Hey Hillary sycophants, watch and read

[Seth]

Hey all you sycophantic, brain-dead, ethics-free immoral useless idiots, Hillary Clinton is a polarizing, calculating, disingenuous, insincere, pathologically ambitious, entitled, over confident, secretive pathological liar just like her husband and Barack Obama, who will do anything to win, including breaking any law that opposes her and eliminating enemies and critics with any tactics possible, including with extreme prejudice and she represents the past, like the fucking Dark Ages, and she's out of touch, not just with the American people, but with reality.

Media
Hillary Group Reportedly Warns NY Times Reporter Not to Use Any of These ‘Sexist’ Words in Creepy Message
Mar. 26, 2015 4:46pm Jason Howerton
2.6K
Shares

New York Times reporter Amy Chozick revealed on Thursday that a group of Hillary Clinton volunteers has warned her to avoid using “coded sexism” in her reporting.

The group, identified as HRC Super Volunteers, also reportedly gave Chozick a list of words they find to be “sexist” in nature. These words include: “polarizing, calculating, disingenuous, insincere, ambitious, inevitable, entitled, over confident,” “secretive” and “will do anything to win, represents the past, out of touch.”

The group, about which little appears to be known, then left the reporter with one final warning.

“You are on notice that we will be watching, reading, listening and protesting coded sexism,” the group reportedly wrote in an email.

A group called HRC Super Volunteers just warned me "We will be watching, reading, listening and protesting coded sexism…" (1/2)

— Amy Chozick (@amychozick) March 25, 2015

2/2 Sexist words, they say, include "polarizing, calculating, disingenuous, insincere, ambitious, inevitable, entitled, over confident…"

— Amy Chozick (@amychozick) March 25, 2015

Also sexist, according to HRC Super Volunteers: "Secretive" and "will do anything to win, represents the past, out of touch…"

— Amy Chozick (@amychozick) March 25, 2015

"You are on notice that we will be watching, reading, listening and protesting coded sexism…" the email reads.

— Amy Chozick (@amychozick) March 25, 2015

P.S. She's really ugly too...

[pErvinalia]

Hey all you sycophantic, brain-dead, ethics-free immoral useless idiots, Hillary Clinton is a polarizing, calculating, disingenuous, insincere, pathologically ambitious, entitled, over confident, secretive pathological liar just like her husband and Barack Obama, who will do anything to win, including breaking any law that opposes her and eliminating enemies and critics with any tactics possible, including with extreme prejudice and she represents the past, like the fucking Dark Ages, and she's out of touch, not just with the American people, but with reality.

Well duh! She's a conservative. What did you expect?!?

[Seth]

Hey all you sycophantic, brain-dead, ethics-free immoral useless idiots, Hillary Clinton is a polarizing, calculating, disingenuous, insincere, pathologically ambitious, entitled, over confident, secretive pathological liar just like her husband and Barack Obama, who will do anything to win, including breaking any law that opposes her and eliminating enemies and critics with any tactics possible, including with extreme prejudice and she represents the past, like the fucking Dark Ages, and she's out of touch, not just with the American people, but with reality.

Well duh! She's a conservative. What did you expect?!?

Hillary? A conservative? Jezzus are you ignorant. She's as lefty/liberal as it gets...she's somewhat to the left of Stalin and Fidel.

[Ian]

Puhleeze. More like somewhere between Reagan and her husband.

[pErvinalia]

Hey all you sycophantic, brain-dead, ethics-free immoral useless idiots, Hillary Clinton is a polarizing, calculating, disingenuous, insincere, pathologically ambitious, entitled, over confident, secretive pathological liar just like her husband and Barack Obama, who will do anything to win, including breaking any law that opposes her and eliminating enemies and critics with any tactics possible, including with extreme prejudice and she represents the past, like the fucking Dark Ages, and she's out of touch, not just with the American people, but with reality.

Well duh! She's a conservative. What did you expect?!?

Hillary? A conservative? Jezzus are you ignorant. She's as lefty/liberal as it gets...she's somewhat to the left of Stalin and Fidel.

Said like a true Merkin who has absolutely zero clue about the outside world.

[Hermit]

Hillary Clinton is meh to me, just another liberal on the conservative side. When the chips are down they can always relied on to cave in to the interests of big business.

Someone who says

• There is nobody in this country who got rich on their own. Nobody. You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.

on the other hand, looks like she might actually get something constructive done. That is exactly what Elizabeth Warren said, and it is precisely the reason why she will never be allowed to become a candidate for the US presidency.

[Rum]

I wonder that an incoming President manages to get anything done. They seem to have to wade through treacle to change anything. I am aware of the 'checks and balances' built into the system, but it sometimes seems that those are simply used perversely so that no change happens at all.

[tattuchu]

I don't know anyone who's a Hillary sycophant

[mistermack]

I wonder that an incoming President manages to get anything done. They seem to have to wade through treacle to change anything. I am aware of the 'checks and balances' built into the system, but it sometimes seems that those are simply used perversely so that no change happens at all.

In Russia on the other hand, Putin does what the fuck he likes. And the Russians like it.
He's got 85% approval ratings, in spite of the best the west has done to undermine him.

Ukraine gets taken over in a coup? We'll have our Crimea back then. Thanks very much.
What can the US do? Freeze a few bank accounts. Which hurts us just as much, because the Russians won't trust our banks any more, so they put their money elsewhere.

Maybe the US needs a Putin, not a Clinton.

