AZJoe
06-13-2016, 07:43 AM
"Dang that Constitution" : Response to Off-Guardian's Glorification of Hitlary
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/06/agenda-set-elect-war-hawk-sake-progress.html
Hillary Clinton is the most qualified person to “rule the world”, if she can get around the “insane” US Constitution …
The headline:
“Those out to demonise Hillary Clinton should be careful what they wish for”
“Demonise”, in this instance, seems to mean “accurately describe her political career and possible criminal activities”. If you can demonise someone by holding a mirror up to their face, chances are that person is a demon. …
“The choice of the next US president is now so stark that it’s time the left put aside its sneers and pray that this strong woman will get to rule the world”
“Rule the world?” Does the US president rule the world? I think I missed that particular UN resolution. As I recall, the POTUS doesn’t even wield supreme executive power within their own nation, the US constitution prevents that…
a bombastic orange billionaire, who sometimes seems to be running for president as an elaborate prank, and a proven corrupt and dangerous war-hawk, backed by lunatics like Victoria Nuland is indeed a stark one. Nuclear winter type stark. …
“This is a time to celebrate. At last, a woman leads a major US party to fight for the presidency.”
... It doesn’t matter who the woman is, what she has done, how much she cheats to get there. … Hillary is a woman, and thus her being president is A Good Thing…because progress. …
“as the first woman to enter the White House, she will also step through the door as by far the most qualified and experienced arrival there for generations…”
If being a shambolic Secretary of State and highly unpopular first lady makes you qualified then sure. If being proven to lie for your own benefit, time and time again, makes you “qualified”, or being firmly behind every American military intervention for the past 25 years…then I guess Hillary has qualifications to spare. …
“she’s not as radical as Sanders; she is not a natural rabble-rouser at rallies; she is the wife of a past president; she’s called “robotic” in her careful choice of words; and as a flesh-presser she warms the cockles of few hearts.”
To rephrase: You may not like her because she has no principles, is a bad public speaker, her election reeks of nepotism or she comes off as cold and sociopathic. … You MAY not like her because she planned and executed an illegal coup in Honduras, the destruction of Libya and execution of its head of state, she backed the Afghan and Iraq wars, she lied to cover up for a pedophile by blaming his 12 year old victim, the many alleged crimes, or any of the other callous and dreadful instances of dishonesty and self-aggrandisation she has taken part in. … But Toynbee knows better. She knows why you REALLY don’t like her – It’s because you’re a misogynist who doesn’t understand how tough it is for a woman …
“Unlike most, she knows how to wield the power levers, insofar as the insane US constitution allows any president to carry out their manifesto.”
The United States Constitution is insane folks. … Limiting the power of the chief executive, making them answerable to the legislative body in order to prevent tyranny? That is obviously stupid when your head of state is a WOMAN … No, that has to go. The three separate branches of government should obviously be reshaped into a supreme executive with control over both legislative and judicial bodies. After all, how can you expect to implement a “manifesto” when you don’t have absolute power?
Free speech? Well, this is an antiquated notion, from a time before “progress” when people didn’t understand what was definitively correct. Now we have reached consensus on what is “right” and what is “wrong” there is no need for freedom of speech …
Right to bear arms? Absolutely crazy. …
This frightening statement gives us a flash of the future – of the agenda already set in place. The US constitution has been largely ignored and misinterpreted for years to excuse totalitarian laws, such as the Patriot Act. But when Clinton is president, it will come under full-blown attack. …
“Rarely has any candidate so deserved their place.” …
Never before has a candidate so brazenly sold out the values they were (at best) pretending to hold dear. Never before has a candidate so artlessly and obviously lied about so many things. Never before has a candidate been so open and obvious about the Faustian pact they needed to make to get where they want to go, so obviously played the political game of the oligarchs who really run the country, in order to get her pay-off. …
“And if you want a reminder of what women like her are up against, just read the comments that will no doubt follow this.”
