PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: Marine Le Pen EXPOSED [English] | Zionism and Israel

[AuH20]

[AuH20]

[AuH20]

Liberty.............Yea?!?

[AuH20]

Resist Fascism and Tyranny with the Rothschild Banker.

[osan]

I mostly avoid being petty, especially about morphology, but Chelsea Clinton is one of the few for which I will violate my own ethics.

She looks like The Joker... only far and away more freakishly nauseating. She is the singularly most hideous countenance I have ever beheld, bar none. I didn't think anything that befouling of the human retina could be possible, and yet there it is.

That alone qualifies her for a prison cell.

[osan]

I personally think it is a form of courtesy to wear the attire that makes your host comfortable when visiting and that's it if you asked me.

I think it is a far superior form of courtesy for a host to respect the choices of his guests. Honored guests are not subjected to force or other coercions.

Please don't tell us next that Obama's bowing like a cheap street ho' before the great Saudi Sausage, as if to deliver a vastly obsequious blow-job thereto was also a form of courtesy as well.

We can tell from Hillary covering her hair that hair covering is not a sign that one is pro Muslim.

One cannot tell either way. Is there humor here that is flying right over my head?

One thing for sure is that Marine Le Pen is and has always been a pro Israel zionist.

So you say. Let us assume it is so. What of it? I am neither pro- nor anti-zionist. I can consider it from many points of view and appreciate each interest.

[devil21]

Blah. I'm done with election prognostication business. I don't buy the result nor how it came to be but I guess the official result doesn't really matter when the media from every corner of the world is proclaiming a victor when the votes haven't even been counted yet. I got Brexit correct but it's been downhill from there.

[juleswin]

I think it is a far superior form of courtesy for a host to respect the choices of his guests. Honored guests are not subjected to force or other coercions.

Please don't tell us next that Obama's bowing like a cheap street ho' before the great Saudi Sausage, as if to deliver a vastly obsequious blow-job thereto was also a form of courtesy as well.

That is your opinion, personally I think its the guest's obligation to should show respect and courtesy by trying to follow the tradition of said host. Where you see capitulation, I see courtesy. Btw, I have see Obama bow to the leaders of Saudi Arabia and Japan and unless they all have 25 inch dicks, he was no where near the vicinity of a BJ.

One cannot tell either way. Is there humor here that is flying right over my head?

I was trying to point out that Hillary who is very pro Zionist and anti muslim is wearing a head scarf so wearing a head scarf doesn't make one pro muslim

So you say. Let us assume it is so. What of it? I am neither pro- nor anti-zionist. I can consider it from many points of view and appreciate each interest.

The problem with being pro zionist is that it goes against his nationalism political stance. Zionist are essentially those people who sell out their country for the state of Israel. Then again, I cant wait to hear how you appreciate a country leeching off another country in order destabilize the neighbourhood where they live, subjugate and steal land from the Palestinian people amongst many other heinous things they do

[osan]

That is your opinion, personally I think its the guest's obligation to should show respect and courtesy by trying to follow the tradition of said host. Where you see capitulation, I see courtesy. Btw, I have see Obama bow to the leaders of Saudi Arabia and Japan and unless they all have 25 inch dicks, he was no where near the vicinity of a BJ.

It is everyone's obligation to be courteous. It is called "proper manners", and that includes a host who wears things on his head that others do not.

There can be a very fine line between courteous behavior and that which is coerced, make no mistake about it. I would also add that the big-sausage Muslims of the political ilk in question are unquestionably trying to show whose sausage is biggest. That's often a centrap part of these sorts of politics, and once again very fine lines are often tread.

In the ethic of bushido, no proper host would ever dare show such disrespect as to force a guest into something they might not like to do. Fine lines exist, but in general this is the case. There are exceptions where the sausage contest is in play, which is often enough, but then it comes down to matters of will and brinksmanship to see just how close to open conflict one can bring a situation without physical hostility becoming the result. History is littered with such accounts, as are the Hollywood archives, such as the accuracy of their depictions may be.

