Blog powered by Typepad

« Your Monday Funnies: 8.8.16 | Main | If you no likee, you fuck offee! »

Monday, 08 August 2016

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

No, she is not well. Not morally, spiritually, or physically. Our MSM well go to any length to cover for her, or accommodate her just through the election. Autocrats control everything and she is one on her best day. The other days she is worse. Away from the handrails, my wife has to have the same assistance on a stair way. A DVT and several bad falls will leave you that way.

Interesting stuff, DD. I had read various comments, but tended to dismiss them as the usual character-assasination. But there are a lot of links that can be followed, and they lead to a thriving industry of people who are convinced that she does indeed have a health problem or two. There is of course no way of finding out the truth, but as you say, it's all a bit worrying.

Still prefer her over Trump?

HillBilly (both of them) appear to have multiple health "issues", including, but not limited to, sex addiction of a (shall we say?) non-traditional flavor. I am not an M.D. (though I am a Ph.D.), so I am sure HRC would demand a second opinion.

My second opinion is that she is very ugly.

The psychoanalysis of neurotics has taught us to recognize the intimate connection between wetting the bed and the character trait of ambition.
Sigmund Freud

Clinton laundry bills could be a real giveaway.

The Yanks need Trump for the USA to move forward. The Clintons and Obama have overseen unprecedented attacks on USA citizens by Islamist fundamentalists. Trump needs a chance or the USA will be attacked internally on a daily basis.

Jimmy, it seems the attacks are coming from all sides against Trump. We may have an irreversible split in the R party. The Dems are united, at least in public, behind a pathological liar and felon. Personally, I'll take the split.

Hope you've been well. I don't see you as often as before.

The right wing faithful believe corporate media conspire to flack for "liberals" including Hillary who is also, paradoxically, a tool of Wall Street. It's always helpful to remember faith is belief without the rigors imposed by reason or evidence:

https://ballotpedia.org/The_media%27s_coverage_of_Hillary_Clinton

She could quite possibly have health problems. However, voters will have to balance that possibility against Trump's glaring personality disorders and appalling ignorance. Until November we will be amused by the endlessly cathartic and unhinged sniping, whining, moaning and griping of the American right.

I hope that her VP candidate was selected for some ability to be president not just look pretty.

But then if Mrs. Clinton lives long enough to take the oath on Jan 20 and falls over, the main goal of the campaign will have been accomplished and her reputation will be forever glorified with accounts of what she might have accomplished rather than an embarrassing list of failures.


Now this is ancient history and I'm sure the network in question destroyed the tape.

Way back when, when Bill Clinton got enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination.. The network set up fixed camera, which was broadcasting, pointed at the podium where Clinton and Chelsea were taking the approal of the crownd, all nomal.

But Mrs Clinton thinking she was off camera, was in plain view having what looked, to my non medical opinion< like a massive stress induced nervice break down. That was well before the current health issues.

"My second opinion is that she is very ugly."

TBH that would have been my first opinion. Ugly both in temperament and looks.

AussieD,

There are so many opinions to choose
from, it's hard to prioritize them,
since the ugliness is so pervasive.


Oh I don't know it looks from that single picture Hillary's general health is that much different than hers appeared last week.

Might've been though had I been advising, she'd taken the left turn and remained with the lesbians rather than, right into the path of the gay buggers.

Then again; if there's anything Hillary has wanted to present to the general public, she's that success to rest her laurels on.

For the purposes of this comment David, You'd be the general public ... you would I suppose given the opportunity to ... Support Hillary Again?

Yeah David I imagine it's a shitty prospect but then Bob appreciates wherever quarter the gains come from.

Just please - don't y'all make a YouTube.

Some may call it personality disorder, I call it not suffering fools. Trump may be ignorant, but ignorance can be educated.
I am not so concerned about health issues as I am about a fundamental lack of moral fiber and integrity. The woman does not know any better, she is a congenital liar. She has in her official capacity as SoS put our country at risk and as a consequence there is a good chance lives have been lost, apart from the Benghazi debacle. The Nuremberg twenty-four had a better excuse for their crimes.

Will they have the Clinton robot ready to replace her before the Inauguration?

JK, since David has no vote in our presidential election my appreciation is limited to his not supporting US political suicide. It's possible he's only thinking of himself and just doesn't want Europe nuked, though:

"Donald Trump has refused to rule out dropping a nuclear bomb on Europe, saying he is not willing to “take any cards off the table”.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-refuses-to-rule-out-using-nuclear-weapons-in-attack-on-europe-a6961101.html

Well Bob, it would appear you ain't been keeping up with what Trump had in mind when he was talking about nuking Europe.

