|
Is Hillary a lying sack of shit who unleashes secret vendettas against those who oppose her? That’s the gist of The Case Against Hillary Clinton by Christopher Hitchens over at Slate.com: |
|
|
0
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
John this is good stuff man! I for one am definately NOT in support of Clinton for President. It would be a death spiral for this country in my opinion
Indifferent to truth, willing to use police-state tactics and vulgar libels against inconvenient witnesses, hopeless on health care, and flippant and fast and loose with national security
Surely this refers to Bush, no?
Shes a fukin bitch and a lying sack of shit, Id rather stare at bush’s face all day long anyday over hers. At least bush makes funny faces!
FUCK HILLARY!
The article you link to was written by Christopher Hitchens not John Dickerson.
michael: ARE YOU DRUNK?
Just asking because you posted 24 minutes after the bars closed.
I’m sure your kind would prefer another idiot whose fun to DRINK with, but I would prefer someone with intelligence. Obviously you prefer the coked out drunked fool that calls himself president now whereas I prefer someone who doesn’t need a child to read a CHILDS book to them, someone with enough working braincells to GET UP and leave the room when being told the COUNTRY WAS UNDER ATTACK.
Numbnuts like you have had your way the last 8 years and you’ve destroyed MY country, devalued it’s currency (that means our money isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on anymore) and it’s economy.
I’m guessing that you are enjoying paying 3 times what you did under President Clinton for GAS and that you can afford to pay double what you did for food, since food costs TWICE what it did under President Clinton.
Oh sorry didn’t RUSH tell you any of this?
First of all, the article was by Christopher Hitchens, not Dickerson. Hitchens is known for his hyperbole and weird support for many of Bush’s policies.
The paragraph you quote from wasn’t even supported by the article. I suppose if you believe Clinton raped someone, then there is a strong case to keep him out of the White house. But considering all of the attacks the Clinton’s faced during Bill’s time in office (not just that he had raped someone, but that they both had people murdered) I find it hard to work up too much fear about her use of “police state” tactics and her waffling somewhat on the issue of Iraq.
I do worry about her, but not to the level Hitchens wants. My biggest fear is the visceral hatred people have for her (see eaze above), not all deserved, but certainly a factor.
4 & 6. Thanks guys, I don’t know whose ass I pulled Dickerson’s name out of!
Hitchens is awesome.
Hitch sometimes goes a bit far to make a point, but he makes a pretty strong case this time…
#3, eaze:
Wouldn’t you prefer another site? Digg maybe? Your comments didn’t really add very much to our colective knowledge.
Nutty conspiracy stuff aside, the biggest problem I have with Hillary is (like Bill) she waffles. She puts her finger in the air to see how the wind is blowing then gives her opinion so she can tell people what they want to hear. For example her changing positions on the war and healthcare. Having said that, I remember the good economic times under Bill, would we return to that if she was elected? Am I better off now than I was eight years ago? hell no!
KLB:
For your information, I hold more to Libertarian platform than you think I do. I to am not happy with what has happened to our country over the last 8 years myself.
You also need to reconsider how you comment against someone who doesn’t share the same opinion as you. Jumping down the throat of a whole mass of people saying it’s their fault the country has went downhill is counterproductive.
In my view, we need to be more in agreement on views than straight to the far left or straight to the far right. In my opinion when you go on either of those two extremes, it is a receipe for disaster and is not a reasonable compromise of the advantages that all sides can bring to the table.
And I don’t listen to Rush. Personally, he bores me.
Perhaps the author just got confused with names and meant the article to be about W instead…
You might be right Tom, now that I think about it. That was quite a loaded response for such a short reply of mine.
#6, Chris, That’s some unreasoning spasm of hatred you just posted.