Having said all that, if Clinton stands, it will be her against a worse loony. So I guess she'll win.
Not because she's the greatest, but because she'll be the lesser evil in a choice of two.

[Seth]

Hillary Clinton is meh to me, just another liberal on the conservative side. When the chips are down they can always relied on to cave in to the interests of big business.

Someone who says

• There is nobody in this country who got rich on their own. Nobody. You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.

on the other hand, looks like she might actually get something constructive done. That is exactly what Elizabeth Warren said, and it is precisely the reason why she will never be allowed to become a candidate for the US presidency.

Problem is, what she doesn't say is that we all pay for those common resources already, and the "wealthy" pay for the lions share of them at the moment, with half the population paying only 3 percent of the bill. The fallacy of her speech is assuming that "the rest of us" paid for those services and not the business owner, which is patently and obviously false to the point of being pathologically Marxist.

[Seth]

I wonder that an incoming President manages to get anything done. They seem to have to wade through treacle to change anything. I am aware of the 'checks and balances' built into the system, but it sometimes seems that those are simply used perversely so that no change happens at all.

Indeed. And that's a feature of the system, not a fault. The less Congress and the President do, the better it is for everyone else. The Founders knew this, which is why they set it up this way. If Congress and the President cannot reach a bipartisan consensus on some government action, then common sense and reason dictate that said action should NOT be taken. That's what the primary complaint about Obamacare is. It was passed, in secret, without even allowing the Republicans to be in the room during the committee hearings much less to argue for amendments, by the Democrat party and Obama. It may have been the best thing in the world to do, but if Congress has to do it without a single vote from the minority party, then it's morally and ethically wrong to do it because Congress represents ALL of the People, on both ends of the political spectrum and the ones in the middle, and it has a duty to do what the People want it to do, not what just some of the people want it to do.

And this is why we need a third (or fourth) political party, so that in order for ANYTHING to get passed, Congress has to gain the support of all factions to reach a majority...or better yet a supermajority of 2/3rds of the members, in order to enact any law whatsoever.

[JimC]

I wonder that an incoming President manages to get anything done. They seem to have to wade through treacle to change anything. I am aware of the 'checks and balances' built into the system, but it sometimes seems that those are simply used perversely so that no change happens at all.

Indeed. And that's a feature of the system, not a fault. The less Congress and the President do, the better it is for everyone else. The Founders knew this, which is why they set it up this way. If Congress and the President cannot reach a bipartisan consensus on some government action, then common sense and reason dictate that said action should NOT be taken. That's what the primary complaint about Obamacare is. It was passed, in secret, without even allowing the Republicans to be in the room during the committee hearings much less to argue for amendments, by the Democrat party and Obama. It may have been the best thing in the world to do, but if Congress has to do it without a single vote from the minority party, then it's morally and ethically wrong to do it because Congress represents ALL of the People, on both ends of the political spectrum and the ones in the middle, and it has a duty to do what the People want it to do, not what just some of the people want it to do.

And this is why we need a third (or fourth) political party, so that in order for ANYTHING to get passed, Congress has to gain the support of all factions to reach a majority...or better yet a supermajority of 2/3rds of the members, in order to enact any law whatsoever.

Is this the "governments need to be paralysed" libertarian theory?

[Seth]

I wonder that an incoming President manages to get anything done. They seem to have to wade through treacle to change anything. I am aware of the 'checks and balances' built into the system, but it sometimes seems that those are simply used perversely so that no change happens at all.

Indeed. And that's a feature of the system, not a fault. The less Congress and the President do, the better it is for everyone else. The Founders knew this, which is why they set it up this way. If Congress and the President cannot reach a bipartisan consensus on some government action, then common sense and reason dictate that said action should NOT be taken. That's what the primary complaint about Obamacare is. It was passed, in secret, without even allowing the Republicans to be in the room during the committee hearings much less to argue for amendments, by the Democrat party and Obama. It may have been the best thing in the world to do, but if Congress has to do it without a single vote from the minority party, then it's morally and ethically wrong to do it because Congress represents ALL of the People, on both ends of the political spectrum and the ones in the middle, and it has a duty to do what the People want it to do, not what just some of the people want it to do.

And this is why we need a third (or fourth) political party, so that in order for ANYTHING to get passed, Congress has to gain the support of all factions to reach a majority...or better yet a supermajority of 2/3rds of the members, in order to enact any law whatsoever.

Is this the "governments need to be paralysed" libertarian theory?

No, Libertarian theory is that government shouldn't be in a position to fuck with people in the first place. My theory is merely a stop-gap measure to keep Congress in check.

[mistermack]

Nearly 50.000 people died last week in the US.

Nearly all of them had some sort of theory of how to run the place. It doesn't matter now.

Good luck with yours.

[piscator]

Hillary Clinton is meh to me, just another liberal on the conservative side. When the chips are down they can always relied on to cave in to the interests of big business.

Someone who says

• There is nobody in this country who got rich on their own. Nobody. You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.

on the other hand, looks like she might actually get something constructive done. That is exactly what Elizabeth Warren said, and it is precisely the reason why she will never be allowed to become a candidate for the US presidency.

Problem is, what she doesn't say is that we all pay for those common resources already, and the "wealthy" pay for the lions share of them at the moment, with half the population paying only 3 percent of the bill. The fallacy of her speech is assuming that "the rest of us" paid for those services and not the business owner, which is patently and obviously false to the point of being pathologically Marxist.

Half the population are either too old or too young to work. So that 3% is mostly capital gains.