In even judeo-christian ethics a host is behooved to behave respectfully of his guests, just as guests are of the host. Going into the temple, one is supposed to wear yarmulka. I don't recall if it is absolutely required, but if we assume so, then onus rests with one either to don or to desist from entering. But if not, then the choice is wholly up to the guest, onus resting with the host to put on his big-boy pants and CHOOSE not to take offense, regardless whether one is offered. That is called being in command of oneself. It is central to one's status as a proper warrior. Anything less reduces one to a third-rate pimp. In such matters and barring brain lesions or other circumstances that truly render a man incapable of choice (few and far between), a man is ALWAYS responsible for his attitudes, actions, and "feelings" insofar as they may or may not drive said actions. This is the way of the superior man, for his control over himself is far stronger than that of any attempt of another to control him. PERIOD.

Feel free to disagree if it please you, but anything short of this specification results in a Weakman, comparatively speaking.

I was trying to point out that Hillary who is very pro Zionist

She is? Since when? This seems very much in conflict with what I have seen, but if you can clarify this for me I would appreciate it.

and anti muslim is wearing a head scarf so wearing a head scarf doesn't make one pro muslim

Have you ever considered the possibility that Clinton is so wholly disingenuous that she would do such a thing for no other reason than appearances for the sake of cultivating her image in accord with general principles of PC? Bear in mind that her constituency is, generally speaking, a raft of FAIL-imbued nitwits into whom the OC doctrine has been very successfully and deeply trained. Therefore, her behaviors in such matters of appearance will be noticed first and foremost, substance being of little significance to these toddlers. In an environment that hails Islam on bended knee as a gentle and just religion at the same time Islamic loonies are murdering women and chromosexuals by the tens of thousands, as well as those falsely accused of the various and arbitrary sins supposedly delineated by the Great Child Rapist, do you for even a moment think that Clinton could get away without bending herownself to the expectations of those who stood to put her in the White House? Not the least chance.

That witch was dancing on a razor's edge even with some of her own. You bet your ass she knew she had to make all the best of her apparent behavior relative to the expectations of the mob. That meant making whatever false gestures in order not to incur any gratuitous and otherwise avoidable negative attention. Just look at how that idiot back-hole Colbert got stung by his own when he referred to Trump as a "cock-holster" for Putin. He will be lucky to keep his cushy job because the Chromos and other ultra-lefties are up his boot about it. THAT is the reality of pandering to a raft of volatile infants of low-caliber intellect and integrity. The slightest error in one's choices can elicit the most unexpected results, as Über-Phag Colbert has learned, much to my amusement.

Therefore, I would be careful in assuming too much about Hillary's motives in wearing the Muslim head dress. I would also add this: if she is so sensitive to courtesies, which she is not, save for the pure expediences it may provide in the advancing of her status, then why not wear a burqa? I am very serious about that. The Saudis are very hard-ass about such things with their own women, as the Wednesday lunch-hour stonings, beatings, and beheadings readily and so clearly attest. Why, in fact, send a woman at all? Why not just send a man and show true respect? As is obvious, your position has a few problems attached.

Zionist are essentially those people who sell out their country for the state of Israel.

Painting with a bit of a broad brush, don't you think? No doubt some zionists are like that, but not all, I am equally certain. I doubt all zionists see zionism as operating in a zero-sum game. Most of the Israelis I have met, all in fact so far as I can recall, just want to live without the fear of blowing up at the supermarket or being cut into lunch meat at the bus stop. Seems reasonable to me. As for "deep-state" zionism, whatever that may really mean, I am pretty confident it is no worse in the ways you seem to imtimate than any other slice of politics at that level. It's pretty much all rotten to the core, so I see nothing of particular note there. If you can provide factual instances, I will be glad to alter my view on the matter regarding any specific point.

