Freepers evaluate the evidence (i.e. the story above, presented without support), and find it sufficient to stoke their paranoia.
blueyon was brought around by Obama is capable of anything:
At first I thought "come on this can't be" but then I started reading the article and now I am not sure. It sounds plausible. With everything going on in this administration, the news is getting weirder and weirder every day. Your thoughts?the anti-mahdi's BS radar says this is legit:
I have seen every video and read most of Walid Shoebat’s articles.NoExpectations - Hillary is totally in on it:
I have a well-defined BS radar. Walid is the real deal as far as I can tell. The vitriol that he is subjected to also buttresses his positions.
When everyone accuses someone of being a fraud and the people doing the accusing are muslim or secular atheists you can pretty much discern who and what they are doing.
Just my opinion, but I believe Walid is genuine and knows his stuff.
Walid’s theory makes sense. The whole video issue was weird from day one. Barack Hussein Obama is only interested in advancing islam and to heck with our freedom of speech. Killary is too stupid to figure out what is going on and needs to be kept as far away from the Oval Office as possible.jsanders2001 also thinks Hillary is compromised...sexily:
She was directly involved with the muslim brotherhood push in Egypt. Her assistant's (Mrs. Weiner) immediate family members belong to MB. Big mistake to think anyone in this administration is stupid, uninformed or out-of-touch. They are all pure evil and fully aware of their actions.
Well her running buddy, Huma Abedin, is Muzzie and it’s been reported that they may have been lesbian bed buddies. They don’t talk about that much about it anymore but, if true, would have much influence and bias on her ability to see the corruptive influence the Muslims being installed in the WH has had.mojito has no doubts about Huma being a Muslim Brotherhood agent.
I read the piece in full. It all ties back to Hilary Clinton and her ties with the Muslim Brotherhood through Huma Abadin, who is without doubt a Muslim Brotherhood agent.I'm still not convinced Hillary will run, but I kinda hope so, if only for the possibility that the Huma speculation could become the new birtherism.
I find the claims more than plausible.
jsanders2001 knows Ted Cruz is enough of a bigot:
Cruz would forego the PC crap and boot the Muzzies out of his administration...fivecatsandadog explains why Freepers love this story:
It all boils down to the fact that Obama is a MUSLIM, in addition to incompetent, psycho, traitor, communist, etc. Need I say more?
I think Hillary is very likely to run. If you saw The Daily Show on July 15th, she gave her strongest hints yet in response to Jon's humorous questions. Whether she does or not is still up in the air, of course, but either way she remains a popular Freeper bogeyman.
ReplyDeleteI don't. I think she's playing the Repubs like a fiddle, running interference for someone else. All eyes are on her at the moment, and all tactics are on discrediting her.
DeleteI mean - she's going to be 70 soon. She does have health issues. I hope she does run though - it'll be an R win at a gentle walk, assuming we don't pick an idiot. That is never a safe assumption - give the RNC a gun and they will nearly always point it at their foot.
If Hillary wins the presidency in 2016, she'll be 69 when she takes the oath of office, just like Reagan was when he took office in 1981. And I think you underestimate just how popular she is here. Unless Republicans have someone truly spectacular and she doesn't make any major mistakes, I think she'll win hands down if she's the nominee.
DeleteYou are on the ground there - I totally accept your assessment. We might disagree (a lot), but you got a brain and know how to use it.
DeleteFrom this side of the pond - she's got a C130's baggage to haul. Already seeing a lot of things about Elizabeth Warren. That can't be good for a run.
She may have baggage, but not any more than any other politician that's been at it for as long as she has. What sort of things are you seeing about Elizabeth Warren?
DeleteWarren is being bigged up. Nothing that would surprise you this far out from 2016, but she's certainly got her cheerleaders out there establishing her credibility, and she's hitting the Sunday talk show circuit hard in recent weeks. It's a while out, but she's positioning.
DeleteOh yeah, I know about that. She's a big superstar on the left. And I admit I'd like to see her run, too. Would she win? Maybe. But I think she's less likely than Hillary to run. She's all but given a Shermanesque statement. In 2024 she'd be 75, so I doubt she'll ever run.
DeleteThat is exactly why I think Hillary is doing the head fake. The next president pretty much has to be a woman. It's way past time for that and the entire narrative is pointing towards it - the whole War on Women thing wasn't just a happy accident for the Dems. It was planned from the outset to set the stage - and cleverly done, too.
DeleteI do honestly think that Hillary is not up to the job though. Her age, health, baggage (including Bill, though I like the old scoundrel) would make for a tough run.
On the R side, I'd like to see Nikki Haley or Jan Brewer toss their hats into the ring. Both successful governors, so they got the hands on experience.
I still think it'll be Hillary. Her popularity is through the roof compared to any other politician, she's younger than Reagan was (by a few months) by this point, and I don't know of any health problems she has that would prevent her from running. Maybe you've heard something different?
DeleteAs far as Haley or Brewer, the one good thing they have going for them is that they are relatively unknown at this point. An election would change that, though, and not necessarily in a good way. Both of them have baggage that would turn off a lot of voters. But they don't seem to be making any motions toward 2016.
The one thing Republicans have a problem with, is that Democrats start with around 253 electoral votes, and only need 17 more to get to 270. Republicans only have 206, so it's a pretty steep uphill climb, but it is possible (see 2000 and 2004). However, Nixon's southern strategy that they've been relying on for 40 years has come back to bite them hard. The racist views they have that were a lot more acceptable back then is causing them problems, even though they try to disguise it with words like "states rights," "welfare abuse" and "voter fraud". I think it'll be a while before a Republican is elected president again, at least until they stop acting like the presidency is their God-given right.
I wish they'd stop acting like that. Drives me nuts. - the President is the president of all the people, not 50.1% of them,
DeleteAnd who gives a single flying fuck about race any more? Some Neanderthals, maybe, but not anyone with half a brain. It's a non-issue for most people on either side,
Sex is a different thing. That is going to polarize the shit out of the electorate. Sad to say, conservatives tend to prefer old white guys.
While I totally agree that both Haley and Brewer (especially Brewer) are toting their own car load of baggage, it's workable. They have a record to point at. Both of them have enough "crossing the aisle" credibility to pull in the independents while keeping the core voters.
Like I said, whenever you hear a Republican say words like "states rights," "welfare abuse" or "voter fraud" it's only because they've trained themselves since around 1968 not to say n****r any more. Maybe most of them believe that what they're saying is not racist, and believe it's not about race at all, but that is where those terms come from. It's a fact of American history. Just look up Lee Atwater.
DeleteAs for Haley and Brewer, you may be right that their baggage is workable. I believe the same about Hillary Clinton, mainly because her baggage is pretty much common knowledge and she's still popular. But all we have now is speculation until they actually run a campaign.
Suit yourself. It's a word I prefer not to use but I don't care if you use it.
DeleteOrwell had it right. If you control the language, you control how people think. That's why I get so offended when a word is declared "out of bounds."
DeleteI don't mind the inevitable and gradual shift of meanings - that is simply part of speaking a rich and nuanced language - but saying something is off limits completely just pisses me off.
And you just gave me an idea for an article :)
Please notice that you didn't get censored. You can say any word you want, but you might not like what people infer from your usage of one.
Delete