Why The Clinton's Are Such Liars...
May 30, 2016 15:27:13 #
Don G. Dinsdale
Loc: El Cajon, CA (San Diego County)
Why Both Clintons Are Such Unapologetic Liars
By Jonah Goldberg - May 28, 2016
When You’re Guided By Nothing But a Lust For Power, Why Bother With The T***h?
Don’t worry, I’m not going to start out with another rant about Trump — I know folks are getting tired about that.
(Though I will note that they said if I didn’t support the party nominee, giant pythons would start slithering up through toilet holes to bite off our penises — and they were right!)
Instead, I’ll start with a rant about Clinton. I’ve been thinking (“Evidence, sir? Show me your evidence.” — The Couch).
I think Clinton needs to become a verb. But first, the sort of lexicological rambling discursive few readers have been waiting for! The English language is full of words that were inspired by people. The following (awful) paragraph contains well more than a dozen words inspired by people. Can you spot them?
Female chauvinists pushing for the mainstreaming of Rubenesque women into pop-culture have an almost sadistic desire to celebrate Lena Dunham’s relentless nudity (though some masochistic Casanovas may stroke their sideburns lasciviously at the prospect).
But I’m no pompadoured martinet of the comstocks or cultural McCarthyites, arguing that “artistic” speech be bowdlerized. I will not give in to Orwellian zeal nor enlist in some Luddite lynch mob hell-bent on stopping the wattage wasted on such fare.
Better to pursue a more Machiavellian strategy of boycotting until she dons a cardigan or at least a leotard. I’ll give you a few hints: “Chauvinism” — an extreme belief in the superiority of your nation, your g****r, etc. — was named after Nicholas Chauvin, a soldier in Napoleon’s army, who was a zealous partisan for his leader.
Masochism — taking pleasure, usually sexually, in being hurt or abused — is derived from Leopold von Sacher-Masoch, an Austrian novelist who wrote about such things.
This is in contrast to “sadism” — inspired by the Marquis de Sade and his love of cruelty for its own sake. He was known to invite people to his home to screen Caddyshack but when the guests got there, they were forced to watch Caddyshack II.
Anyway, so where was I? Oh, right. ‘TO CLINTON’ We need to make “Clintoning” a thing. (I’d argue the same for Trump, but he brilliantly picked a last name that already means something. If I had his last name, every time I got into a whose-business-card-is-better contest — which is actually never — I’d slap mine down and shout, “That’s the Trump card, b***hes.”) RELATED:
All of Hillary’s Lies Are Premeditated
The first problem is there are two Clintons. Back when it was really just Bubba out there, the term would be unavoidably sexual. I’m reminded of Michael Kinsley’s response when the Clinton White House was insisting Bill was simply Monica Lewinsky’s mentor. It went something like, “Yeah, right. I’m sure he mentored her senseless.” I don’t mean to be unduly harsh — just duly harsh — but Hillary makes any of the limerick-quality double entendres unworkable.
That’s particularly unfortunate because Rodham, her maiden name, is particularly well-suited for such associations. “Jeffrey Epstein’s plane was like a Caligulan entourage of Rodhamanites.”
APPETITE ALL THE WAY DOWN
The amazing thing about Hillary and Bill Clinton is that they are united by no central idea, no governing philosophy that doesn’t — upon close inspection — boil down to the idea that they should be in charge. Yes, I know. That’s not what they would say.
They would argue that with the right experts in charge, the government can do wonderful things to help people. But what the government should do is constantly changing, according to both of them. Bill once declared, “The Era of Big Government is over.” He didn’t mean it. He certainly didn’t want it to be true. He just said it because that’s what he does:
He says what he needs to say. I don’t approvingly quote Jesse Jackson all that often (though I do find myself saying, “Keep hope alive,” a lot these days), but I think he had it right when he said Bill had no core beliefs, he was all appetite.