You do recall pre-Brexit Germany threatening to kidnap Great Britain and hold the UK hostage is some as yet undisclosed location in France with, the ransom demands to be handled by the Luxembourgians?

But then the GBP (Greater British Public) egged on by the likes of our host gathered up its collective balls and fought the Kaiserin off?

The result being England was freed from its enslavement and other terrible calamitous possibilities as LoZ maybe attaining some high office in Brussels?

Now that England is safe Bob - I kinda figure Trump won't be bothering nobody much (in Europe anyway) with nuclear annihilation.

JK,

This hangup about "Trump threatening to nuke Europe" is just a Leftist bit of complete rubbish. Trump has made no such threat.

The notion that no place on Earth is off limits for nuclear retaliatory annihilation is the basis for the well-established concept of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). MAD is the only reason that the stupid Left is still alive today to make their demented assertions.

Well TheBigHenry I think it's even more apt to describe as silly or maybe, simple claptrappery. That anybody took the notion even half seriously beggars belief.

JK,

The notional basis for the concept of MAD has to be taken seriously in order for MAD to function as intended -- namely, as a deterrent against a nuclear first strike. This is what has saved the world from nuclear holocaust since the time in the early 1950s when the Soviet Union became the second nuclear power. Thankfully, MAD has continued to function because every current nuclear power has been sane enough not to resort to a first strike, for fear of a retaliatory annihilation. Iran, however, which 0bama has seen fit to allow the development of nuclear weapons, may become the first nuclear power in history to contemplate a first strike (against Israel).

But the Left's assertion that Trump has threatened to nuke Europe is mendacious bullshit. Trump's acknowledgment that the United States will abide by the principles of MAD is simply his intention to continue a policy that has been in place for more than half a century.

Henry,

Sorry about not being clearer about what it was JK was referring to as silly - the subject of your second paragraph at 2346.

The concept of MAD as deterrent only works as you say. And I'm confident Trump feels the same way we do.

...

By the bye & incidentally. JK was on another site earlier today where the larger portion of the commentors are American blacks and one of the guys JK more frequently repartees with used a term for Trump JK found himself both ignorant of but also mildly amused ...

"The Cinnamon Hitler"

JK doesn't know to reckon whether it was a Godwin Law invocation or what but, as JK typed above it was amusing to a degree.

Why is JK talking in the third person now?
Is this JK an impostor?

Maybe "JK" is warming up to 'Latinize' his name?

JK doesn't think it appropriate to use the word "I" is all. Smacks of pride which JK reckons isn't appropriate seein' as how y'all demean standard Arkianese when such occurs.

It's fascinating that you Trump fans can rationalize any crazy thing he says. However, there are conservatives who disagree:

'Fifty of the nation’s most senior Republican national security officials, many of them former top aides or cabinet members for President George W. Bush, have signed a letter declaring that Donald J. Trump “lacks the character, values and experience” to be president and “would put at risk our country’s national security and well-being.”

Mr. Trump, the officials warn, “would be the most reckless president in American history.”'

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/09/us/politics/national-security-gop-donald-trump.html?_r=1

Steady the Buffs Bob.

The last embedded link on this post, the one credited to Ryan Landry:

http://malcolmpollack.com/2016/08/06/homeward-bound/

"Why is JK talking in the third person now?"

Booze.

JK, alas, I lack the authority to calm American security forces at even the lowest levels. Why not give it a try yourself by sending the CIA and NSA a link to Landry's ruminations? Surely they'll be greatly relieved to finally understand what's going on in the world.

Actually Dom it's quite the opposite. Alcohol hasn't passed JK's gullet since July 17th.

Well except for some stuff that purports to be 'NA' beer ... that is the company brews the stuff states on the label the 'NA' means its "mostly non-alcohol" but I spoke with one of the company's chemists (why would a "beermaker" employ chemists? Because American beermakers have largely switched to the more tightly controlled ethanol producers to supply a known percentage of alcohol content. Anyhey, ethanol production is US gov subsidized anyway so it's a win-win)

Anyway the company chemist advised me it'd take thirteen 12 oz bottles of the NA swill to be equivalent [in alcohol content] to a single serving of my former favorite beverage.

So Dom? Try again.

Can't do that Bob. All I have email addresses for is DIA.

Dom apologizes.

The comments to this entry are closed.