Tag Archives: clinton

Burning down the ratsocrat plantation

I continue to believe that there is no way Barack Hussein Osama is going to be elected president in 2008, although I think the election of a black would be a terrific, beautiful, highly positive symbolic event for this nation. I don’t know what kind of president he would be, but I totally sympathize with rational ratsocrats who also do not know but for whom the beautiful, tear-jerking symbolism is more than enough.

I asked a leading Houston ratsocrat support of Barack why she was supporting him for the nomination when he could not possibly win the election. She didn’t want to answer this. I could certainly have accepted the answer “because of the symbolism.” That makes sense to me. And who knows, I have been wrong before, maybe I’m wrong about this. I’d love to be wrong about this.

But even without him winning the nomination, even without him winning the election if he is nominated, I love the fact that he is discombobulating Fellatio Girl. I cannot wait CANNOT WAIT for the South Carolina primary. The evil ratsocrats (n.b. not all ratsocrats are evil per se) consciously work to keep black folks in peonage on the ratsocrat plantation. They do not want the black folks to advance and to rise–they need them to remain wards of the state, because their peonage is the source of ratsocrat political power. Why do the evil ratsocrats cling to the failing public schools like a pit bull clings to a yorkie? Because the denial of education to the black folks forces the black folks to remain wards of the state. Why did Fellatio Boy fight welfare reform in the 90s until an override of his veto was a foregone conclusion? Because paying black daddies to abandon their families (yes, that’s what the ratsocrat program did) forces the black folks to remain wards of the state.

Now, look, I accept that these horrific outcomes were not the intended results of welfare, or public education. The former was well-intentioned. The latter is studded with dedicated, selfless professionals who are doing those jobs out of love for their fellow man, but for poor blacks, the system is, on the whole, a complete disaster. Why do the ratsocrats fight giving poor parents a choice of schools for their children? There is no answer to this today which does not point to abject ratsocrat evil. In the case of welfare, even after it became completely obvious that the welfare system had become a source of profound destruction, the ratsocrats clung to it. What other word can be applied to this except evil?

In South Carolina, black ratsocrats have the opportunity to burn the plantation house to the ground. Fellatio Girl didn’t build the plantation house, but judging by Fellatio Boy’s performance, she intends to live in it, living on the backs of poor black folks whose continued slavery and misery she will exploit for political power.

So, let’s all cheer lustily as the black ratsocrats reject Fellatio Girl, and carry Osama to victory.

The Fascist Ratsocrats strike again

I like this story from Politico. Once again, the ratsocrats think they are special, and they want to be able to veto the president’s appointees. The ratsocrats have no respect for the law. The only thing they care about is their own power, and its perpetuation.

Well, I think having the FEC hamstrung until President Romney is sworn in would be just ducky. I’d like to think that the republicans in Congress took the time to actually read the Bill of Rights, and noticed for the first time the words “Congress shall make no law…”

I can just see it: Mitch McConnell had to poo really bad, and the only thing he could find in a hurry to take with him to read was a 1977 copy of Newsweek (Jimmy Carter wearing a cardigan on the cover), and a little pamphlet of the Constitution and all the amendments. He comes out of the cloakroom bathroom, and clears his throat nervously and asks uncomfortably, “Now, when this says ‘Congress,’ are they talking about us?” Heads nod all around.

“What does this word ‘no’ mean, as in ‘no law’?” Surely it doesn’t really mean NO law!” Someone looks up the word “no.” They are all shocked. They look around for Fellatio Boy, hoping that he will perhaps be able to provide a different spin on this word’s meaning. But Fellatio Boy isn’t there, he is giving mouth-to-mouth 24/7 to Fellatio Girl’s campaign (using a dental dam, I am quite certain).

“Now, if we pass a law restricting freedom of speech on candidates for election to federal office, wouldn’t that be a law, so, how can we do that if this thing says NO law?”

