Recently in Hillary Clinton

Category

WARNING: profane Liberal content quoted in the following.

Months ago, I published a funny cartoon after Hillary Clinton won Pennsylvania (before her eventual drop-out as to the Democrat's nomination, such as has later woefully developed).

Here's the cartoon, entitled "Arrugula":

...from this entry, "HILLARY WINS PENNSYLVANIA, OBAMA'S WAFFLES DON'T SELL".

Today, I received the following profane email from some hapless, stupid Liberal, about that cartoon:

-----BEGIN QUOTE OF PROFANE LIBERAL IDIOT'S EMAILED COMMENTS (from IPA 86.201.153.139)-----

'Arrugula'
Tuesday, September 16, 2008 9:02 AM
From corumpia@yahoo.com Tue Sep 16 09:02:39 2008
Return-Path:
Authentication-Results: mta172.mail.re3.yahoo.com from=yahoo.com; domainkeys=neutral (no sig)
Received: from 80.12.242.17 (EHLO smtp19.orange.fr) (80.12.242.17) by mta172.mail.re3.yahoo.com with SMTP; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 09:04:44 -0700
Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf1911.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 4D6071C000A4; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:02:40 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.1.87] (APoitiers-156-1-154-139.w86-201.abo.wanadoo.fr [86.201.153.139]) by mwinf1911.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 17E8B1C00088; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:02:40 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id:
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From:
corumpia@yahoo.com
Subject: 'Arrugula'
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:02:39 +0200
To: *************@yahoo.com
Content-Length: 154
320wde_HillaryClintonWinsPenn.jpg>

1. Can't even spell the word.
2. Too stupid to look it up first.

FUCKHEAD.

-----END QUOTED EMAIL BY STUPID LIBERAL------

THE POINT OF THAT CARTOON -- what was funny -- is that the word, "arugala," IS MISSPELLED:

The misspelling IS the joke. Hillary "won" nothing, it's an erroneous celebration (her win in Pennsylvania earlier), THAT WAS THE JOKE of my cartoon.

Pin some people down, they start sputtering profanities: I guess that's the "best" that the Left has to offer. No sense of humor with any innocence about it, or, if they laugh, it's at the presumed suffering or "handicaps" of others.

About that, let's examine: HAD I ACTUALLY, intellectually erred and misspelled by happenstance or misinformation the word, "arugula," I'd have been -- literally and only -- wrongly informed about how to spell some one word, or else, suffering some limitations (not capable of understanding how to correctly spell words in general), or both. Easily corrected as to the first condition, if pointed out that there was a misspelling. And, in fact, that's how we all learn to use written language (I've yet to encounter any human being who is fluent in any written language, active in a written language free of any errors independently of anyone else -- language is learned, it's acquired, it's a shared, or mutual accomplishment, requires human interaction inorder to be mastered and remains an ongoing accomplishment by all and any).

HOWEVER, in this case, this profaning emailing poser (from IPA 86.201.153.139) actually kicks me around -- or tries to -- for what that poser perceives as a misspelling of a mere word (example of someone "feeling good" by ridiculing "weakness" or otherwise, suffering -- at least as they perceive it to be). I don't like to think what that emailer does to puppies who may be trying to master house-training, or, a gradeschooler who doesn't (yet) understand the distinction between "pearl" and "PERL."

HOWEVER, the joke -- the real one here -- is on this profaning idiot emailer because they don't get the joke: the word, "arugula," is intentionally misspelled and that's the joke in the context of the Hilary "win," politically. She and other Democrats "misspelled" the context of the Pennsylvania win. So apparently the frustration-expression of someone uttering "arrr" is also lost on this profane emailer (as in, "arrugula").

"Arugula" reference in this context: IT'S NOT RACE, IT'S ARUGULA

And, of course, the emailing idiot uses a forged email address. Do these idiots ever get tired of being illigitimate (and profane accordingly)? I guess registering and using actual, legitimate email is too big a deal for them, like, also, winning elections in honest and genuine terms.

What they can't steal or lie about, they ridicule.

And, what dictionary is their word, "f***head" from, anyway? The Internet Screed Dictionary of The Humorless? Did he/she/it use their Thesaurus of the False to capture another "imaginary" email address? Hapless, stupid, profane, humorless, which just about wraps this issue up, save but for one added term: cowardly.

