Just out of curiosity, though: Has no one here posted about the "wet works" email yet? Seriously?
Pray, do tell more.
Novem5er linked it. Of course, I have never in my life heard planting-a-negative-story referred to as a form of "wet works", has anyone else? Snopes doing the bullshit gatekeeper thing it does 20% of the time, its primary purpose, for which the 80% of the time when it's reliable is just a cover.
Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous
Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2016 2:27 pm
by Wombaticus Rex
FourthBase » Sat Oct 15, 2016 11:57 am wrote:Of course, I have never in my life heard planting-a-negative-story referred to as a form of "wet works", has anyone else?
Yes, FWIW, I have many times at day jobs in the field.
Like anything else in our culture, military language pervades everything. Terminate with extreme prejudice.
Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous
Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2016 2:56 pm
by Cordelia
brekin » Fri Oct 14, 2016 3:14 pm wrote:I'm just not seeing what is so damaging about the Wikileaks of Clinton.
Am I missing something? I haven't read everything, but the highlights seem pretty tepid standard politico shit.
Is there something that the public needs to know that they aren't?
That she has private and public opinions on things? (Who doesn't?)
Basically the most damaging thing about it is just the, dare I say, keyword-matching of "Wikileaks-Clinton-Emails-Scandal".
The funny thing is Trump is being haunted from decades worth of rank material, where HRC is getting a pass on Mena, Bill, WhiteWater, etc. but all this recent froth just seems like going through her trash and finding out she eats cheetos occasionally, whereas the skeletons in the closet don't even get a light dusting.
Agree.
The Lewinsky fiasco is one example ("I did not have sexual relations with that woman") of 'Comeback Kid' Bill Clinton's assumption of lying with impunity during the first Clinton presidency.
FourthBase » Sat Oct 15, 2016 11:57 am wrote:Of course, I have never in my life heard planting-a-negative-story referred to as a form of "wet works", has anyone else?
Yes, FWIW, I have many times at day jobs in the field.
Like anything else in our culture, military language pervades everything. Terminate with extreme prejudice.
Notwithstanding the Petraeus affair, the idea that "wet works" is going to be on Podesta's gmails as a euphemism for literal killing assignments. I think it's more relevant to whom this is targeted: Sanders, right?
Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous
Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2016 3:37 pm
by Wombaticus Rex
Any chance to talk about my horrible rap music is A-OK by me.
Love the image of a Left Wing Death Squad being managed by John fucking Podesta in coordination with Steve fucking Elmendorf, though.
brekin » Fri Oct 14, 2016 3:14 pm wrote:I'm just not seeing what is so damaging about the Wikileaks of Clinton.
Am I missing something? I haven't read everything, but the highlights seem pretty tepid standard politico shit.
Is there something that the public needs to know that they aren't?
That she has private and public opinions on things? (Who doesn't?)
Basically the most damaging thing about it is just the, dare I say, keyword-matching of "Wikileaks-Clinton-Emails-Scandal".
The funny thing is Trump is being haunted from decades worth of rank material, where HRC is getting a pass on Mena, Bill, WhiteWater, etc. but all this recent froth just seems like going through her trash and finding out she eats cheetos occasionally, whereas the skeletons in the closet don't even get a light dusting.
Agree.
The Lewinsky fiasco is one example ("I did not have sexual relations with that woman") of 'Comeback Kid' Bill Clinton's assumption of lying with impunity during the first Clinton presidency.
The aftermath an example of the United Front that is their political union.
Leaving in 2001, no doubt their plans to return were well under way.
They are a team. It's just how the political game is played.
But to what end? Why even bother? Been there done that, right? Is it for the food the chefs at the White House cook up? The impeccable housecleaners? The luxury of Air Force One? The perceived fawning public?
I have no idea why someone would want to be president. None. You can no longer walk out of your door without a whole squad of others being there. I'm sure their dog shown in that picture above, even has secret service protection.
Again, and I have told this tale elsewhere, a friend I used to skate with was friends with the Clintons. I didn't see it with my own eyes, but another friend showed up to the friend I am talking about's house and there were all these men in the trees. He was all WTF? Clinton was at the house. He had no idea. But to be constantly followed around and not being able to be safe on your own does not seem like a job many would ever want. There has to be something else to the personal desire other than just to help. You really got me.
Love the image of a Left Wing Death Squad being managed by John fucking Podesta in coordination with Steve fucking Elmendorf, though.
Let's savor that for a moment. As a country.
I hear you!
Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous
Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2016 6:06 pm
by Belligerent Savant
82_28 » Sat Oct 15, 2016 3:55 pm wrote:
But to what end? Why even bother? Been there done that, right? Is it for the food the chefs at the White House cook up? The impeccable housecleaners? The luxury of Air Force One? The perceived fawning public?
I have no idea why someone would want to be president. None. You can no longer walk out of your door without a whole squad of others being there. I'm sure their dog shown in that picture above, even has secret service protection.
Again, and I have told this tale elsewhere, a friend I used to skate with was friends with the Clintons. I didn't see it with my own eyes, but another friend showed up to the friend I am talking about's house and there were all these men in the trees. He was all WTF? Clinton was at the house. He had no idea. But to be constantly followed around and not being able to be safe on your own does not seem like a job many would ever want. There has to be something else to the personal desire other than just to help. You really got me.
And that's why you are 82_28 and they are the Clintons. What drives them is clearly not what drives you.
May as well ask why humans kill other humans, or why the majority of the world enjoys soccer/'futbol' and you don't.
Some humans harbor an insatiable lust for POWER and Control, much to the detriment of the rest of us.
Perhaps that'll all go away in a few hundred years as the human mind evolves... or perhaps it'll get worse.
Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous
Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2016 6:30 pm
by Cordelia
Also,
"A snake is a snake, no matter how many times it sheds its skin."
"A snake is a snake, no matter how many times it sheds its skin."
Personally, no matter how much I dislike them and their compromise, I have always thought that of Bill and Hill as true believers, if not radical then at the least more than moderately progressive. I think they have a cause that they're willing to get their hands dirty over and have adapted an honestly realistically applied pragmatism about what can be gotten away with. After all, Bill was around when JFK got his and Hill was there when Chicago got its. They actually make a fair amount of sense to me, as a psychological subject, and I don't think they're inherently "evil" in the way they're often portrayed.
Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous
Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2016 7:59 pm
by Cordelia
Just to be clear, I don't think snakes are evil. (I like, even respect snakes, but try to keep a lot of distance from those that are venomous because to survive they might bite.)
is one example ("I did not have sexual relations with that woman") of 'Comeback Kid' Bill Clinton's assumption of lying with impunity during the first Clinton presidency. 
