

Being a pathological liar, Hillary denies & denies & denies. It's sad

and depressing that millions of moronic Americans believe her and that

amoral, stupid or opportunistic New Yorkers elected that carpet-

bagging bitch as a senator. It is to puke.

 

Bill's Denials, Lies & Contradictions

 

Is there anyone who does not remember the two most widely reported

blatant lies by that psychopathic liar Bill Clinton? You know, that he

"didn't inhale" when smoking marijuana and that he "did not have

sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." (I guess pot wasn't

strong enough for "Cocaine Bill," whose half-brother Roger was caught

on a police surveillance video saying, "Got to get some for my

brother. He's got a nose like a vacuum cleaner." [The Electronic

Telegraph (London), 15 July 1996])

 

The Clinton campaign released a statement from President Clinton in

which he said: "I was there on election night in 1974 and this charge

is simply not true. It did not happen. My wife has stood for social

justice and tolerance and against racial and religious hatred and

bigotry for as long as I have known her." [AP, 16 July 2000]

 

Clinton jumped to his wife's defense: "She might have called him a

bastard," the president said in an interview in the New York Daily

News. "I wouldn't rule that out. She's never claimed that she was pure

on profanity. But I've never heard her tell a joke with an ethnic

connotation. She's so fanatic about it. She can't tell an ethnic joke

-- it's not in her." [uPI, 17 July 2000; Daily News, 17 July 2000;

FOXNews, AP, and New York Post, 18 July 2000]

 

President Clinton came to his wife's defense, denying that she called

a campaign aide a "fucking Jew bastard" in 1974. In two telephone

calls to the New York Daily News from the Camp David Middle East

summit, including one to Mortimer B. Zuckerman, the paper's chairman

and co-publisher, the President said, "I was there and [Hillary] never

said it. In 29 years, my wife has never, ever uttered an ethnic or

racial slur against anybody, ever. She's so straight on this, she

squeaks." [Daily News, 17 July 2000]

 

So Bill remembered the event but the lying bitch didn't? One wonders

whether that foul female squeaked whenever she uttered "******," "Jew

motherfucker," "Jew boy," and "You fucking Jew bastard!"

 

"It really got bad," Clinton said, "and he [Paul Fray] and Hillary

somehow got in a fight. There was never a racial slur. If she were an

anti-Semite, which she is not, it would never have occurred to her to

say anything like that to him" -- a reference to the fact that Fray is

not Jewish. [Daily News, 17 July 2000]

 

Hillary's hubby exposed that lying bitch in a rare moment of telling

the truth: He acknowledged that there was a fight, that she called

Fray a "bastard," and implied that she used "fucking" ("She's never

claimed that she was pure on profanity"), but then switched back to

his standard modus operandi by lying that she didn't use "Jew." Why?

Because that would have cost her the pivotal Jewish vote.

 

Others On the Clinton Denials

 

"I think they've got a little bit of what you call 'selective

memory'," Paul Fray added, referring to the president and first lady,

who have vehemently denied the accusation. [FOXNews.com, AP and New

York Post, 18 July 2000]

 

"I'm inclined to believe she did it. It's not because she has a

vicious streak in her [and] has a notoriously bad temper; it's not

because [Jewish] Dick Morris made a similar charge concerning a

comment Hillary made to him when they were discussing his consulting

fees: 'That's all you people care about is money.' Hillary is telling

the patently unbelievable story that she doesn't even remember the

altercation with Fray, when even husband Bill admits remembering the

fight." [David Limbaugh in Jewish World Review, 19 July 2000]

 

Defended By Sycophantic Double-Standard Jews

 

Various big-name Jews, such as the shameless Clinton-ass-kissing

Senator Charles Schumer (N.Y.), former New York City Mayor Ed Koch,

and Abe Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League, immediately came

to Hillary's defense by claiming that she is not anti-Semitic --

despite her frequent anti-Semitic utterances, the Rodham family's well-

known dislike of Jews, the Clintons' anti-Semitic jokes, and her

repeated use of "Jew bastard" and "Jew motherfucker."

