The Pantsuit That Cried Wolf

"If you’ve ever wondered how Russia became America’s most fearsome enemy, long after that country gave up Communism, gulags, forced starvations and mass murder (all of which liberals were cool with), the answer is: This crackpot idea came from the same woman who blamed a “vast right-wing conspiracy” for Monica Lewinsky."

Comments

  • "In the two years since the media guffawed at Mook’s claim, the public has been presented with no new evidence. All that’s changed is that the media suddenly decided to demand that we all believe it."

    Its amazing how many people want to believe Mook's claim, completely oblivious to the dangers of criminalizing politics.
  • Who the fuck is Mook? I always thought that was just a term used by cops on NYPD blue to refer to suspects.
  • Her campaign manager.
  • edited March 4
    Robbie Mook was Hillary's campaign manager and Tony Wiseguy's cousin, the brother-in-law of Jimmy Disfuccinguyoverhere.
  • LOL
  • I too laugh a bit each time I hear his name.  Reminds me of this skit.  https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/baby-names/n10279
  • The name "Goombah" wasn't available?
  • edited March 6
    nbody said:

    ...If you’ve ever wondered how Russia became America’s most fearsome enemy...

    Glib, dumb and breezy. Not surprised you're a fan. She skips over all the icky, inconvenient history (you're familiar with that!) and evidence to get to yet another punchline about the Clintons. Nero could at least play the fiddle.

    The opening sentence is honest advertising, I must admit. You either nod your head while clapping like an organ-grinder's monkey, or you hit the back button on your browser in the search for more nutritious fare.
  • edited March 6
    vwtool said:

    Glib, dumb and breezy. Not surprised you're a fan. She skips over all the icky, inconvenient history (you're familiar with that!) and evidence to get to yet another punchline about the Clintons.


    Your post almost leaves the impression that you disagree with anything she wrote for a more substantial reason than your own partisanship.
  • Slap said:

    ...Your post almost leaves the impression that you disagree with anything she wrote for a more substantial reason than your own partisanship.




    As I said, her opening sentence acts as a selection filter. You're either a partisan who thinks all this stuff about Russia is apriori nonsense, or your click "back." No one is going to unpack an 'argument' that's insider-humor.
  • I do love when people pretend to know words, and reveal their ignorance by misspelling or misusing them.
  • edited March 6
    You're either a partisan who thinks all this stuff about Russia is apriori nonsense, or your click "back." No one is going to unpack an 'argument' that's insider-humor.
    Or, you're the sort of person who doesn't automatically leap to false dichotomies, who can read an argument from someone with whom they disagree, and respond to the substance of the argument.

    Within your false dichotomy, which one are you?  Do you think all this stuff about Russia is a priori nonsense, or did you dismiss the substance of the article without reading itThis is why you earn contempt, not for merely disagreeing with anyone around here.  Your position is patently stupid.
  • vwtool said:

    Glib, dumb and breezy.




    I don't think of you as glib or breezy.
  • If I tell him that DO think of him as dumb, is that a violation of Atty/client Privilage?
  • edited March 7
    I keep being told there's evidence for the Russia collusion nonsense.  Funnily enough, the few times anyone bothers to try to present it, it inevitably leads back - every single time - to one of three things.  1)  The ridiculous and utterly debunked Steele dossier generated and paid for by Hillary's campaign via Fusion GPS, which funnily enough involved collusion with Russians, but on Hillary's part, not Trump's, or 2)  the obvious sham orchestrated meeting with the Russian woman in Don Jr's office, as a setup to create grounds for precisely that "collusion" accusation, again set up via Fusion GPS, or 3)  the obvious joke Trump made about hoping the Russians would provide Hillary's emails.

    That's it.  That's the pathetic grounds they have for all of this.  When this is pointed out, the answer then flows, once again inevitably, to "you're a partisan and you won't accept any evidence anyway so I'm not going to bother." 

    I always bring up Uranium One at that point, and how if they had 10% of the evidence against Trump for "collusion" as we have of the obvious quid pro quo of Hillary getting $140 million in exchange for the rights on 25% of US Uranium, Trump would already be in prison and I'd have supported them for it.  They can't run away fast enough at that point, yelling obscenities the whole way.

    Dumb doesn't begin to cover it.  It's gaslighting, and it's fucking evil.

  • Qwinn said:

    ... and it's fucking evil.

    That's the conclusion I'm having more and more trouble avoiding.  Its an attempt at a soft coup, that would be successful if they also removed Pence from office.  President Pelosi.
  • Slap said:

    ...Its an attempt at a soft coup...




    He's not above the law just because he's in office. Getting votes isn't a magic wand. Any sensible person knew he was grossly unqualified for the office, now sensible adults with legal authority are cataloging it for the judgement-impaired.

  • He's not above the law just because he's in office. Getting votes isn't a magic wand. Any sensible person knew he was grossly unqualified for the office, now sensible adults with legal authority are cataloging it for the judgement-impaired.
    You're not stupid enough (though you are dishonest enough) to have just missed Quinn's post.  Care to be a little more specific which law you think Trump broke?  My prediction: of course not, you're too busy being hysterical.

    Oh look! Another excellent Ann Coulter article:

    "Strangely, the media have suddenly taken an intense interest in the case of pedophile and major Democratic donor Jeffrey Epstein."