The comments, as you’d expect, were full of people commenting on her obvious bias, pointing out her half-truths and correcting her glaring factual errors. In the world the Guardian wants Clinton to build, this will be called “demonisation”. And it will be illegal.
https://offgraun.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/maxresdefault.jpg?w=840&h=473
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/06/agenda-set-elect-war-hawk-sake-progress.html
Hillary Clinton is the most qualified person to “rule the world”, if she can get around the “insane” US Constitution …
The headline:
“Those out to demonise Hillary Clinton should be careful what they wish for”
“Demonise”, in this instance, seems to mean “accurately describe her political career and possible criminal activities”. If you can demonise someone by holding a mirror up to their face, chances are that person is a demon. …
“The choice of the next US president is now so stark that it’s time the left put aside its sneers and pray that this strong woman will get to rule the world”
“Rule the world?” Does the US president rule the world? I think I missed that particular UN resolution. As I recall, the POTUS doesn’t even wield supreme executive power within their own nation, the US constitution prevents that…
a bombastic orange billionaire, who sometimes seems to be running for president as an elaborate prank, and a proven corrupt and dangerous war-hawk, backed by lunatics like Victoria Nuland is indeed a stark one. Nuclear winter type stark. …
“This is a time to celebrate. At last, a woman leads a major US party to fight for the presidency.”
... It doesn’t matter who the woman is, what she has done, how much she cheats to get there. … Hillary is a woman, and thus her being president is A Good Thing…because progress. …
“as the first woman to enter the White House, she will also step through the door as by far the most qualified and experienced arrival there for generations…”
If being a shambolic Secretary of State and highly unpopular first lady makes you qualified then sure. If being proven to lie for your own benefit, time and time again, makes you “qualified”, or being firmly behind every American military intervention for the past 25 years…then I guess Hillary has qualifications to spare. …
“she’s not as radical as Sanders; she is not a natural rabble-rouser at rallies; she is the wife of a past president; she’s called “robotic” in her careful choice of words; and as a flesh-presser she warms the cockles of few hearts.”
To rephrase: You may not like her because she has no principles, is a bad public speaker, her election reeks of nepotism or she comes off as cold and sociopathic. … You MAY not like her because she planned and executed an illegal coup in Honduras, the destruction of Libya and execution of its head of state, she backed the Afghan and Iraq wars, she lied to cover up for a pedophile by blaming his 12 year old victim, the many alleged crimes, or any of the other callous and dreadful instances of dishonesty and self-aggrandisation she has taken part in. … But Toynbee knows better. She knows why you REALLY don’t like her – It’s because you’re a misogynist who doesn’t understand how tough it is for a woman …
“Unlike most, she knows how to wield the power levers, insofar as the insane US constitution allows any president to carry out their manifesto.”
The United States Constitution is insane folks. … Limiting the power of the chief executive, making them answerable to the legislative body in order to prevent tyranny? That is obviously stupid when your head of state is a WOMAN … No, that has to go. The three separate branches of government should obviously be reshaped into a supreme executive with control over both legislative and judicial bodies. After all, how can you expect to implement a “manifesto” when you don’t have absolute power?
Free speech? Well, this is an antiquated notion, from a time before “progress” when people didn’t understand what was definitively correct. Now we have reached consensus on what is “right” and what is “wrong” there is no need for freedom of speech …
Right to bear arms? Absolutely crazy. …
This frightening statement gives us a flash of the future – of the agenda already set in place. The US constitution has been largely ignored and misinterpreted for years to excuse totalitarian laws, such as the Patriot Act. But when Clinton is president, it will come under full-blown attack. …
“Rarely has any candidate so deserved their place.” …
Never before has a candidate so brazenly sold out the values they were (at best) pretending to hold dear. Never before has a candidate so artlessly and obviously lied about so many things. Never before has a candidate been so open and obvious about the Faustian pact they needed to make to get where they want to go, so obviously played the political game of the oligarchs who really run the country, in order to get her pay-off. …
“And if you want a reminder of what women like her are up against, just read the comments that will no doubt follow this.”
The comments, as you’d expect, were full of people commenting on her obvious bias, pointing out her half-truths and correcting her glaring factual errors. In the world the Guardian wants Clinton to build, this will be called “demonisation”. And it will be illegal.
https://offgraun.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/maxresdefault.jpg?w=840&h=473