Hillary is Pimping the Pimping Out Remark
Feb 9, 2008 Political
A great deal has been made about the comment that was made by David Shuster of PMS NBC when he said that it appeared as if the Clinton campaign was sort of pimping out Chelsea. This caused a firestorm among the liberals who are uninformed about the newer meaning of those words. They insist that Shuster was calling Chelsea a whore. I can see how they would make that mistake since the Clintons have been whoring themselves out since they started in public life. Everyone knows that the Clintons are available to the highest bidder. Regardless of what the Clinton whoring class thinks, the reality remains that Shuster meant she [Chelsea] was being used.
The interesting thing is that the Clinton folks say they did not know what the phrase “pimping out” meant which I find interesting because that is all they do. Case in point, Hillary is pimping the attention to this to make PMS NBC look like a bunch of sexist pigs so she can score big with the women, especially the feminists who are always itching for a reason to bash a man. Unfortunately, it was probably a man who had to explain what pimping out meant.
Hillary is certainly pimping out the who issue (using it for those who still don’t know) by sending a letter to PMS NBC. Ti Hillary, it was not enough for her to have received an apology and for Shuster to get suspended. The letter does not exactly make it clear what she wants but it makes very clear that Hillary is pimping this for all it is worth. She states that she found the remarks offensive (even though none of them knew what they meant) and she wants everyone to know she was a mother first. She stated that she is in public life and can take the heat but that it is unfair to attack her daughter who is only helping with a campaign.
For the record, Shuster did not attack the fragile flower known as Chelsea. His statement was about Hillary. He asked if Chelsea was being pimped out [by her mother] in some weird sort of way. That is not an attack on Chelsea, it is a statement about the campaign and what it looks like to him. But the Clintons were never ones to let the facts get in the way of anything.
If I ran PMS NBC I would not have suspended Shuster or made him apologize (same with Chris Matthews for that matter). However, that is a decision made by the company and it is within their rights though it is certain that the decision was not made based upon right or wrong, only on how the company might lose money if “thick skinned” Hillary decided not to participate in debates.
What I would do if I ran the network is tell Hillary Clinton she is free to participate if she wants or to not participate if she does not want to but that the debate will go on with or without her. I would let her know that the network is in charge of how it is run and not a political candidate. Then, if she did not show I would give Barack Obama the debate time to answer questions and allow him as much time as he wanted to attack Clinton. All those attacks would go unanswered and then Hillary would see what hardball really is.
I cannot stand these people. They are such hypocrites. Hillary talks about the appropriateness of words used when she drops F bombs all the time. She and her husband have floated inappropriate word choices throughout this campaign and apologize if they receive backlash. They are using a comment about using someone to their advantage. In other words, she is pimping the pimping out remark.
Educated people who pay attention to our culture know what this phrase meant. I would say however, that the campaign had a legitimate argument if the comment was made about Bill Clinton because when you talk pimp in reference to him it is about sex.
Source:
The Politico
Related:
Political Punch
Tags: debate, Hillary, mommy dearest, msnbc, pimping out
Irony Stabs Clinton in the Back
Feb 7, 2008 Political
Today MoveOn.org endorsed Senator Barack Obama for president of the United States.
In a vote of the group’s members, Mr. Obama outpaced Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton 70 percent to 30 percent. The political action committee of MoveOn.org has 3.2 million members across the country, including 1.7 million members who live in the 22 states with Democratic primaries or caucuses on Tuesday.
“Our members’ endorsement of Senator Obama is a clear call for a new America at this critical moment in history,†said Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn. He added, “The enormity of the challenges require someone who knows how to inspire millions to get involved to change the direction of our country, and someone who will be willing to change business as usual in Washington.†NYT
Now it is not unusual for these far out, left wing lunatic organizations to endorse an extremely liberal candidate but the irony is, MoveOn exists because of Bill Clinton. The group was began when founders started a petition drive to keep Bill Clinton from being impeached. Their petition called for the Congress to censure Clinton and move on.