RELATED: Habitual Liar Lies Habitually Hillary, in her own way, strikes me as even worse in this regard. Can you name a single substantial policy that she hasn’t flipped on — or wouldn’t change — if it were in her political self-interest? Gay marriage? Free trade? I*****l i*********n? Strip away all of the political posturing and positioning, and their “philosophy” that government run by experts can do wonderful things should really be t***slated as “government run by us.” Clinton’s defenders argue that her changing policy approaches are just signs of her “pragmatism.” And don’t worry, I won’t rant about pragmatism again, either. But liberal pragmatism begins and ends from a single first principle:
Liberals must be in power to decide what is “pragmatic.” And when conservatives are in charge, the only form of acceptable pragmatism is . . . compromising with liberals. RELATED: Clinton and Trump: The Moral Universe of Liars That is why both Clintons are such unapologetic liars. Pragmatism bills itself as being beyond ideology and “labels.” Well, if you don’t feel bound to any objective ideological or even ontological criteria — labels, after all, are the words we use to describe reality — why not lie?
Why not wax philosophic about the meaning of “is”? If attaining and wielding power is your only benchmark, the ethical imperative of telling the t***h is no imperative at all. It’s just another false ideological construct. It’s kind of interesting when you think about it. Since the Clintons respect only power, the only power they respect is that of the law.
Which is why the only times they can be counted upon to tell the t***h is when the law absolutely requires it — or may require it down the road. Of course, as lawyers, they are artists at telling only the minimum amount of the t***h absolutely required of them. The flipside is that because they are lawyers, when they resort to legalistic language, it’s a tell that they’re lying.
RELATED: The Clintons’ Greatest Political Gift: Persuading Millions of Americans to Defend the Indefensible For instance, when Hillary Clinton went on the Today Show in 1998 to address the growing Lewinsky scandal, she blamed it all on a vast right-wing conspiracy. When asked what it would mean if the allegations were true, she said: Well, I think that — if all that were proven true, I think that would be a very serious offense.
That is not going to be proven true. Note: She didn’t say “if it were true.” She said, “if it were proven true” — twice. She had every intention of concealing the t***h. It just turned out that this time her cover-up sk**ls weren’t up to the task. This is the same tactic we see in the e-mail scandal. “There is no classified information.” We’re constantly told, “There is no smoking gun!” Which is just another way of saying, “You can’t prove it!” Not, “I didn’t do it.” Again: The server is the smoking gun.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435987/hillary-clinton-campaign-lies
By Jonah Goldberg - May 28, 2016
When You’re Guided By Nothing But a Lust For Power, Why Bother With The T***h?
Don’t worry, I’m not going to start out with another rant about Trump — I know folks are getting tired about that.
(Though I will note that they said if I didn’t support the party nominee, giant pythons would start slithering up through toilet holes to bite off our penises — and they were right!)
Instead, I’ll start with a rant about Clinton. I’ve been thinking (“Evidence, sir? Show me your evidence.” — The Couch).
I think Clinton needs to become a verb. But first, the sort of lexicological rambling discursive few readers have been waiting for! The English language is full of words that were inspired by people. The following (awful) paragraph contains well more than a dozen words inspired by people. Can you spot them?
Female chauvinists pushing for the mainstreaming of Rubenesque women into pop-culture have an almost sadistic desire to celebrate Lena Dunham’s relentless nudity (though some masochistic Casanovas may stroke their sideburns lasciviously at the prospect).
But I’m no pompadoured martinet of the comstocks or cultural McCarthyites, arguing that “artistic” speech be bowdlerized. I will not give in to Orwellian zeal nor enlist in some Luddite lynch mob hell-bent on stopping the wattage wasted on such fare.
Better to pursue a more Machiavellian strategy of boycotting until she dons a cardigan or at least a leotard. I’ll give you a few hints: “Chauvinism” — an extreme belief in the superiority of your nation, your g****r, etc. — was named after Nicholas Chauvin, a soldier in Napoleon’s army, who was a zealous partisan for his leader.
Masochism — taking pleasure, usually sexually, in being hurt or abused — is derived from Leopold von Sacher-Masoch, an Austrian novelist who wrote about such things.
This is in contrast to “sadism” — inspired by the Marquis de Sade and his love of cruelty for its own sake. He was known to invite people to his home to screen Caddyshack but when the guests got there, they were forced to watch Caddyshack II.
