Fuck you, Hillary (re: the NPR Democratic Presidential Candidate Debate)
Feel free to stalk our every post with the f*cking c*nts RSS feed, subscribe to f-ckingc-nts.com by email, follow our new posts and random comments on Twitter, or become a fan on facebook. Go on. You know you want to! All the cool kids are doing it ...
So, I'm listening to a presidential candidate debate on NPR this morning … they're talking about the shocking new evidence that Iran is, in fact, NOT trying to build a nuclear weapon. They apparently stopped doing that four years ago. And the conversation comes around to Hillary Clinton, who asserted that the halt of Iran's nuclear weapons program proved that the US's saber-rattling bullshit rhetoric was working.
ARGH!
No, Mrs. Clinton, it does not prove that at-fucking-ALL. We do not actually know why Iran halted their nuclear weapons program (beside the fact that we'd barely begun threatening Iran back in 2003 …). Go back to Logic 101. Correlation IS NOT causation, and I would expect an ivy league-educated person like yourself to fucking avoid a basic logical fallacy like that.
Or is it that you DO have a decent grasp of basic logic, but you expect the public at large to be too fucking stupid to pick up on your gross abuse of it? See, when George "how did that fucking moron end up in office" Bush pulls bullshit reasoning like that out of his ass, I'm fully prepared to believe someone fed it to him and he swallowed it like a Jello shot. But when YOU pull shit like that, either it means you've spent enough years in Washington to have suffered serious brain damage, or you're blatantly treating your hoped-for supporters like idiots.
That said, I didn't like you as a candidate anyhow. Not because you're a woman, but because out of all the Democratic candidates, you're the biggest warmongering jackass of the bunch. Maybe you're just playing tough guy to try and counteract the "women can't handle a tough job like the presidency" sexist horseshit that so many Americans seem to still believe? But if that's the case, it's no better than your antithesis-of-logic reasoning on Iran. Either you're a warmonger, or you're just pretending to be one to make yourself look macho, because that's what you think the public wants … or, put a wee bit more bluntly … either you're a warmonger, or you're a fucking manipulative lying cunt.
Which is mostly what I'm getting at with the NPR debate deal, I guess. Either you actually believe that the halting of Iran's nuclear program means our thinly-veiled warmongering threats were what made them stop, or you're just saying that because you think the braindead electorate will swallow it … or, put a wee bit more bluntly … either you're a painfully illogical idiot who isn't mentally qualified to be president, or you're a fucking manipulative lying cunt.
Shes playing to the group of voters who will elect a Democrat president next term, the dis-enfranchised Republican. The dems have the election, the question is, who will all the real small government, low taxes elephants vote for now that they're pissed at the state of the party. They are the swing vote this time….and thus, she is a fucking manipulative lying cunt! (but not necessarily in a good way)
4th December 2007 at 7:35 pm | permalink |Post hoc ergo propter hoc … Bitch!
4th December 2007 at 9:59 pm | permalink |or, put a wee bit more bluntly … either you're a painfully illogical idiot who isn't mentally qualified to be president, or you're a fucking manipulative lying cunt.
Pretty much the same conclusion I came to on Ron Paul. WTF are they putting in the water in Washington, D.C.? R-tard pills?
4th December 2007 at 10:01 pm | permalink |@ray: Sad, but likely true. Another argument in favor of a multi=party proportional representation system.
@Becca00: See, I figure Ron Paul is a gen-u-wine loony. Hillary, OTOH … I'm going with the manipulative theory. ;-)
5th December 2007 at 3:37 pm | permalink |"huckabee dumond 08" Like willie horton on steroids
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/05/former-aide-contradicts-h_n_75519.html
5th December 2007 at 4:37 pm | permalink |Ron Paul is the guy most disenfranchised Republicans seem attracked to, at least on the sites I visit, including some Democrats. I honestly don't get it… the guy wants to completely destroy our government by returning it to the constitutional basis. He never actually stopped to think that the reason we have more government now than we did when the constitution was written is.. THE COUNTRY IS A LOT BIGGER/DIFFERENT NOW.