It is no secret that the morons at MoveOn oppose the war (they are an anti American communist group) so it is no surprise that they would not back Senator Clinton because she voted for the war and has refused to say her vote was a mistake. MoveOn decided to endorse a candidate who has no real record on the war because he was not in the Senate at the time. He might have expressed his objection at the time but there is no telling what he would have done if he were a Senator so his position is irrelevant.
However, MoveOn decided to endorse him which shows they do not trust Hillary to end the war or that they believe his plan for ending it more than they believe hers.
When one considers that this group was formed to prevent Bill Clinton from being impeached for lying under oath (the same thing that earned Scooter Libby jail time, for which liberals cheered) it is amazing that they would rebuff Hillary because of her dishonesty about the war. I just find it extremely ironic that they started defending Bill and abandoned Hillary.
She has to be taking gas about now.
Of course, this group defended a lying rapist so I am not sure they did Obama a favor. BTW, where were they to ask Congress to censure Scooter Libby and move on?
Tags: endorsement, Hillary, move on, Obama
Some of Hillary’s Staff Working for Free
Feb 6, 2008 Political
With Barack Obama collecting $32 million in January and on pace to collect another $30 million in February, Senator Clinton is feeling a bit cash strapped. The heir apparent to the throne has evidently run low on cash and has taken two measures to try and remain competitive. She loaned her campaign $5 million of her own money. Clinton also has several staffers working for free. Seems to me with a net worth of about $41 million (not including the $20 million Bill is set to get from a deal) she could have loaned her campaign a bit more so she could pay her workers.
When the presidential race started out Clinton raised millions of dollars with relative ease from the collection of friends she and Bill made over the years. Then, Barack Obama started raising cash and people started giving even more to him. He has been able to raise astronomical amounts of money while it appears as if the Clinton machine is sputtering along.
This season we are sure to see the first $1 billion dollar president. Imagine that, 1 billion dollars to become president. That is absolutely obscene and only reinforces the idea that the average person could never hope to run for that high office. Amazingly, the money is being raised while we are supposed to be heading for recession.
I imagine the economy is not as bad as the media makes it out to be though it is having troubles. However, just like when Bill ran, the media is ginning up a bad economy to help a Democrat win. Let’s face it, if it were as bad as they say, people worried about gas, food, and electric bills then they would not be able to donate the huge amounts of money they are giving.
As for Hillary, she had millions of dollars and now she is running low on cash. She does have a history of spending as she did on her last Senate race. She spent 10 million dollars on a race she was going to win handily in order to get an even larger margin of victory so she would appear more appealing as a presidential candidate. Now she has spent so much that she loaned her own money to the campaign.
But why only $5 million? Why not more? I mean, if she is the best thing for this country and ready to lead from day one then wouldn’t she want to get as much money out there so she could win? Id she truly only cares about the American people (and don’t forget the children) then why does she not spend her entire fortune to get elected?
Of course, she will get a bump in donations after yesterday’s primary but it will not match what Obama raises. He won more states and he won more delegates and she only won the popular vote total by a little more than 53,000. Obama is on a roll and it is possible he will beat her for the nomination. If he leads in the delegate count (not including Super Delegates) going into a brokered convention the DNC is going to have one hell of a time if they decide to go with Hillary.
This campaign was supposed to be a cake walk for Hillary. She was the front runner for quite some time and she raised a lot of money. This was all supposed to be wrapped up after yesterday’s multi state primary and yet she is locked in a virtual dead heat with an opponent who has much more money on hand and is getting even more. After watching the supposed next president blow millions of dollars for a dead heat, after watching her get little bang for the buck, one needs to ask:
Is this the person we want managing our money at the federal level? Imagine the damage she could do if she got her hands on the huge budget of the United States…
I guess her 35 years of experience did not teach her how to manage money. That is what happens when nearly all your life you spend other people’s money.
