Hillary is starting look doubtful....

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Is it safe to say that Tampon believes that Hillary is trending....

It's 3 a.m.

[LexusLover]

:
Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB View Post
"It’s why Hillary gets so uncomfortable when she has to discuss her vote on Iraq."

Part of her "credentials" are her "experiences" of being close to the "Hard Choices" being made in the White House, similarly to Al Gore's proximity, and Bill Clinton will verbally express the same at the appropriate time frame in the election process to give her a "boost" by using his self-perceived popularity to catapult her into the White House.

What Bill cannot overcome is his own failures and hers, which have been well documented now, and were being in the ramp up to the 2000 elections with Gore, and her out right lies and ridiculous statements such as her "military" experience of dodging sniper fire on the tarmac in Europe and the "Great Right Wing Conspiracy" accusing Bill of getting blow jobs in the White House. Running around the World for photo ops with that big fake smile is not being a diplomat. It's making campaign posters and clips for ads. She can wear Benghazi, it's hers, since it not only happened on her watch, she admitted it was her fault.

She's no more qualified for the job than Obaminable was (or is) qualified.

And the last thing this country needs is another 4 years with a liar at the helm. Plus we don't need a symbolic gesture to advance a gender agenda. If you just want a "female" to be President, promote Minnie Mouse. She's more qualified.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Part of her "credentials" are her "experiences" of being close to the "Hard Choices" being made in the White House, similarly to Al Gore's proximity, and Bill Clinton will verbally express the same at the appropriate time frame in the election process to give her a "boost" by using his self-perceived popularity to catapult her into the White House.

What Bill cannot overcome is his own failures and hers, which have been well documented now, and were being in the ramp up to the 2000 elections with Gore, and her out right lies and ridiculous statements such as her "military" experience of dodging sniper fire on the tarmac in Europe and the "Great Right Wing Conspiracy" accusing Bill of getting blow jobs in the White House. Running around the World for photo ops with that big fake smile is not being a diplomat. It's making campaign posters and clips for ads. She can wear Benghazi, it's hers, since it not only happened on her watch, she admitted it was her fault.

She's no more qualified for the job than Obaminable was (or is) qualified.

And the last thing this country needs is another 4 years with a liar at the helm. Plus we don't need a symbolic gesture to advance a gender agenda. If you just want a "female" to be President, promote Minnie Mouse. She's more qualified.

Israel & Gaza, Ukraine, Iraq, Benghazi and Syria will all look good on her resume.

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

"America is being run by a blinkered ideologue who ignores issues that fall outside his ideological spectrum."

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgr...-ignored-iraq/
Why Obama Ignored Iraq

July 7, 2014 by Daniel Greenfield

ISIS marching through Iraq has smashed the media’s taboo against criticizing Obama’s foreign policy. Substantive discussions are taking place about why his foreign policy is such a miserable failure.

And they mostly miss the point.

Liberal journalists still proceed from the fallacy that there was a foreign policy debate between neo-conservative interventionists and liberal non-interventionists. These are a series of digested Bush era talking points that have no relationship to reality since Bush’s foreign policy on Iraq carried over from Bill Clinton. It’s why Hillary gets so uncomfortable when she has to discuss her vote on Iraq.

The liberals weren’t non-interventionists who insisted on multilateralism and UN approval before acting. Obama, like virtually every other Democrat, disproved that myth as fast as he could. Nor were they even opponents of the Iraq War until opposing the war became politically convenient.

Obama however isn’t on this map at all. It’s not that he is an opponent of intervention. The Libyans can tell you that. It’s that his reasons for intervening fall completely outside the grid of national interests.

The anti-war activist as pacifist is largely a myth. There are a few anti-war activists who oppose all wars, but mostly they just oppose America. Obama, who got his foot up the political ladder by flirting with the anti-war movement, falls into that category. Obama isn’t opposed to wars. He’s opposed to America.

Obama is an ideological interventionist, not a nationalist interventionist. And despite his multilateralist rhetoric, he isn’t your usual globalist either. Instead he uses national and international power as platforms for pursuing ideological goals without any regard to national or international interests.

That is true of both his foreign and domestic policy.

Obama’s foreign policy is issue oriented, just like his domestic policy is. There is no national agenda, only a leftist agenda. America is just a power platform for pursuing policy goals.

Domestically, Obama does not care about fixing the economy. The economy is a vehicle for pursuing social justice, environmental justice and all the many unjust justices of the left. It has no innate value. Likewise national security and power have no value except as tools for promoting leftist policies.

Obama thinks of the ideological issue first. Then he packages it as a national interest for popular consumption. It’s a Wilsonian approach that is not only far more extreme than the policies of most White House occupants have been, but also more detached.

Wilson couldn’t understand that American power couldn’t exist without a national interest. Obama and his staffers see America as just another transnational institution that they happen to be running, not all that different than a corporation, non-profit or UN body. They don’t see it as a country, but a series of policymaking offices that reach across the country and the world.

It’s a globalized mode of thinking that is common among Eurocrats, but has never been represented in the Oval Office before.