The coke use charge was made in one book. I have not seen any back up evidence anywhere else, and Bush did not have the nick-name “Hoover nose” as Bill Clinton did. (There is far more evidence that Bill Clinton is a serial rapist and that either he and/or Hillary are behind a large number of murders; are you going to convict them on mere charges?) As for “drunken”, are you going to go after Ted Kennedy, who is presently a lush, and who left a woman to die?
Bush was informed of the first crash into the twin towers, and no one had reason to suspect yet that it was enemy action. What was he supposed to do for the 6 minutes or so it took for the Secret Service to get ready to move him out to where he could get further information? Scream “OHMYGODWE’REUNDERATTACK!!!” and scare the crap out of a bunch of little kids? Does being President mean he is supposed to be omniscient? Is he supposed to put an his Sooper Heeeero Spandex and fly to DC at the speed of light so he could be at his desk? Was he supposed to fly to NYC and grab all the airplanes out of the air, somehow knowing which ones had hijackers in it?
Are you looking for a President you can worship as a god?
Either way, she’s a much better choice than any of the current Republican candidates.
I do enjoy reading Hitchens however I think he is caught up commenting on candidates in an election that is more about matriarchy vs. patriarchy in the western hemisphere rather than about individuals or race or even unofficial monarchies. Weather Bush, Gore or Clinton are the entitlements for democray voters to avoid, or not, the question is will enough men vote to install a matriarchy in North America? Is that too broad to write about? Sorry, currently I prefer Edwards.
#15
Were you responding to my post (#6 above)?
Ok, I just got listening to my proper daily install of Rush (weekend mp3 reruns). I think based on his logic it would not be good to vote for her. It is apparent that when she was in college, she was part of a secret sorority of women planning to take over the world. An easy way to think of this is Skull and Bones, only more secret and they were not forced to allow men.
From her ulterior secret fortress in some nameless gay friendly community they are planning to take over the world. The number one plan is to poison the water system with estrogen. Thereby creating weak minded males that will submit to the will of the woman. It has been shown that will sufficient doses of estrogen men get 1). fat and lazey 2). loss of sex drive 3). watch football, basketball at day 4). do not pursue an education
This will be followed by an experimental nano bomb that will simply reconstitute most of the male population into women (and this of course will led to dreaded lesbianism). There will be orgies all over the place and chaos in the streets (because we all know that women can not drive). This of course can not happen until she becomes president and takes control of the ICBM s and replaces the nukes with mutating spores. However, prior to accomplishing this cloning technology and the dreaded ability to create gene pool diversity using haploid infusion will have to be created so that women can reproduce without the need of the evil, war like man.
Nuff said, before this turns to graphic and into some type of porno fantasy or a real bad science fiction novel from some B rate author.
God, I really have got to stop listening to the Rush hour and get out more before Rush ends up reprogramming me into a mindless TWIT.
#12, michaelmoss,
In my view, we need to be more in agreement on views than straight to the far left or straight to the far right. In my opinion when you go on either of those two extremes, it is a receipe [sic] for disaster and is not a reasonable compromise of the advantages that all sides can bring to the table.
That sounds pretty arrogant. You want people to agree with you and if they don’t, then they are either to the far left or right.
In your first post, you claim the Clinton would be a death spiral for this country. Then, in post #12, you claim that you don’t like what has happened to our country over the past eight years. No explanation of how Clinton will put the country in a “death spiral”. No acknowledgment that Clinton (and in fact all the Democrat contenders) has opposed almost every one of Bush’s screwed up plans.
So why is it you don’t like Clinton? Would it happen to be she has a much better chance of winning than any Republican lackey?
#19, Jeff.
Yes, I see your point. Philleep in #15 is an excellent example of what listening to those extremist right wing nuts can do to you. Believe it or not, Philleep actually believe that crap he posted.
Hitchens has very long and tired vendetta against the Clintons.
You might as well quote Creationists to learn what scientists do.
This is news?
Hillary is Nixon without the patriotism or warm personality.
“Should we be afraid of the big bad Hillary?”
-Haven’t we always been afraid of her?