But hell, the least she could do is dig into her bank account and pay her staff.
Tags: broke, campaign funds, free workers, Hillary, obama winning
Hillary’s Socialist Ways “I will Take Your Money”
Feb 3, 2008 Political
At the risk of sounding sad but entertaining to those who drink Hillary Clinton’s dirty bath water, I will continue to attack her socialist views and show how she believes she knows better what to do with your money than you do. I know there are those who, despite mounds of evidence, will say that I attack her (or her husband) based on unsubstantiated items with little evidence. There is plenty of evidence to show Hillary believes in socialism. There is plenty of evidence to show Hillary believes that you should give a huge sum of your money to the government so that the government can run people’s lives. The latest is her new assertion that she thinks the government should garnish wages of those who refuse to buy health care coverage. This came out of her mouth but there are those who will say there is no evidence she said it.
All the Democrats have talked about universal health care and every plan involves taking the choice away from people and putting it in the government’s hands. The government will extort more money from everyone who pays taxes (that is their definition of rich) and they will spend it on an expensive health care plan that will cost more money than we have to pay. The plans will take away choice and will force people to buy something they might not want.
One only needs to ask the question; “Is it right for the government to tell you what you have to buy?” I know many liberals think that is fine but it is not. It violates the Constitution and it denies people the freedom of choice. What next? Will the government tell families that they may only have 2 children and must abort further pregnancies or pay a huge fine?
Hillary Clinton said that she would go after the profits of oil companies (definitely un-American), and that she will provide everything for people. Now she is saying that if a person refuses to get health care coverage the government will garnish wages to make it happen. This is not only Socialist, it is Communist as well. I can envision a future where we are told who to vote for and watched as we vote in a fair and secret election designed to give people like Hillary lifetime jobs.
I don’t care how one looks at this it is wrong. Any person who thinks it is OK for the government to do this is not a true American and does not deserve to live in this country. Anyone who believes that the government should be allowed to garnish wages to force compliance with health care or anything else is a Communist and should be beaten to death. If you want to do something, make people pay their bills. If you go to the hospital and have no money then you pay it off over time or you lose your property to collection. People buy cars on time so they can pay for their health over time, especially of they just choose not to get it. It is called personal responsibility, something most liberals lack.
I have health insurance so this will not affect me except that my taxes will be going to pay for the health care of others. If Hillary can take your money for this what is to stop her from taking your money by force to coerce you to do what she thinks is best? Screw her. I don’t need her to tell me how to live and what to spend my money on and neither does any other real American.
I would hope this country would have another armed revolution before it let that happen.
Some apologist will make excuses or say it is a good idea. That just adds one more person to the list of those who should be beaten to death.
Source:
Yahoo News
Tags: Clinton, communism, death to communists, forced compliance, garnish wages, Hillary, socialism
Campaign Fuhrer, Sieg Hill
Feb 2, 2008 Political
The race for the nomination in each party continues through this weekend in the lead up to Tsunami Tuesday where 21 states will cast their ballots. The NYT says that campaigning is furious over the final weekend. They must mean there is a lot of furor because of the races. However, the picture on the front of the Drudge Report made me think of a different Fuhrer. That picture, shown to the right, is a glimpse into the future if Hillary becomes the leader of America, or the formerly free world.
Hillary’s outbursts and demands for loyalty are well known as are the consequences of showing less than a complete and total lack of support for her. People are shunned from politics, embarrassed, belittled, chewed up and spit out when they dare to cross “The Leader.” Hillary stands for socialism and I would not be surprised if, a few years into her term, we don’t have school kids standing with similar salutes. They will be chanting Sieg Hill, Sieg Hill while the Fuhrer tells them how to be good little Socialists.
When they discuss campaign furor they are talking about everyone. When I hear furor I think fuhrer, because they are talking about Hillary.
“Sieg Hill, Heil Hillary, Sieg Hill”