Obama doesn’t just oppose America. He disregards it as an outmoded institution. When confronted with the border crisis or the rise of ISIS, he doesn’t see them in terms of American interests or even world interests, but in the narrow terms of leftist ideology.

He will use national and international institutions to promote LGBT rights or Green Energy. He won’t however get involved in actively using them for national security unless he absolutely has to in order to protect his own political power.

To a transnational mindset, institutions exist to promote issues. America is only of value to the extent that it can promote the left’s agenda. To the extent that it doesn’t, America is dead weight.

Once Bush was out, Iraq ceased to matter because it was no longer a packaged issue. It couldn’t be broken down into a simplistic Blame Bush policy agenda. And so Obama stopped paying attention.

Now Iraq is getting in the way of the things that he really cares about, such as illegal alien amnesty, dismantling Israel and transsexual bathrooms, because these are ideologically meaningful issues to him. And like every other obstacle, whether it was the national debt or the VA scandal, he pretends to take them seriously until a sufficient amount of time passes and he can dismiss them as “phony scandals”.

Obama didn’t just ignore Iraq because he wanted to avoid any connections to a war that he had helped make unpopular. He ignored Iraq because it had nothing to offer his ideology. If Iraq had a secular dictator, he might have been interested. If Islamists were fighting to take over from that dictator, there would have been planes and diplomats flying over Baghdad before you could shout, “Allah Akbar.”

It’s why he backed the Islamist overthrow of Arab governments, but not the popular protests against Islamist governments in Iran or Turkey.

But Iraq was a battle between Sunni and Shiite Islamists, backed by the Saudis and Iran. Even the left has trouble picking a side between two anti-American Islamic factions who are divided over theological issues, instead of practical things like dialectical materialism and the discourse of othering. In a pinch they pick the Iranian side as being more anti-American, but the prospect of American intervention on the same side as the Shiites confuses them even further and they have to go lie down in a dark room.

When there is no clear ideological guide, Obama takes meetings with generals, tunes them out, plays with his phone and delays doing something for as long as possible. That was the pattern in Afghanistan and Syria. Ideologues can’t function without an ideological orientation. When the ideological value of a problem is unclear, Obama either freezes up, like a robot whose manual was misplaced, or ignores it.

Obama’s only approach to Iraq came from Bush era opposition. Without Bush to push against, he had no idea what if anything should be done about Iraq. He still doesn’t. Instead he resorts to the antiquated attacks on Bush because it’s the last time that Iraq made any sense to him. It was the last time that the left had successfully packaged Iraq into a simple scenario in which there was only one right choice.

Ideologues are not big on independent thinking. When everything is politicized, they lose the ability to see the things that can’t be neatly assigned to one side or another. America is being run by a blinkered ideologue who ignores issues that fall outside his ideological spectrum.

Those problems that he doesn’t cause directly and intentionally through his ideology, he causes indirectly and unintentionally by being unable to operate outside his ideology except in an emergency. Like the difference between the pilot who flies a plane deliberately into a mountain and the one who accidentally flies it into a mountain, there is a gap in motivation, but not in outcome.

History will not record why Obama screwed everything up. It will only record that he did it.

+1 Excellent!

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

The ORIGINAL Dipshit of the Year!

Yes you are, you hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Israel & Gaza, Ukraine, Iraq, Benghazi and Syria will all look good on her resume.

The Photo.

I also believe there are 2-3 agents who have now retired who asked for re-assignments from the residential wing of the WH in the early 90's who might have something to say in support of more recent reports from the DOS on that woman's mouth, which puts a sailor to shame. The Arkansas troopers are no longer available.

[gnadfly]

Interesting how she and Rick Perry are wearing similar, if not the same, glass frames. Hope it doesn't confuse BigKotex.

[Guest123018-4]

Hillary could be a slobbering vegetable with droll running out of her mouth like the lies she tells and would still vote for her. Too bad he supported Obama over her in 08.

[LexusLover]

Bill has already endorsed their daughter over her. Enough said.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Bill has already endorsed their daughter over her. Enough said.

Chelsea is under the desk? I guess she is from Arkansas after all and its not like she is Bill's real daughter.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Chelsea is under the desk? I guess she is from Arkansas after all and its not like she is Bill's real daughter.

JDIdiot, every report I have seen indicates Chelsea is in fact, "Bill's real daughter."

Do you have a reputable link stating otherwise? If so, please post the link!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bigtex

Do you have a reputable link stating otherwise? If so, please post the link!

Do you want like Quest Lab dna report access on line?

Or would a copy of a description of her birth certificate do?

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

would a copy of a description of her birth certificate do?

If it can be accessed by a link, post it!

Otherwise, if I would have wanted a physical "copy of a description," I would have asked for it.

Idiot!

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by bigtex

If it can be accessed by a link, post it!

Otherwise, if I would have wanted a physical "copy of a description," I would have asked for it.

Idiot!

http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/06...ogical-father/


Bill Clinton not Chelsea’s biological father
Posted on June 26, 2014 by Dr. Eowyn
A rumor that first surfaced some years ago is cropping up again now that the woman whom First Lady of Snot Mooch calls “the Hildebeest” seems to be intent on becoming the next U.S. president, as if she and her husband haven’t already done enough damage.