Then again, I cant wait to hear how you appreciate a country leeching off another country in order destabilize the neighborhood where they live, subjugate and steal land from the Palestinian people amongst many other heinous things they do

You presume facts not necessarily in evidence, at least not in the ways your innuendo suggests. Jews began buying land from Arabs in the region no later than the mid-19th century. We are talking about valid purchases of land to which buyers then held title. That is not stealing, so your subtextual assertion that they are all guilty of the things you claim fails, prima facie. Have some Jews done this? I'd be surprised if it were otherwise, people being what they are when looked at statistically. In this respect, Jews are no different than anyone else; you have your cool people, your scoundrels, and everything else in between. That's life as a human being raised in the Empire way. It is part and parcel of the Empire mindset as it has existed for thousands of years. Euros do it. Afros do it. 'Murkans do it, and so forth down the list.

I could be misreading, but you seem to have a real hard-on for Jews. It's common enough, but I don't get it. But if that is how you roll, then so be it. I don't care whom one loves or hates or anything in between. It's all good for me. It's behavior to which I look when judging others, and so long as we all play nicely, love/hate as it may please thee. It's ours to choose as we please, but blanket hate does seem deleterious all around. Perhaps I am mistaken about it.

[juleswin]

It is everyone's obligation to be courteous. It is called "proper manners", and that includes a host who wears things on his head that others do not.

There can be a very fine line between courteous behavior and that which is coerced, make no mistake about it. I would also add that the big-sausage Muslims of the political ilk in question are unquestionably trying to show whose sausage is biggest. That's often a centrap part of these sorts of politics, and once again very fine lines are often tread.

In the ethic of bushido, no proper host would ever dare show such disrespect as to force a guest into something they might not like to do. Fine lines exist, but in general this is the case. There are exceptions where the sausage contest is in play, which is often enough, but then it comes down to matters of will and brinksmanship to see just how close to open conflict one can bring a situation without physical hostility becoming the result. History is littered with such accounts, as are the Hollywood archives, such as the accuracy of their depictions may be.

In even judeo-christian ethics a host is behooved to behave respectfully of his guests, just as guests are of the host. Going into the temple, one is supposed to wear yarmulka. I don't recall if it is absolutely required, but if we assume so, then onus rests with one either to don or to desist from entering. But if not, then the choice is wholly up to the guest, onus resting with the host to put on his big-boy pants and CHOOSE not to take offense, regardless whether one is offered. That is called being in command of oneself. It is central to one's status as a proper warrior. Anything less reduces one to a third-rate pimp. In such matters and barring brain lesions or other circumstances that truly render a man incapable of choice (few and far between), a man is ALWAYS responsible for his attitudes, actions, and "feelings" insofar as they may or may not drive said actions. This is the way of the superior man, for his control over himself is far stronger than that of any attempt of another to control him. PERIOD.

Feel free to disagree if it please you, but anything short of this specification results in a Weakman, comparatively speaking.




She is? Since when? This seems very much in conflict with what I have seen, but if you can clarify this for me I would appreciate it.



Have you ever considered the possibility that Clinton is so wholly disingenuous that she would do such a thing for no other reason than appearances for the sake of cultivating her image in accord with general principles of PC? Bear in mind that her constituency is, generally speaking, a raft of FAIL-imbued nitwits into whom the OC doctrine has been very successfully and deeply trained. Therefore, her behaviors in such matters of appearance will be noticed first and foremost, substance being of little significance to these toddlers. In an environment that hails Islam on bended knee as a gentle and just religion at the same time Islamic loonies are murdering women and chromosexuals by the tens of thousands, as well as those falsely accused of the various and arbitrary sins supposedly delineated by the Great Child Rapist, do you for even a moment think that Clinton could get away without bending herownself to the expectations of those who stood to put her in the White House? Not the least chance.