 

"I don't believe she said it, and if she said it 26 years ago, so

what?" Ed Koch, who makes no secret of being a proud Jew, told the New

York Post. "Did she say it yesterday? There must be a statute of

limitations." [NewsMax, 15 July 2000]

 

Abe Foxman told the New York Post, "If in fact she said it, that does

not make her an anti-Semite, because there is a public record of

Hillary Rodham Clinton of the past 26 years which has no iota of anti-

Semitism." [NewsMax, 15 July 2000]

 

The ADL said in a statement that it believes the First Lady when she

said she never called Paul Fray a "fucking Jew bastard" during an

argument after the loss 26 years ago. [uPI, 17 July 2000]

 

Sen. Charles Schumer, who is Jewish, issued a statement saying, "I've

known Hillary Clinton for eight years, and she doesn't have an anti-

Semitic bone in her body." [Reuters, 16 July 2000]

 

Jewish New York Congresswoman Nita M. Lowey also defended Hillary:

"...there's no way Hillary could make a statement like that." [AP, 16

July 2000]

 

Not All New York Jews Were That Shameless

 

Leaders of New York's Jewish community lined up on opposite sides of

the debate. Representatives of conservative Jewish groups disagreed

with the Anti-Defamation League's defense of Hillary. Dov Hikind, a

New York Assemblyman and leader of Brooklyn's Orthodox Jewish

community, told UPI: "If this was only a remark made 26 years ago,

then it wouldn't be a big issue.... [but this] is not an isolated

case." "There is no statute of limitations for racism or anti-Semitism

or bigotry." [AP and Reuters, 17 July 2000]

 

Excerpts from Rabbi Dr. Morton H. Pomerantz, state chaplain for the

State of New York: "Madame Hillary called a campaign aide a 'Fucking

Jew Bastard.' Funny, isn't it, that Manhattan's limousine liberal

Jewish set wants so quickly to forget about Hillary's anti-

Semitism.... The liberal New York media -- dominated as it is by

members of the Jewish community -- have barely mentioned the trooper's

[Larry Patterson] allegations and has afforded Hillary every benefit

of the doubt. Surely, if Mr. Lazio, her Senate opponent, had made such

remarks about Jews -- no matter how long ago -- he would have been

skewered by New York's liberal press like there was no tomorrow. The

major media have become inveterate ass-kissers of the

Clintons...." [NewsMax, 24 July 2000]

 

Media Censors & Weasels

 

There's no doubt that Hillary called Paul Fray a "fucking Jew

bastard." If there were the slightest doubt, you can bet that vicious

Hillary would have sicced her amoral $450-an-hour shyster David

Kendall on every author, publication and news service that reported

her anti-Semitic slur, regardless of how veiled and coy the media were

about her vile outburst.

 

Following below is a sampling of how the media reported "fucking Jew

bastard." Note the euphemized fucking and its suppression, the

euphemized bastard, as well as the various uninformative paraphrases,

verbal maneuvers, and spineless weaseling. The quotations are arranged

from the most to the least complete reporting of Hillary's exact and

complete filth. TIME magazine wins the Weasel Prize for keeping the

reader in the dark about what was actually said; the Associated Press

is runner-up for euphemizing bastard and suppressing fucking; and

United Press International wins third place for euphemizing all words

but "Jew." A special prize goes to CBS Radio News for telling its

listeners that Hillary merely "used rough language" and an unspecified

"anti-Semitic slur" -- like what? Kike? Hebe? Christ-killer?

 

Hillary's actual words: "You fucking Jew bastard!" [Jerry Oppenheimer

in his book State of the Union: Inside the Complex Marriage of Bill

and Hillary Clinton (2000)]

 

"f ing Jew bastard" [The Times (London), 18 July 2000]

"f-----g Jew bastard" [New York Daily News, 17 July 2000]

"f Jew bastard" [The Times (London), 16 July 2000]

"f----- Jew b------" [uPI, 17 July 2000; euphemized fucking is one

hyphen short]

 

"Jew bastard" [Reuters, 10, 16, 17 July 2000]

"Jew bastard" [The Washington Post, 18 July 2000]

"Jew bastard" [New York Daily News, 18 July 2000]

"Jew b------" [AP, 16 July 2000]

 

"an obscenity-laced, anti-Semitic slur" [AP, 19 July 2000]

"an anti-Semitic obscenity" [AP and St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 26 July

2000]

"hurled anti-Semitic abuse" [The Times (London), 18 July 2000]

"uttered an anti-Jewish slur" [Reuters, 16 July 2000]

"used an anti-Semitic slur" [AP, 16 July 2000]

"made an anti-Jewish remark" [TIME, 24 July 2000, p. 64]

"used rough language" and an "anti-Semitic slur." [CBS Radio News, 16

July 2000]

[Guest Day Brown]

Rather than rant about what I'd like to see, as if anybody gives a

fuck. lets look at what is likely to happen whether we like it or not.