I guess me writing of the beauty of the Cathedral of Notre Dame and Pope Benedict's sweet visit there recently, was too much for the cowardly humorless, using a France Telecom connection, to bear.

Here's what SpamCop reports about the message source, for ongoing reference:

Tracking message source: 86.201.153.139:
Routing details for 86.201.153.139
Cached whois for 86.201.153.139 : postmaster@wanadoo.fr
Using abuse net on postmaster@wanadoo.fr
abuse net wanadoo.fr = postmaster@wanadoo.fr, abuse@wanadoo.fr, abuse@orange.fr
Using best contacts postmaster@wanadoo.fr abuse@wanadoo.fr abuse@orange.fr
postmaster@wanadoo.fr bounces (205 sent : 103 bounces)

Report Spam to:
Re: 86.201.153.139 (Administrator of network where email originates)
To: postmaster#wanadoo.fr@devnull.spamcop.net
To: abuse@orange.fr
To: abuse@wanadoo.fr

Every time I close my eyes and try to placate my doubts, worries and fearful observations about a vote for John McCain, McCain goes and confirms the worst fears about his representation of the nation, particularly as a Republican. As a voter, what I see before me for this Fall is an Anti-American canyon from all perspectives. And then there's that bad political route that we will have to drive for the next four years through that canyon, regardless of how the vote is cast.

Today is May 05. In Mexico, it's "Cinco de Mayo Day." Here we are, in the United States of America, and we have a GOP Presidential candidate not only commemorating a Mexican holiday, but participating in one to such an extent, that he's affirming the Hispanic ethnic-supremacy interests and their ratty group, La Raza, right here in the U.S.A.

I can barely begin to imagine just what George Washington would be doing were he here today to witness this rotten behavior, as is also the rotten politics involved.

Today, here in the United States of America, it is May 05th. Apparently John McCain is looking toward Mexico to elect him because many of us Republicans in the United States of America are just not going to tolerate his randy betrayals here at home.

The John McCain campaign celebrated Cinco de Mayo today by launching a Spanish-language version of its website-and announcing that McCain will speak at the annual conference of the National Council of La Raza (July 14, 2008, San Diego, CA).

I've asked many people in general and specifically to define just who and what the "Hispanic vote" in the U.S.A. is. There is no definition offered because none exists. The term, "Hispanic vote" (or, "Hispanic voter") is a POLITICAL term that defines a voting interest bloc motivated by persons mostly affiliated with Central and South America who seek to grant amnesty in the U.S.A. for people from Central and South America, and to eliminate the borders and legal requirements of the U.S.A. as to boundaries and citizenship and/or use of our nation by people from Central and South America by sheer fact of their "blood" or "Hispanic-ness."

To be "Hispanic" is not to be of any defined racial type. The races of our human species are: Negroid (or, "Black"), Caucasian (or, "White"), Asian and Aborigine. That's it. People who have populated Central and South America are descendents of original (second and third wave) human migration from Central Asia, whose descendents later interbred with a few Spaniards and Negroes. What's resulted is a myriad of dozens upon dozens of ethnicities scattered throughout Central and South America.

So the whole "La Raza" -- which means, in Spanish, "The Race" -- term and intents represented are nothing more than ethnic-supremacy. There's nothing glorious, honorable, respectable or even lucidly realistic about what their purpose is as group or what they seek. It's purely political for ethnic-supremacy goals: "Hispanics" get free access, U.S.A. citizenship by merits of their DNA only, the U.S.A. somehow has to provide for them, make allowances for them, elevate them, eradicate laws and legal requirements for them, just bow down and eradicate standards for purposes of devotion to their DNA (or, ethnicity, because, again, they're not a race).

Ludicrous and profane, of course. But what's most profane to me as a citizen (and voter) of this nation is that ANY Presidential candidate (or President, for that matter, or any legislator, anyone in public office) is even associating with such an organization. Horribly, the HIllary Clinton campaign has La Raza "personnel" employed, I can't speak as to Obama and I'm not investigating that here, now, for time constraints, and here we go, McCain chugging away at the La Raza disgust and promoting it.

Enter McCain's association reaffirmed today with just such a disgusting group...READ Michelle Malkin's post about this.

McCain's speech today was startling, as it was also preposterously false.

He alleges...

..."everything about our Hispanic voters is tailor-made to the Republican message."