That witch was dancing on a razor's edge even with some of her own. You bet your ass she knew she had to make all the best of her apparent behavior relative to the expectations of the mob. That meant making whatever false gestures in order not to incur any gratuitous and otherwise avoidable negative attention. Just look at how that idiot back-hole Colbert got stung by his own when he referred to Trump as a "cock-holster" for Putin. He will be lucky to keep his cushy job because the Chromos and other ultra-lefties are up his boot about it. THAT is the reality of pandering to a raft of volatile infants of low-caliber intellect and integrity. The slightest error in one's choices can elicit the most unexpected results, as Über-Phag Colbert has learned, much to my amusement.

Therefore, I would be careful in assuming too much about Hillary's motives in wearing the Muslim head dress. I would also add this: if she is so sensitive to courtesies, which she is not, save for the pure expediences it may provide in the advancing of her status, then why not wear a burqa? I am very serious about that. The Saudis are very hard-ass about such things with their own women, as the Wednesday lunch-hour stonings, beatings, and beheadings readily and so clearly attest. Why, in fact, send a woman at all? Why not just send a man and show true respect? As is obvious, your position has a few problems attached.




Painting with a bit of a broad brush, don't you think? No doubt some zionists are like that, but not all, I am equally certain. I doubt all zionists see zionism as operating in a zero-sum game. Most of the Israelis I have met, all in fact so far as I can recall, just want to live without the fear of blowing up at the supermarket or being cut into lunch meat at the bus stop. Seems reasonable to me. As for "deep-state" zionism, whatever that may really mean, I am pretty confident it is no worse in the ways you seem to imtimate than any other slice of politics at that level. It's pretty much all rotten to the core, so I see nothing of particular note there. If you can provide factual instances, I will be glad to alter my view on the matter regarding any specific point.



You presume facts not necessarily in evidence, at least not in the ways your innuendo suggests. Jews began buying land from Arabs in the region no later than the mid-19th century. We are talking about valid purchases of land to which buyers then held title. That is not stealing, so your subtextual assertion that they are all guilty of the things you claim fails, prima facie. Have some Jews done this? I'd be surprised if it were otherwise, people being what they are when looked at statistically. In this respect, Jews are no different than anyone else; you have your cool people, your scoundrels, and everything else in between. That's life as a human being raised in the Empire way. It is part and parcel of the Empire mindset as it has existed for thousands of years. Euros do it. Afros do it. 'Murkans do it, and so forth down the list.

I could be misreading, but you seem to have a real hard-on for Jews. It's common enough, but I don't get it. But if that is how you roll, then so be it. I don't care whom one loves or hates or anything in between. It's all good for me. It's behavior to which I look when judging others, and so long as we all play nicely, love/hate as it may please thee. It's ours to choose as we please, but blanket hate does seem deleterious all around. Perhaps I am mistaken about it.

This has to be the most bizarre posting I have read in a while. I cannot for the life of me believe what I reading. Are you asking me what proof I have to show that Hillary is a zionist? and the Israelis who stole and continue to steal Palestinian lands want to live in peace. Ofc they want to live in peace the same way a man who is squatting in your winter holiday house wants to live in peace.

This is the type of posts that make me weep for this nation. The fact that there are people out there who see no problem with people whose allegiance is to another nation having positions of importance in the US.

I will try and give you a proper reply when I am finally convinced this is not some sort of wind up to mess with me.

[osan]

This has to be the most bizarre posting I have read in a while. I cannot for the life of me believe what I reading. Are you asking me what proof I have to show that Hillary is a zionist? and the Israelis who stole and continue to steal Palestinian lands want to live in peace. Ofc they want to live in peace the same way a man who is squatting in your winter holiday house wants to live in peace.

This is the type of posts that make me weep for this nation. The fact that there are people out there who see no problem with people whose allegiance is to another nation having positions of importance in the US.

I will try and give you a proper reply when I am finally convinced this is not some sort of wind up to mess with me.