  • edited March 7
    Slap said:

    ...Or, you're the sort of person who doesn't automatically leap to false dichotomies, who can read an argument from someone with whom they disagree...

    Takimag's goal was to shake up the "stodgy world of conservative opinion," according to its founder, with "cheeky, culturally-relavant" stories.

    Sounds more like a venue for info-tainment rather than an argument, doesn't it? And not that comics can't make good points, but the article reads like an exponentially less-funny P.J. O'Rourke.

    I suspect you guys don't actually talk to any Dems in real life, so I'll tip you off that the Clintons are largely dead to us. Their "brand" is worthless, and younger voters in particular see them as being poster children for clueless, insider elitism. But you can't seem to stop talking about them. Someone mentions a Trump misstep and your first impulse is to blurt out Hillary Lied!

    Clintons. Clintons everywhere. Well, commies, too. ;-)
  • If you value Marxism above Capitalism, you understand neither.
  • edited March 7
    Qwinn said:

    I keep being told there's evidence for the Russia collusion nonsense.  Funnily enough, the few times anyone bothers to try to present it, it inevitably leads back - every single time - to one of three things.  1)  The ridiculous and utterly debunked Steele dossier generated and paid for by Hillary's campaign via Fusion GPS, which funnily enough involved collusion with Russians, but on Hillary's part, not Trump's, or 2)  the obvious sham orchestrated meeting with the Russian woman in Don Jr's office, as a setup to create grounds for precisely that "collusion" accusation, again set up via Fusion GPS, or 3)  the obvious joke Trump made about hoping the Russians would provide Hillary's emails.





    Indeed, but they still can't let it go. It traces back to November 9th, 2016 when they were momentarily shaken by political reality and publicly vented their weepy rage. In mere seconds, the candidate who had scoffed about questioning the validity of elections and whose husband accepted into their foundation staggering sums from foreign governments switched to asserting that the "election was hacked" by the foreign government involved in the Uranium One deal on which the State department gave an approval while she was Sec. 

    The position at FactCheck.org on this is priceless:
    "It may be that individuals and companies sought to curry favor with Hillary Clinton and even influence her department’s decision on the Uranium One sale. But, as we’ve written before, there is no evidence that donations to the Clinton Foundation from people with ties to Uranium One or Bill Clinton’s speaking fee influenced Hillary Clinton’s official actions. "

    In a tribute to their own credulity, these emotionally overwhelmed dems, an example of whom we have here, accepted the accusation as a plausible alternative to the reality of DJT having won the presidency. HRC has trotted out other excuses, sexism and incredibly even racism to explain away her defeat, but the idea of Russian "collusion" seems attractive enough to them to follow even in the absence of real evidence.


    Does anyone believe that if Adam Schiff had evidence in support of this "collusion", that he would not have leaked or announced it?
  • edited March 7
    Contrast this round of bitterness with the resentment and fantasy life of dems following GWB's election.  Following Gore's 7-2 failure to litigate his way into the WH, you'd read stray comments about how the Sup Ct awarded the presidency to GWB, even from people smart enough to know better, but there wasn't a full scale unhingening.

    There may have been greater similarity in the congressional strategies then and now.  Then, they decided to oppose any military action in Iraq until GWB got authorization from Congress.  Despite months of ongoing debate about it, they maintained that we needed more debate until September of 2002 at which time they said it was too close to an election to debate any military venture.
  • edited March 8
    Hillary is dead to you? Then why are you obsessed with the "Russian collusion" meme that she paid for? For people who think she's old news, you don't seem to have any opinion that she didn't plant in your head.
  • edited March 8
    vwtool said:

    Takimag's goal ... the Clintons are largely dead to us. ...

    That's a lot of distraction from presenting evidence of collusion that's more than just libels paid for by Hillary's campaign.  Fine, leave Hillary out of it.  Where's the evidence?
  • edited March 8
    nbody said:

    Does anyone believe that if Adam Schiff had evidence in support of this "collusion", that he would not have leaked or announced it?

    There's another question Tool will ignore.
  • Qwinn said:

    It's gaslighting, and it's fucking evil.

    The Party of Cluster Bs is gonna cluster B.
  • Qwinn said:

    ...why are you obsessed with the "Russian collusion" meme that she paid for?...




    I'm not. I don't believe I've mentioned it, never mind reached the level of "obsession."

    Why are you so determined to believe that Hillary "paid" for it, rather than accept the obvious: that legal authorities are looking into it as a possibility. The other possibility, of course, is that the business 'genius' is sloppy and careless.
  • Slap said:

    vwtool said:

    Takimag's goal ... the Clintons are largely dead to us. ...

    That's a lot of distraction from presenting evidence of collusion that's more than just libels paid for by Hillary's campaign.  Fine, leave Hillary out of it.  Where's the evidence?



    If you're the one obsessing about "collusion," I can't really answer you. It's entirely possible that even more members of Trump's inner circle will do jail time for crimes other than "collusion," including his own kids. People have legitimate reasons to be concerned about Trump's conduct that have nothing to do with Hillary.
  • It’s already a known fact that Hillary paid for the Pee Dossier.

    And don’t give me any crap about that just because she was smart enough to use cut outs. I said she was evil I never said she was dumb.
Sign In or Register to comment.