Search Box

Friday, September 23, 2016

A little more on Hillary

After the sociopath alert on Hillary from three days ago, commenter "Rifleman" linked the following anecdote about Hillary from Staff Sgt. Eric Bonner, but added that he couldn't confirm its authenticity:

I'm not Voting for Clinton.

It has nothing to do with her views. It really doesn't even matter about all the laws she broke.

It's because She actually talked to me once. Almost a sentence. But first, some background.

Being a K9 handler in the Military I got to do a few details involving Distinguished Visitors. Mostly Generals, DOD Officials, and Secretaries of Defense. I was lucky enough to pull two awesome details. George W Bush, and Obama.

GW looked at me, said "Man, who'd you piss off" high fived me, and continued on. I was climbing down from a catwalk I stood on for 4 hours with nothing but Dust and a radio to keep me company. The radio died early on. It was pretty sweet.

Obama, as he was walking out to his plane in Turkey, said "What the hell kind of dog is that?!" In reference to Suli.

One of my Last details was for Hillary when she was Secretary of State. She was in Turkey for whatever reason. I helped with sweeps of her DV Quarters and staff vehicles. Her words to me? "Get that Fucking dog away from me." Then she turns to her Security Detail and berates them up and down about why that animal was in her quarters. For the next 20 minutes while I sit there waiting to be released she lays into her detail, slamming the door in their faces when she's done. The Detail lead walks over apologizes and releases me. I apologize to him for getting him in trouble. His words "Happens every day, Brother"

Hillary doesn't care about anyone but Hillary.

Commenter "Puzzled" then found this Snopes analysis of the incident, which confirmed that Staff Sgt. Bonner was a K-9 handler, and he was in Turkey at the time Hillary visited Ankara. 

Puzzled then added:

Bear in mind that Snopes is not impartial. It's a very left-wing site. It used to be good but it's become infected by leftism over the years and the majority of its debunking is highly partisan left-wing propaganda. They tried to debunk Bonners story but they couldn't. Snopes confirmed every particular of Bonners story. He really is or was a military K-9 Handler. he really was in turkey. Why on Earth would he lie about this? What possible benefit could he get from lying about this?

In other words, it's true. 

Thank you to Rifleman and Puzzled for providing this colorful example of Hillary being herself.

33 comments:

Anonymous said...

You're welcome, it was easy - I just let my fingers do the walking. (Those of you of a certain age will remember that colorful ad phrase, although I don't remember what the ad was for.)

This anecdote was the "that does it" moment for me. I've thought until now that these anecdotes about Hillary are just slightly suspicious, and I am a Hillary hater for other reasons (there are so many, but in a word: Libya). Canned. Always the same guy: a not too smart piece of beefcake who you can tell just hates the c-word. So I've been skeptical. But the Snopes fact check pushed me over the edge. This happened. Snopes tried to cast doubt on his story (it's just he said, she said) but everything else is confirmed.

Repeat: there is no reason for a private citizen to court danger by repeating this story.

It happened. She's disgusting. In every way.

Puzzled

Anonymous said...

John,

I realize this is totally off topic but I came across this:

http://www.sbnation.com/2016/9/22/12983110/jacoby-brissett-patriots-starting-qb

You've probably noticed that sports journalism has gone SJW in a massive way, but SI should win an award for Most Cucked Magazine Ever.

What's really depressing are the comments. I ignore the dittoheads and focus on the cucks. They always bleat ineffectually, "why do we have to make this a race issue?" and that's a loser from the gate.

The alt-right is so strong because they don't bother with that. That admit that race is real, it's important, and one of the major appeals of The Pats is that they are (were?) such a white team. And what's wrong with that?

I pay little attention to football but it strikes me that Brady was disciplined because the NFL wanted to "send a message." Which message was that? Do you think Brady's race had anything to do with this message?

Puzzled

John Craig said...

Puzzled --
It was an ad for the Yellow Pages (yet one more anachronism made so by the digital age).

I'm afraid the "that does it" moment must have come a long time ago for me, back in the 90's sometime.

Anonymous said...

This incident just confirms what former Secret Service agents have said about her, that she has a Jekyll-and-Hyde personality. I've come to think that Hillary is capable of anything.

-birdie

John Craig said...

Puzzled --
No question, sports journalism has gone the way of every other type. In the NY Times, the pc mindset affects not only the sports and arts sections, but the business section as well. In a way, it's almost good: given its pervasiveness, you don't really need an interpreter to sift out the facts, it's obvious what's propaganda and what's not.

Believe it or not, I wouldn't mind a society where race wasn't made as big an issue. What bothers me even more is the double standard applied to this type of stuff. It's considered a crisis when American-born blacks constitute only 11% of the players in professional baseball (as opposed to their 13% of the population). Yet they comprise 60% of the NFL and 80% of the NBA, and nobody considers that a crisis of any sort.