Please do give a detailed response. I'm not messing with you or anyone else. I posited valid points and all you have done is call it "bizarre". You seem to think Jews are some special evil in the world. Some certainly are, I can attest to that first hand. Others are clearly not, so your apparent subtone of "they all look the same to me" doesn't track with good reason and positive experience. If you're not of that mind, you should do a better job of making it clear. I won't go so far as to say you come off like someone who dresses up in an SS uniform and prances about the house with a great strap-on attached, but you seem to give a vague signal of broadly cast dislike for Jews. It's all OK with me, mind you, but I tend to take people as individuals in preference to the blanketry that you SEEM to display. Once again, if I misread your tone, blame the medium and be mindful of how easily tone can run off the rails in text-based communications.

Also, what in hell is so bizarre about favoring good manners? The world could use a good dose of it, IMO, as people have largely gotten out of the practice.

Finally, are you suggesting Jews were not validly purchasing land in Judea as I stated?

[juleswin]

The problem I have with some of your posts is one they are unnecessarily long, goes on tangents and uses references/idioms/sayings/axioms/abbreviations that are confusing to me. You get a quicker response from if you you cut some(not all) of those out and try and speak more plainly and concise to me. I want to respond to you but I don't want it to seem like I am picking and choosing point to rebut when the truth is that I just don't understand how to respond to the parts or find it to be fluff that is irrelevant to the discussion that I forced to ignore it.

It is everyone's obligation to be courteous. It is called "proper manners", and that includes a host who wears things on his head that others do not.

My whole point with the head covering of Hillary is that it is a sign of courtesy to the host country and their tradition. I think it is proper manner to show respect to your host and you think it is a sign of weakness. I think both points are opinion based and because of that I see no point in arguing further, we would just have to agree to disagree on this. Crap, just one illustration of my point, take me for example, I expect anyone coming into my house to take his shoes off at the door, I don't force this on anyone but if you refuse to take your shoes off, I will never invite you again to my house. The courtesy is for the guest to oblige to this rule and for me as host not to cold clock the shoe wearer in the face.

She is? Since when? This seems very much in conflict with what I have seen, but if you can clarify this for me I would appreciate it.

Actually this is the part that makes me wonder if you are trying to wind me up. The history of Hillary sucking up to AIPAC, Israel and other Zionist interest is very well documented. Just type AIPAC and Hillary to youtube search engine and listen to the biannual appearance of this woman where she can be heard explaining the many ways he can serve Israel better than any other politician. If video format is not your friend, try googling. And if after giving it a try and you still don't find evidence of Hillary being a Zionist, then I will help you out.

Also, I would really appreciate it if you can point t me the evidence that contradicts the idea that Hillary Clinton is a Zionist. You don't have to hold my hands, just point to me to the direction and I will go from there. I have done my little research and found nothing. Btw, connections to the Israeli ally and Iranian hater Saudi Arabian is not a sign that she isn't a Zionist.

Have you ever considered the possibility that Clinton is so wholly disingenuous that she would do such a thing for no other reason than appearances for the sake of cultivating her image in accord with general principles of PC? Bear in mind that her constituency is, generally speaking, a raft of FAIL-imbued nitwits into whom the OC doctrine has been very successfully and deeply trained

What is an OC doctrine? obsessive compulsive? orange county? original character? Its proper etiquette to first write out the full word of an abbreviation before using it especially when it is not a commonly used one. But to your other point, are you saying that she is pretending to support/show courtesy to the Saudis by covering her hair when the majority her constituents mostly hate Saudi Arabia and support Palestine? How is any of that supposed to help her with her fan base? Maybe if I understood what OC doctrine meant, that line of thinking would make better sense.

In an environment that hails Islam on bended knee as a gentle and just religion at the same time Islamic loonies are murdering women and chromosexuals by the tens of thousands[hyperbole alert], as well as those falsely accused of the various and arbitrary sins supposedly delineated by the Great Child Rapist, do you for even a moment think that Clinton could get away without bending herownself to the expectations of those who stood to put her in the White House? Not the least chance.