Anyway, so where was I? Oh, right. ‘TO CLINTON’ We need to make “Clintoning” a thing. (I’d argue the same for Trump, but he brilliantly picked a last name that already means something. If I had his last name, every time I got into a whose-business-card-is-better contest — which is actually never — I’d slap mine down and shout, “That’s the Trump card, b***hes.”) RELATED:
All of Hillary’s Lies Are Premeditated
The first problem is there are two Clintons. Back when it was really just Bubba out there, the term would be unavoidably sexual. I’m reminded of Michael Kinsley’s response when the Clinton White House was insisting Bill was simply Monica Lewinsky’s mentor. It went something like, “Yeah, right. I’m sure he mentored her senseless.” I don’t mean to be unduly harsh — just duly harsh — but Hillary makes any of the limerick-quality double entendres unworkable.
That’s particularly unfortunate because Rodham, her maiden name, is particularly well-suited for such associations. “Jeffrey Epstein’s plane was like a Caligulan entourage of Rodhamanites.”
APPETITE ALL THE WAY DOWN
The amazing thing about Hillary and Bill Clinton is that they are united by no central idea, no governing philosophy that doesn’t — upon close inspection — boil down to the idea that they should be in charge. Yes, I know. That’s not what they would say.
They would argue that with the right experts in charge, the government can do wonderful things to help people. But what the government should do is constantly changing, according to both of them. Bill once declared, “The Era of Big Government is over.” He didn’t mean it. He certainly didn’t want it to be true. He just said it because that’s what he does:
He says what he needs to say. I don’t approvingly quote Jesse Jackson all that often (though I do find myself saying, “Keep hope alive,” a lot these days), but I think he had it right when he said Bill had no core beliefs, he was all appetite.
RELATED: Habitual Liar Lies Habitually Hillary, in her own way, strikes me as even worse in this regard. Can you name a single substantial policy that she hasn’t flipped on — or wouldn’t change — if it were in her political self-interest? Gay marriage? Free trade? I*****l i*********n? Strip away all of the political posturing and positioning, and their “philosophy” that government run by experts can do wonderful things should really be t***slated as “government run by us.” Clinton’s defenders argue that her changing policy approaches are just signs of her “pragmatism.” And don’t worry, I won’t rant about pragmatism again, either. But liberal pragmatism begins and ends from a single first principle:
Liberals must be in power to decide what is “pragmatic.” And when conservatives are in charge, the only form of acceptable pragmatism is . . . compromising with liberals. RELATED: Clinton and Trump: The Moral Universe of Liars That is why both Clintons are such unapologetic liars. Pragmatism bills itself as being beyond ideology and “labels.” Well, if you don’t feel bound to any objective ideological or even ontological criteria — labels, after all, are the words we use to describe reality — why not lie?
Why not wax philosophic about the meaning of “is”? If attaining and wielding power is your only benchmark, the ethical imperative of telling the t***h is no imperative at all. It’s just another false ideological construct. It’s kind of interesting when you think about it. Since the Clintons respect only power, the only power they respect is that of the law.
Which is why the only times they can be counted upon to tell the t***h is when the law absolutely requires it — or may require it down the road. Of course, as lawyers, they are artists at telling only the minimum amount of the t***h absolutely required of them. The flipside is that because they are lawyers, when they resort to legalistic language, it’s a tell that they’re lying.
RELATED: The Clintons’ Greatest Political Gift: Persuading Millions of Americans to Defend the Indefensible For instance, when Hillary Clinton went on the Today Show in 1998 to address the growing Lewinsky scandal, she blamed it all on a vast right-wing conspiracy. When asked what it would mean if the allegations were true, she said: Well, I think that — if all that were proven true, I think that would be a very serious offense.
That is not going to be proven true. Note: She didn’t say “if it were true.” She said, “if it were proven true” — twice. She had every intention of concealing the t***h. It just turned out that this time her cover-up sk**ls weren’t up to the task. This is the same tactic we see in the e-mail scandal. “There is no classified information.” We’re constantly told, “There is no smoking gun!” Which is just another way of saying, “You can’t prove it!” Not, “I didn’t do it.” Again: The server is the smoking gun.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435987/hillary-clinton-campaign-lies
May 30, 2016 16:09:34 #
May 30, 2016 16:14:09 #
Don G. Dinsdale
Loc: El Cajon, CA (San Diego County)
And the un-Americans (Like Wolfe) love them... Don D.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
America Only wrote:
They are D********G filth!