To begin with, it dont matter that most Americans wont vote for

Hillary. Most Americans didnt vote for Bush either, but we see he got

in office. Hello?

 

She's not running for sainthood. She & Billl were not running the CIA

cocaine operations thru Mena Arkansas either. But the CIA understands

perfectly well she knows how to turn a blind eye. Another thing a map

can show you, that if you take an obscure 2 lane black top east thru

the national forest from Mena, you end up in Hot Springs.

 

A couple things to remember about Hot Springs idealists on both the

Left & Right should remember: One, is that if you grow up in Hot

Springs, you know a blowjob is not a "relationship". If repeated often

enough, it was still a service, it has always been a service, and it

is still a service.

 

The other has to do with FDR, who brought the Secret Service and

intellence community with him when he came to soak his legs in hot

water. The town at the time was like Los Vegas in more recent years,

run by the mob. And it was there that the plans to assassinate JFK

were first worked out. And the Mena operation, and lotsa other

interesting events you know nothing about because you are not spozed

to know. Hillary knows what she is not spozed to know, the CIA knows

that, and what you think you know does not matter.

 

JFK took a huge hit from the Bay of Pigs fiasco, and was going to

clean up the CIA. They knew that, and worked out the hit with LBJ.

Nixon understood this, didnt trust the CIA, but had he relied on them

rather than his own private plumbers, Watergate never wouldda

happened. Carter should have relied on the CIA, but instead went into

Iran during the hostage crisis with a hit team that didnt have all its

ducks in order.

 

Reagan was more useful, operations in Central America became really

profitable, and even more so when CIA head honcho GH Bush got elected.

And as above, continued under WJC, who the CIA knew they could deal

with. Nobody thot he was running for sainthood either. Nor Bush Jr.

who was in Central America when he shouldda been in the Alabama

National guard. That's why George dont have any drinking buddies in

Alabama.

 

And when George leaves office, they plan to put Hillary in. They know

how to arrange accidents if anyone looks like a signifcant threat.

Just ask Paul Wellstone. Or how to make it look like you are

suicidally depressed. Just ask Vince Foster, a classic case of the

Huey P. Long School of government rules:

1- never say anything in writing, much less email.

2- never say anything over the phone what you can say in person.

3- never speak when you can nod.

4- never nod when you can smile.

Hillary knows how to smile. "Sometimes I think I mite like to move to

Russia, where they take their tyranny straight up, undiluted with the

waters of hypocrisy." A. Lincoln.

[Guest inkyblacks@yahoo.com]

Democrats should not nominate anyone who voted for the Iraq war!

Hillary Clinton is a sell-out to the Israeli lobby, which started the

Iraq war.

 

We need a fresh start and an honest man, not a lying, two faced bitch

and political whore in the White House.

 

Barack Obama is the man, Hillary Clinton is the witch who voted for

the war and continues to lie about her reasons for voting for the

war. She also stated that Hussein was connected to the terrorists,

which is not true. She is an idiot, a liar, and a disaster for the

Dmeocrtic Party.

 

IB

[Guest Day Brown]

On Jul 11, 1:25 pm, "inkybla...@yahoo.com" <inkybla...@yahoo.com>

wrote:

> Democrats should not nominate anyone who voted for the Iraq war!

> Hillary Clinton is a sell-out to the Israeli lobby, which started the

> Iraq war.

>

> We need a fresh start and an honest man, not a lying, two faced bitch

> and political whore in the White House.

>

> Barack Obama is the man, Hillary Clinton is the witch who voted for

> the war and continues to lie about her reasons for voting for the

> war. She also stated that Hussein was connected to the terrorists,

> which is not true. She is an idiot, a liar, and a disaster for the

> Dmeocrtic Party.

I didnt say what I'd like, but what we'll get whether I like it or

not. Hillary already has the big money behind her, and the big media

will fall in line as needed when the time comes. The electorate is too

lazy, stupid & ignorant to think for itself, so it will get Hillary to

think for it. She & Bill will have the support of the transnational

bankers and others who hold that 9 trillion dollar US National debt

bag because they think she has the best shot of preserving their

investment.

 

You can quit trying to persuade me not to elect Hillary. It dont

matter what I think.