What if I told you that the most extreme and violent form of Islam were supported, funded and promoted by the US govt, Israel and her gulf state allies would you believe me? when the left talk about the peace loving Muslims, I can assure you that they are not talking about the Takfiri(google it), wahhabi western supported Islam.

Therefore, I would be careful in assuming too much about Hillary's motives in wearing the Muslim head dress. I would also add this: if she is so sensitive to courtesies, which she is not, save for the pure expediences it may provide in the advancing of her status, then why not wear a burqa? I am very serious about that. The Saudis are very hard-ass about such things with their own women, as the Wednesday lunch-hour stonings, beatings, and beheadings readily and so clearly attest. Why, in fact, send a woman at all? Why not just send a man and show true respect? As is obvious, your position has a few problems attached.

Well, it turns out that is the extend to which she decided to show courtesy to her host. Contrary to popular beliefs, not all women have to wear burqas in Saudi Arabia. My mom never wore one when visiting my dad. You mainly have to dress modestly and I think cover the hair. So if it is not compulsory to wear a burqa, why do you expect Hillary to wear one? this line of thinking makes no sense what so ever. Its like saying, one favors donating to charity so he/she should donate all their money to charity to show some sincerity with the original statement. Sorry but that not how it works. But your opposition to my assumption of why Hillary is wearing a head scarf is an assumption too. Ditto to being careful about assumptions, my only advise is to use common sense and leave it at that.

Painting with a bit of a broad brush, don't you think? No doubt some zionists are like that, but not all, I am equally certain. I doubt all zionists see zionism as operating in a zero-sum game. Most of the Israelis I have met, all in fact so far as I can recall, just want to live without the fear of blowing up at the supermarket or being cut into lunch meat at the bus stop. Seems reasonable to me. As for "deep-state" zionism, whatever that may really mean, I am pretty confident it is no worse in the ways you seem to imtimate than any other slice of politics at that level. It's pretty much all rotten to the core, so I see nothing of particular note there. If you can provide factual instances, I will be glad to alter my view on the matter regarding any specific point.

We got to be careful here cos I can see where this conversation is leading. You first start with conflating Zionists with Israelis and next all jews and before you know it, someone would be playing the racists card on me. For the record, my main disagreement is with the Zionists, not Israelis and definitely not the jews. Now if there are any Zionists out there that isn't trying to leech from the US tax payers, killing and stealing Palestinian lands/other Middle East countries, coercing our elected officials to joining in their plans to destabilize the middle east, then those particular Zionists are not my main problem. Your confidence in the harmlessness of the Zionist is no reassurance to me and your false equivalency is the most annoying tactic of them all i.e. pretending all forms of evil are the same. Provide factual instance of what exactly? Then again, I am afraid that they way you talk, no form of evidence short of a video with a scary looking man stroking his long beard while wearing a shirt with zionist written on it and talking about how his form of evil is the worst kind would suffice.

You presume facts not necessarily in evidence, at least not in the ways your innuendo suggests. Jews began buying land from Arabs in the region no later than the mid-19th century. We are talking about valid purchases of land to which buyers then held title. That is not stealing, so your subtextual assertion that they are all guilty of the things you claim fails, prima facie. Have some Jews done this? I'd be surprised if it were otherwise, people being what they are when looked at statistically. In this respect, Jews are no different than anyone else; you have your cool people, your scoundrels, and everything else in between. That's life as a human being raised in the Empire way. It is part and parcel of the Empire mindset as it has existed for thousands of years. Euros do it. Afros do it. 'Murkans do it, and so forth down the list.


I could be misreading, but you seem to have a real hard-on for Jews. It's common enough, but I don't get it. But if that is how you roll, then so be it. I don't care whom one loves or hates or anything in between. It's all good for me. It's behavior to which I look when judging others, and so long as we all play nicely, love/hate as it may please thee. It's ours to choose as we please, but blanket hate does seem deleterious all around. Perhaps I am mistaken about it.