May 30, 2016 17:53:10 #
Don G. Dinsdale wrote:
Why Both Clintons Are Such Unapologetic Liars br ... (show quote)
I started to read this. A cleverly written piece full of colorful allegory but about half way through it got boring. Of course the Clintons are liars, as are all politicians because of the way the political system works in this country.When you have a system that rewards greed and lust for money and power by allowing Congress to be endlessly reelected into their high paying positions with all the perks like pensions and socialized healthcare for life, access to well lubricated lobbyists and astronomical speaking fees you create the conditions for liars to flourish. Like the Bushes, the Clintons are so yesterday but unfortunately she will probably win because of demographics and Trumps ridiculous antics that don't come near the center of American political thinking. Even if he were to win you would see so much backtracking on all his promises that the watered down Trump Presidency would not even resemble the hopes and dreams of it's starry eyed supporters. Trump would give a whole new definition to the term "unapologetic liar".
May 31, 2016 19:01:37 #
l country.
They are the Worst!!! the biggest liars ever. Just think Hillary can go around and brag about her husband being one of the only men to ever be impeached. What a classy couple.
America Only wrote:
They are D********G filth!
They are the Worst!!! the biggest liars ever. Just think Hillary can go around and brag about her husband being one of the only men to ever be impeached. What a classy couple.
May 31, 2016 19:08:32 #
eden wrote:
I started to read this. A cleverly written piece f... (show quote)
total bulls**t. Just like some, mostly the black contingency said he practically stole the money that he raised for the Vets. All lies. he raised just short of $6 million. he wasn't forced to do this. He just did it. what a headache and of course the press doesn't speak the T***h. Their were b****s who support and came on OPP and said he held out most of the $6 million and couldn't account for it. Nothing but lies. But we're used to it from the left. They have two of the biggest liars around for mentors, hillary and Obozo. What do you expect?
May 31, 2016 21:31:40 #
fullspinzoo wrote:
total bulls**t. Just like some, mostly the black ... (show quote)
If you are a Trump supporter then you are unlikely to accept anything that challenges your cherished narrative of the anointed one. Trouble is the Press is not going to let this latest one go. And that is the Press corps as a whole so not sure where you get this "b****s" reference from. Trump has more enemies in his own (?) party than on the other side.
May 31, 2016 22:10:44 #
eden wrote:
If you are a Trump supporter then you are unlikely to accept anything that challenges your cherished narrative of the anointed one. Trouble is the Press is not going to let this latest one go. And that is the Press corps as a whole so not sure where you get this "b****s" reference from. Trump has more enemies in his own (?) party than on the other side.
He put the Press right in their place today. he told them he wasn't going to put up with their bulls**t. i saw articles on here OPP. first of all, they cover him so inaccurately. most of what they have to say is false information. Some the AA contingency were jumping up and down, so excited that Trump had not distributed the money from the speech for the Vets ($5.6 million) and that he squandered it for himself (the guy is worth a lot money $8 billion). He doesn't need this (question of crediblity). Well he cleared it all up today. And told the Press things are not going to get any better if this bulls**t keeps up. He has a good point though. Why should want to raise money for the Vets or anyone else if this is the bulls**t they have to put up with. Nobody will even attempt to try and raise money for the Vets or anybody else. Who needs the aggravation?
Jun 1, 2016 01:31:26 #
Sounds like you put a lot of breathless faith in what this man says. Has he ever told a lie that you know of?
Wish you luck with that.
Wish you luck with that.
Jun 1, 2016 02:20:41 #
eden wrote:
Sounds like you put a lot of breathless faith in what this man says. Has he ever told a lie that you know of?
Wish you luck with that.
Wish you luck with that.
Nothing breathless about it. He is a straight shooter who tells it like it is. So different than Obama or Hillary or half those pieces of crap in Dem. dept.
Jun 1, 2016 03:42:26 #
Yes, yes, we get it that you don't like Obama or Clinton but you did not answer my question ..."Has he ever told a lie that you know of ????
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.