I'm not talking about anything that goes AGAINST the constitution, I'm talking about things like medicaid, medicare, schip and the like. He would remove those programs right away. Why? How does that help ANYONE? How does that make the country more free? More sick/dead children? More families struggling to afford the medical care?
I really don't get the whole "smaller government!" baloney the average Republican likes to throw around. What does that even mean? All I hear is "less government meddling in our lives!" and you think that's what DEMOCRATS want? A totalitarian government that meddles in your personal affairs? What the fuck is wrong with you people?
Conservatism is ALL ABOUT meddling in peoples lives. If you people were really about smaller, less intrusive government you wouldn't support politicians who want to restrict abortions rights for women, or marriage rights for gays and lesbians. THAT'S big, intrusive government. I'm all for more efficient government and so is every other liberal/Democrat out there.
What else? Freedom? No un-needed wars? How about universal healthcare? The right for gays/lesbians to marry? I hear all that from Kucinich, without the phony "SMALLER GOVERNMENT! TAX CUTS! garbage I heard from George Bush before he got elected.
Sorry, tired, sick, whatnot.
*falls asleep*
6th December 2007 at 5:53 am | permalink |Give me Hillary over republican.
6th December 2007 at 4:52 pm | permalink |@davidgx: Well, maybe Ron Paul is attracting the anti-war disenfranchised loony Repubs, and Hillary is going for the Pro-war voting bloc?
@joj: Yeah, If she gets the Democratic nomination, I'll fucking vote for her … but I won't like it. I'm registering with the Democrats just so I can vote for Kucinich in the primary. ;-)
6th December 2007 at 4:54 pm | permalink |I think Ron Paul is attracting many young people as well because I see many many young adults my age leaning towards him. Most of them THINK their only problem with him is the pro-life spiel because that's the most talked about issue. But they just have not done the necessary research to realize that he's a fucking loony tune.
6th December 2007 at 7:01 pm | permalink |In general I like all the Dems in varying degrees. Kucinich is the most honest and forthcoming.
6th December 2007 at 9:44 pm | permalink |All the republikkkans suck but some are scum. Now for some ass kissing; You rule alphabitch.
@alphabitch
Yeah, if Hillary wins the primary I'll be voting for her as well. I mean, after the last 8 years I'll take the worst Democrat over the best Republican, EASILY. If George Bush has taught me anything, it's that.
I'd prefer Kucinich though, or Obama.
7th December 2007 at 6:28 am | permalink |I mean, by the time Bush is out it'll be 8 years… but it already feels like it's been longer x_x
7th December 2007 at 6:29 am | permalink |just found you. Good Rants. will now proceed to read some more of your older posts. keep it up.
7th December 2007 at 4:06 pm | permalink |and thus, she is a fucking manipulative lying cunt! (but not necessarily in a good way)
Ok, now tell me how someone could be a fucking manipulative lying cunt in a good way. ;)
11th December 2007 at 3:40 pm | permalink |Some consider doing what has to be done to build a consensus for the greater good, even if it means being a manipulative fucking cunt, is a good thing. Ends justifying the means. Then there are the fucking manipulative lying cunts that do it for their own agenda, thus not in a good way. And sometimes things are done just as food for thought.
11th December 2007 at 6:33 pm | permalink |@ac: Well, that sums up the problem with a lot of things, doesn't it? ;-) People look at the surface packaging of something, and never bother to do the research to find out more.
@joj: Kucinich is one of the only candidates I do like … I keep hearing things about all the others that just completely turn me off. I think Obama is my next target, actually …
@davidgx: The way the Dems have been supporting bullshit civil liberties destroying legislation lately, I'm not sure the worst Dem would be much better than the average Republican anymore.
@steve: Thanks! :-)
@ray: I'm glad you popped in to answer that one … I was at a bit of a loss. hehe
11th December 2007 at 7:25 pm | permalink |