This is laughable, well I am sure some American slave traders genuinely hired some African workers but pretending the vast majority weren't stolen is on the same level as believing your story that any of the lands being contested now was bought fair and square in the free market. Also let the record state that I wasn't the one who brought jews into the conversation, it was Osan. Also you don't care who I love or hate but just care enough to to me with a 2000 word post. Nothings says I don't care like a 2000 worded response


Lastly, I would advise you to look up the Balfour declaration, the Benjamin Freedman speech, the greater Israel project, Yinon plan, Project for a new american century etc.

[osan]

My whole point with the head covering of Hillary is that it is a sign of courtesy to the host country and their tradition. I think it is proper manner to show respect to your host and you think it is a sign of weakness.

It's very much a matter of overall context. In global politics, the measure of one's sausage is central to many diplomatic interactions. That is observable fact. Should it be that way? Probably not. But it is.

I do not for a moment believe that her donning of a hijab is an act of courtesy/respect. It is the pure self-service of a woman with no shred of basic decency of which to speak, so far as I can tell. OTOH, I don't follow even worthwhile people with my nose in their butts, much less someone who appears to me to be such a low-life as Hillary Clinton, so perhaps I have no idea what I am talking about. I can only go by the limited information I have. I can say, however, that what I do know of her all speaks to her low-rent character. Perhaps I have it all wrong and she is Mother Teresa's long lost twin. I am sure you know better than I, and I am not being sarcastic.

I think both points are opinion based and because of that I see no point in arguing further, we would just have to agree to disagree on this. Crap, just one illustration of my point, take me for example, I expect anyone coming into my house to take his shoes off at the door, I don't force this on anyone but if you refuse to take your shoes off, I will never invite you again to my house. The courtesy is for the guest to oblige to this rule and for me as host not to cold clock the shoe wearer in the face.

And if you go back to what I wrote, I was emphatic that it's everyone's obligation to be courteous. I also made it clear that contextual elements alter the landscape, sometimes with some extremity.

Actually this is the part that makes me wonder if you are trying to wind me up. The history of Hillary sucking up to AIPAC, Israel and other Zionist interest is very well documented.

Do you think she doesn't have her wretched pie-hole clamped tightly to the Islamic knob, too? We are talking about a frothing-at-the-mouth opportunist with what is possibly the most pronouncedly shameless streak of pragmatism I've ever witnessed. Now, one thing I HAVE seen in her, as I have in many other of her ilk (politicians) is her willingness to assert 'A' at, say, AIPAC, and ten minutes later assert 'not A' at CAIR, with equally faked sincerity. This is what people such as Clinton DO.

Also, I would really appreciate it if you can point t me the evidence that contradicts the idea that Hillary Clinton is a Zionist. You don't have to hold my hands, just point to me to the direction and I will go from there. I have done my little research and found nothing. Btw, connections to the Israeli ally and Iranian hater Saudi Arabian is not a sign that she isn't a Zionist.

I don't believe I wrote that she wasn't - I just don't personally know that she is... at least not any more than most other politicians who kiss the ass-du-jour in the interest of reelection. But again I ask, so what if she is? Is there a specific and valid reason that this renders a human being worse than another? Were you a zionist Jew, your world view would likely take the reality of the US/Israel relationship as perfectly reasonable. Besides, if they can manage to keep Big Bro funding their national defense, why would you blame THEM? I'd be more pissed at the boot-hole Americans and their illustrious "representatives" for allowing the coffers to be drained in that direction.

I dunno - I'm neutral on the Israel thing. In the grander scheme of things, they are small change in terms of what America does and how it spends its monies. If you feel differently, I can accept it. We all have our special issues.

What is an OC doctrine?

My bad. PC is what I meant. Typo. Pardon me, please.

are you saying that she is pretending to support/show courtesy to the Saudis by covering her hair when the majority her constituents mostly hate Saudi Arabia and support Palestine?