"I am confident that I will do very well," he said. "I know their patriotism, I know the respect for the family, the advocacy for pro-life, I know the small business aspect of our Hispanic voters."

Either McCain is demented or he's a demented liar, or, I'll try to be generous here, he's just another average, lying politician saying whatever works to make for misty votes.

Because he's obviously oblivious to the May Day "Communist Workers'" "protests" by "Hispanics" who pummel, burn, tear, rip and offend the U.S. flag every possible terms, the worst being sewing a flag of Mexico inside two American flags or to one side of the U.S.A. flag such that the Mexican flag "shows through" the flag of the U.S.A. So I don't see much to any respect for the U.S.A. and certainly nor for our flag, by these. And McCain has opted to vote against nearly all legislative attempts that are categorized as "pro-life," though I suppose it 's a useful campaign ruse for him to use the term.

As to "family values," the internet is awash in news articles about children by the hundreds of thousands abandoned by illegal aliens, every possible range of perversions and sexually-related crimes by illegal aliens (as also in their largely "Hispanic" nations from whence they've originated). Crimes of all sorts and across classes and throughout these societies and now throughout ours is represented by higher percentages from among both Hispanic people and illegal aliens, as are over sixty percent (the majority) of illegal aliens also Hispanics, from Hispanic countries, and therefore, also responsible for immigration crimes.

I would find it refreshing if any one political candidate, certainly for the Presidency, would even so much as begin to confront the ridiculous terms that are currently being used to talk all around but avoid talking about the actual issues. As long as candidates continue to use these terms --- "Hispanic voters" and "the Hispanic vote" -- they'll avoid being specific and continue to encourage usery stereotypes for purposes of misleading the public.

I'd enjoy someone asking McCain to define just what and who he means by "Hispanic voter" and why he's courting "the vote" from Central and South America. Same goes for Hillary and Obama.

Here are some of those "Hispanic family values" from the streets of Los Angeles, CA on May 01, 2008:

Hillary Clinton interviewed by Bill O'Reilly, PART ONE from April 30, 2008 and PART TWO from today, May 01, 2008.

On it's own merits, the interview was engaging. O'Reilly was a bit too talkative but so was HIllary but despite them both being too eager to talk and overtalk one another, I valued the interview and thought Hillary Clinton was not only smart to appear with O'Reilly but also considerate to do so: it allowed the more Moderate and Conservative voters to hear what she has to say and how she handles herself when asked extemporaneous (so I assume) questions that are not from among the Liberal school yard or sandbox.

I also thought Clinton was more "meaningful" in this context with O'Reilly than I've considered her in nearly all previous media appearances. Her stage speeches at campaign stops captures her being theatrical and stiff, like she's "enacting" some personna that's expected of her. On these televised interviews before O'Reilly, who rarely lets a guest relax and I appreciate him for that (the exception was certainly his patient, quiet questioning of President Bush a while ago, but that was understandable as it also was respectful), on these two parts of this interview, Clinton appeared far more reasonable than she has before in media.

However, every reasonable thing she said is reduced to meaningless when you take into consideration that among her key campaigners is and has been affiliated with Hispanic/Latino ethnic-supremacy organization, La Raza, and that Hillary declares decidedly before O'Reilly that she will not end sanctuary cities in the U.S. (she says it's due to wanting illegal aliens to report crimes to U.S. law enforcement, which I think pales in consideration of their illegal context and the damages done to our nation by sanctuary cities overall).

As long as Hillary Clinton -- and any political campaign -- is associated with that or any other ethnic-supremacy organization and individual, and puts illegal aliens and increased Socialism ahead of national security, they won't get my support.

Hillary Clinton won the majority of Democrat votes in Pennsylvania yesterday, besting Barack Obama by almost ten percentage points. Operation Chaos is working.

Obama dove from Prince to Poobah by the time his San Francisco ("Crackerquiddick") remarks ("bitter, Bibles, gun-toting" Americans) but it was the Jeremiah Wright damnation snarls that began the sink of what credibility Obama may otherwise have maintained outside his most enamored fainters and the like. Obama has been mostly unknown to Americans and his spring upon the Presidency (so it appeared) left many people willing to believe but wondering what to believe and who he was that they should believe.