The rumor is that former president Bill Clinton is not the biological dad of Chelsea Clinton — she who commands a salary of $600,000 a year from NBC for doing literally nothing.



Radar Online reports, June 25, 2014, that former Clinton aide and close friend Larry Nichols, who was also the Clintons’ killer-for-hire (see “Bombshell: Long-time Clinton associate says he killed people for Bill & Hillary“), claims that Bill once told him he was not the biological father of Chelsea, and that Chelsea’s real father is Webster Hubbell, the former mayor of Little Rock, Ark. and Hillary’s one-time law partner.

Nichols lives in Charlotte, N.C. with his wife Suzy and four children.

Radar Online points out this isn’t the first time the rumor mill has circulated around 34-year-old Chelsea.

On June 2, 2014, The New Yorker cited anti-Clinton blogger Robert Morrow’s claims that Hillary and Webster had had an affair in 1984 during Bill’s second term as governor of Arkansas.

At the same time, Bill – who later admitted to numerous affairs with Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky – was involved in a paternity scandal of his own, that he got a local woman pregnant.

Nichols said, “We were discussing this woman’s claims that Bill had knocked her up and what we should do about it. But he [Bill Clinton] denied that he could have gotten her pregnant. He said he had measles as a kid and that rendered him sterile. His exact words were, ‘I shoot blanks.’ Stunned by what I’d just heard, I asked him, ‘Then what about Chelsea?’ And he said, ‘Oh, Webb (Hubbell) sired her.’”

In an interview with The National Enquirer, blogger Morrow says the alleged scandal raises “character questions about Hillary.” Morrow says:

“Chelsea is a dead ringer for Webb. But Hillary initially kept the pregnancy secret from Bill! If your wife becomes pregnant, the husband is usually the second person to know. But I find it very odd that Bill initially didn’t find out about his wife becoming pregnant – and had to learn that fact from a newspaper. According to well-respected author Edward Klein’s (2005) book,The Truth about Hillary, Bill discovered his wife was pregnant by reading it in the Arkansas Gazette. It’s unfortunate, sad really, that Chelsea has no real relationship with Hubbell – who I believe to be her real biological father – when he’s alive and kicking and living in North Carolina. But it could be she’s in denial, despite overwhelming proof that Webb is her real dad.”

As the governor of Arkansas, Bill appointed Hubbell as Chief Justice of the Arkansas State Supreme Court. Ten years later, Hubbell resigned just before pleading guilty to federal mail fraud and tax evasion for overbilling clients and served 15 months in prison.

Below are side-by-side pics of pre-plastic surgery Chelsea Clinton (l) and Webster Hubbell (r). Note the similar weak chin, which is not a feature of either Bill or Hillary’s physiognomy.

[pyramider]

It looks like she has had a lot of work done.

[JD Barleycorn]

My source is Bill Clinton himself and math. Paula Jones, Juanita Brodderick, Dolly Kyle Browning, Jennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey, Elizabeth Gracen, Monica Lewinsky, et. al. have one thing in common with each other besides the "big creep". They all say that Bill told them to not worry about getting pregnant because he had the mumps when he was a kid and was shooting blanks. Now he could be lying (it is Bill Clinton after all) but where are all the bastards? There are not any so I give credence to this one Clinton line, he is shooting blanks. Okay, so if we accept that he is shooting blanks then who is Chelsea's father? Lets look at the idea that maybe, just maybe lets off a live round every once in a while. The math of the problem is mind boggling. All those women and the only one who gets pregnant is his wife who he probably doesn't spend a lot of time with. The math doesn't support the idea that Bill is Chelsea's dad.

Okay, just take a look at Chelsea. She is obviously Hillary's little girl but Bill's???? I can't see it. And even if by some remote chance that she was....like I said, Arkansas. Of course Bill is going to put his wife's little girl under the desk.

[LexusLover]

As for Chelsea...

IMO she has enough burdens in life being the "presumptive" daughter to Bill and Hillary without the added accusation of being a "love child" by an ugly old fart who fucked another ugly old fart when she was a ugly younger fart.

DNA (yes, Bill, there is such a thing) should put those questions "to bed" so to speak, because I doubt if one will get any man, no matter how ugly, to admit he had sex with Hillarious long enough to conceive a child.

There is so much more important stuff to discuss about Hillarious, than she was able to get someone to fuck her long enough to get herself pregnant.

For instance: As a potential candidate for President in 2016, and a recent former Secretary of State with "extensive experience" with Putin and the Russians, not to mention "all of that experience with the Europeans (including dodging sniper fire on the tarmac in Europe)," I would like to hear how she would handle the current response to the confirmed atrocity of the shooting down of a civilian passenger aircraft over Ukraine: #1, if it is solely the "rebels" as Obaminable hopes it is, #2, if it is the "rebels" with help from Russians, or #3, if it is solely the Russians or #4, if it is the Russians based on "rebel intelligence."

"We" know how she would handle an attack on U.S. citizens on U.S. property, and it would be appropriate to know how she would handle an "act of war."