Most of her constituents are slavish adherents to political correctness. They are largely unsound, mentally speaking, based on what I have been able to observe. Just one bit of strong evidence of this lies in the fact that her women supporters, as well as those of the various gay flavors are very vociferous in their support of Islam. A cursory examination of youtube should provide abundant evidence of this. How in hell, pray you tell me, can any chromosexual defend Islam when an enormous chunk of it tosses people of that ilk off roof tops? How can any woman worthy of the appellation "intelligent" support Islam when its basic legal architecture demands women be stoned to death for having been raped, or for the temerity to stick their noses out the door without a male chaperone? That's the reality of the "left" and that was the point in my reference to Colbert's richly deserved smack-down by the people who are ordinarily eager to get friendly with his sausage. We are talking about people who are mentally deranged. I have no softer way of putting it that would not lose essential impact.

What if I told you that the most extreme and violent form of Islam were supported, funded and promoted by the US govt, Israel and her gulf state allies would you believe me? when the left talk about the peace loving Muslims, I can assure you that they are not talking about the Takfiri(google it), wahhabi western supported Islam.

Wouldn't surprise me at all, given the nature of politics. It seems clear we pretty well founded "ISIS" etc., if wikileaks documents are to be trusted - and I am not quite 100% confident in them. 99.9% perhaps, but given the stakes in question, nothing would surprise me, including the possibility that someone, somewhere, has devised a reliable and fast method for hacking hash functions such that emails could be reliably falsified. Not likely, given my once strong understanding of the mathematics, but not quite impossible, either.

Well, it turns out that is the extend to which she decided to show courtesy to her host. Contrary to popular beliefs, not all women have to wear burqas in Saudi Arabia. My mom never wore one when visiting my dad. You mainly have to dress modestly and I think cover the hair. So if it is not compulsory to wear a burqa, why do you expect Hillary to wear one?

If this far, why not that far?

this line of thinking makes no sense what so ever.

It makes perfect sense precisely because it speaks to the location of bright lines in the sand, as well as consistency with purported reasons for taking given actions. If this far, why not that? If Clinton is so passionate about courtesy, knowing the current demands of sharia, why should be not wear a burqa? Why does she so much as befoul the host nation with her presence, given they feel women have no place in anything but a kitchen, or on their backs on demand? Her acts reek of the disingenuous. To judge her motives as you have seems extremely naive, at best. There is nothing of Clinton's behaviors that suggests to me she knows the first thing about respect.

We got to be careful here cos I can see where this conversation is leading. You first start with conflating Zionists with Israelis and next all jews and before you know it, someone would be playing the racists card on me.

You've misread my meanings somewhere. I'm not conflating anything... at least no intentionally.

For the record, my main disagreement is with the Zionists, not Israelis and definitely not the jews.

OK, that's good to know. Clarification noted.

Now if there are any Zionists out there that isn't trying to leech from the US tax payers, killing and stealing Palestinian lands/other Middle East countries, coercing our elected officials to joining in their plans to destabilize the middle east, then those particular Zionists are not my main problem. Your confidence in the harmlessness of the Zionist is no reassurance to me and your false equivalency is the most annoying tactic of them all i.e. pretending all forms of evil are the same. Provide factual instance of what exactly? Then again, I am afraid that they way you talk, no form of evidence short of a video with a scary looking man stroking his long beard while wearing a shirt with zionist written on it and talking about how his form of evil is the worst kind would suffice.

I am not "clear" that zionists are harmless. Some certainly have not been. I certainly have no great affection for men line Begin, but I am also able to see things from their POV. I may not necessarily agree with them, but I can place myself in their shoes a bit and understand how they might think as they do.

This is laughable

Perhaps, but what do you say to the Jews who bought property, only to be driven away by the Arabs? The blade cuts in all directions.

The bottom line is that all populations have their distributions with serious $#@!s at one end and equally god at the other. As to where the mean lies, THAT is the $64 consideration.