Silence fills the room as they realize they have made perhaps a little boo boo.

This is what I’d like to think happened. Bye bye, McCain-Feingold!

Stupid Fellatio Girl

How stupid do you have to be to say this? This would be like a man, seeing that his dog is pooping all over his yard, deciding that he is going to ban the dog from pooping for 90 days. Does Fellatio Girl really not get how stupid an idea this is, or is she just so evil and lacking in character that she doesn’t care?

I have to vote “evil.” She will say and do anything she feels will help her get elected. She’s in kind of a bind right now because she is forced to talk out of both sides of her mouth about immigration, and she just isn’t as good at this as Fellatio Boy was. Perhaps she could spent 15 minutes in the next ratsocrat debate explaining the meaning of the word “is,” just her rhetorical skills to hone [Enrico does lame imitation of Yoda].

Go get ’em, Osama!

I don’t know if there are going to be any more ratsocrat debates after Iowa, but I think Osama ought to mention Monica Lewinsky in the next one. I think he should ponder aloud what kind of character it reflects for a woman to stand by a scumbag of such low character for such obviously venal reasons. If she is willing to live a lie for political advantage in her career, to what levels will she NOT stoop? Mrs. Clinton, are you going to engage in illicit sex in the oval office, too? I don’t remember ever hearing say you thought your husband was wrong to take advantage of a woman young enough to be his daughter. Mrs. Clinton, I don’t remember hearing you say that your husband’s pardon of the felon Marc Rich was wrong. Are you selling your support to felons also? Just how much did your husband collect from the fugitive felon? Is the cash in your freezer in Westchester? What did you do in return for getting that amazing commodity trade? How did you become such an expert on feeder cattle futures? Who did you get to kill Vince Foster, and why did you have to have him whacked? When you canoodle with your aide, are you the pitcher or the receiver? Do you prefer the term “carpet muncher” or “muff diver”?

I think Fellatio Girl’s head might explode. There is no possible answer she can give that will not make her completely transparent. The sputtering and speechless fuming will be a good opportunity for Osama to look stern and disgusted.

Ok, so maybe hardball doesn’t play well in the hawkeye state, but punching her in the gut and kicking her in the cooter will go over big in South Carolina and in Florida.

Billary’s bond-mongering

Billary Clinton has been expounding all economical lately about the “risks” posed by the ownership of US treasury bonds by foreign governments, as is discussed in this WSJ article. She says that the large positions in treasury bonds makes the United States vulnerable. As is so often the question with the Clintons, is she stupid, or is she a liar? What, exactly, is the risk? Are the chicoms going to come repossess the Pentagon? Are they going to ruin our credit with one phone call? In her letter to Ben Bernanke and Hank Paulson, she cites the possibility that the Chinese or the Japanese would decide to decrease their holdings of dollars, presumably, if her position has any logic to it all, by massive selling of their US Treasury bonds. She says that this step could force us to raise interest rates, and could cause a currency crisis. I am not sure what she means by “currency crisis,” but, examining this scenario a little, does it really make sense that the chicoms or the Japanese would conclude it was a good idea to enter into concerted selling of their positions? Would it not be likely that this strategy would guarantee that they would receive the lowest possible prices for their holdings? Would this really be attractive to them?

Billary also seems to suggest that the chicoms’ holdings of US bonds makes us their hostage. Actually, the reverse is the case. We have their money. They are dependent on us to pay them their interest, and to redeem their bonds upon maturity. Their financial security is thus heavily dependent on a healthy US economy, with low inflation and high economic stability. As Donald Trump has been known to observe, if you owe the bank $200,000, and you go bankrupt, you have a problem. If you owe the bank $200 billion, and you go bankrupt, the BANK has a problem.

Now, I did not go to Yale, and I do not have advanced degrees in economics. I am not the smartest woman in the room. Doesn’t Hillary understand these highly uncontroversial, quite obvious, points I have made? Is she a liar? Or is she stupid?