Thus, Wright's unappealing regurgitations, combined with other dubious relationships from Obama's life that have recently become news and Obama's latest dull and dooming speaking appearances (San Francisco's Crackerquiddick and the Pennsylvania debate) have thrown serious water on whatever smoldering appeal may have existed otherwise. His wife's monstrous criticisms and petty spoilage in her various remarks has certainly, also, contributed to his sinkage, and in my estimation, well deserve to sink him and be sunk along with him -- Michelle Obama is a snarly, self-centered, certainly selfish, person (she's never been proud of her country until recently, after receiving a far-above-average lifetime of education from this country and far more).

So, Hillary deserved this win in Pennsylvania. In comparison with Barack and Michelle, Hill and Bill, well, the options, at this point, I trail off...

Though I don't plan to vote for Hillary, I congratulate her on her win and her advance in delegate count, and, I have to say, her speech yesterday from Pennsylvania after the annoncement of her win there was stirring. That she remains focused on real problems in our real world and addresses them in real terms is commendable and it is moving, even to me, to hear. If this is only another "Clinton act" of theatre, at this point, it's good theatre, it's emotionally engaging and moving, so, congratulations, Hillary.

Meanwhile, Obama tried eating waffles, was annoyed at being questioned, and departed the waffles for pancakes. What waffles remained were set to sell on E-Bay and have not sold. The heat is gone.

More dismal, Obama's speech last night after the Pennsylvania vote results were determined was towering (in a University-of-Texas-I-Think-I-Have-A-Brain-Tumor-Lone-Gunman way), glowering, non-specific in any realistic terms, floating (in a are-you-going-to-throw-that-out sorta' way), lofty in a l-Am-Impractical way and was generally a man captured being too annoyed to contain himself in a I-Might-Be-A-Juvenile-Delinquent way. In other words, he whined.

UPDATE (09/16/08: Liberals don't get the joke of the "arrugula" misspelling in this cartoon of mine - and send me a cursing email (with forged address, as if that's a surprise); they curse what they don't understand (no surprise there, either):

PROFANE EMAIL FROM ANOTHER STUPID LIBERAL

I watched yesterday's "ABC Debate" from Pennsylvania and only hours later -- after reading the poundpoundpound of freaks freaking-out on the internet about it -- wondered if the ABC broadcast I viewed was an alternate version to what was and continues to be adversely described by the Obama Left.

Because the criticism. -- especially the resentful snottiness from Obama himself about the experience, all over the internet about ABC's debate -- is extreme and extremely imbalanced, as it is also unrealistic, unreasonable and predominantly emotionally deranged.

I was going to write about this (and a few other issues) and then read Michelle Malkin's site while waiting for the kettle to boil so as to make tea and as usual, Malkin's already covered this indecent eruption by the Left and covered it well (here).

But aside from the Obama Left and Obama freak-out on the internet (predominantly directed at ABC and their two moderators at the debate, Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos), what most concerns me today is: (1.) Obama's prickly, creepy, condescending snottiness during yesterday's debate; (2.) Obama's prickly, creepy, condescending snottiness today in his critiques, so to speak, of being critiqued (imagine the nerve of those two White Guys daring to breath in front of Obama); and, (3.) Obama's ongoing avoidance of specifics when asked about specifics, particularly as to these ongoing "problematic relationships" that continue to emerge in reference to Obama: who he commisserates with, or is influenced by, or, worse, as to whom he enjoins
in behaviors, which he later denies or makes fun of when questioned and otherwise denies by not responding otherwise.

First off, Obama's snarky comment oozed sneakiness when Obama dismissed being questioned about William Ayers (Obama snarked that he was "eight years old" when Ayers was terrorizing the United States and that by sheer fact that Ayers lived in Chicago as Obama did, there was no cause to assume their home-town or street-type relationship was anything about anything as to who Obama the political candidate is today -- which, again, is Obama making light of a critical issue and avoiding addressing the issue itself).

So, we have another of Obama's lies, delivered with his arrogant derision of the question and issue. He gets applause when he does this and makes various hand movements and smirks and then enjoys his own snarkiness as much as the clappers before him but none of that defines Obama as truthful or moral, it just defines him as sneaky and creepy.

Obama's devoted his public hours today to complaining moreso about the ABC appearance. I'm not surprised because that seems to be his only product for sale: running-down by side-stepping by resenting an issue (any issue) when being asked to stand still and explain yourself. In other words, hysteria combined with outrage to avoid being specific or moreso, specifically responsible.