The liberals are always saying they want an honest dialogue on race. Well, let's give them hat they want. Let's talk openly about race and IQ, about race and crime rates, about racial differences in propensity to violence, to rape, and so on. And let's talk about which races evolved to the point where they could construct a civilization worthy of the name by themselves, and which couldn't. But, of course, the Left doesn't really want that honest of a dialogue. They just want to lecture with the same dishonest platitudes they always have, and only air facts which put them in a good light.

John Craig said...

Birdie --
I don't think she actually even has a Jekyll personality, she's always Hyde, but when the cameras are rolling, she hides Hyde.

beppo said...

It never ceases to irritate me whenever I hear this nasty, vindictive,bullying crook -who seems to have been born allergic to honesty and decency- referred to by her first name.

Could she not be called "la Clinton" (husband "el Clinton" if you like).

John Craig said...

Beppo --
Agree with your characterization, but she's already "Hillary," for better or worse. She can't be referred to as "Clinton," because of the confusion factor, and "la" doesn't really seem appropriate given there's nothing really French about her. I think you find it annoying because first names tend to imply a certain friendly familiarity. If it helps, think of it this way: she really ought to be referred to by the honorifics "Senator Clinton," or "Madame Secretary," given her recent resume, so calling her "Hillary" -- as one might a refer to a child by her first name -- is disrespectful.

Anonymous said...

"Let's talk openly about race and IQ, about race and crime rates, about racial differences in propensity to violence, to rape, and so on. And let's talk about which races evolved to the point where they could construct a civilization worthy of the name by themselves, and which couldn't."

Y0V MVST B3C0M3 N3XT MAY0R 0R S3NAT0R 0R S0M3TH1NG, S00N.

N0 BACKTALK. D0 1T!

====FAK3 BABA

John Craig said...

FAKE BABA --
With the above quote I would not only be able to be elected dogcatcher, I'm afraid I would lose whatever job I had.

The Ambivalent Misanthrope said...

If only people would listen to her tone and inflection and not to the content of her words --- they'd get it. She sounds like a chronically angry bully. Content is paradoxically irrelevant (at least to my mind) in the midst of a campaign, when politicians will say/promise just about anything to get elected. But the tone says a whole lot, and every time I hear HC speak, I just want to run away, regardless of what it is that she is talking about.

It amazes me how much people choose to ignore indirect but crucial information like that. Just today I went weak in the knees (in a very bad way) when I learned a friend's husband has gone to Iowa (out of state!) to work on HC's campaign. He has never been particularly political so this news hit me hard. Why has he perpetrated this act of insanity? Because, and I'm quoting, because he doesn't want Trump's possible election to be on his conscience!

John Craig said...

Ambivalent Misanthrope --
You're right, there IS a constant angry undertone to her voice. when she's yelling to a crowd, it sounds quite harsh, but even when she's talking conversationally, there's something about that voice that makes you sense anger.

Unfortunately, your friend's husband got brainwashed by the media, almost all of whom are trying to portray Trump as the second coming of Hitler. And the simple-minded buy it. Hope your friend is smarter than her hubby.

Anonymous said...

"It was an ad for the Yellow Pages (yet one more anachronism made so by the digital age)."
Right - that's another casualty of the advent of technology but that discussion is for another time. More about Hillary -

"I'm afraid the "that does it" moment must have come a long time ago for me, back in the 90's sometime."

I've hated her from the get-go as well. What I meant was the sociopath tipping point. I honestly did not realize she was a sociopath until I read that Snopes article.

Meanwhile, this is interesting & relevant, from the Atlantic:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/trump-makes-his-case-in-pittsburgh/501335/

"The 70-year-old Republican nominee took his time walking from the green room toward the stage. He stopped to chat with the waiters, service workers, police officers, and other convention staffers facilitating the event. There were no selfies, no glad-handing for votes, no trailing television cameras. Out of view of the press, Trump warmly greets everyone he sees, asks how they are, and, when he can, asks for their names and what they do.

“I am blown away!” said one worker, an African American man who asked for anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to speak to the press. “The man I just saw there talking to people is nothing like what I’ve seen, day in and day out, in the news.”"

The rest of the article is the focus but to me the quotes are the most important part, and the YUGEST contrast between literally every story about Hillary, and Trump. Has any journalist ever written something honest about Hillary like that? I think the only place that Hillary ever does that sort of thing is black churches, where she can do her Nice White Lady act. That's because she secretly has contempt for blacks, like the vast majority of white shitlibs. She hates and fears the white working class.

Anonymous said...

I let my fingers do more walking.

For LULz, Paglia on Clinton:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=camille+paglia+hillary+clinton&view=detail&mid=19F08811911DE2687A8C19F08811911DE2687A8C&FORM=VIRE

(Hillary failed the bar exam on her 1st try. So many facts get thrown in your face that I didn't properly credit the importance of that, but now I am. She's not the genius her asslickers make her out to be. Reasonably bright, that's all.)

Paglia on Clinton's issues with men:

http://www.salon.com/2016/01/27/camille_paglia_hillarys_blame_men_first_feminism_may_prove_costly_in_2016/

(I happen to disagree with Paglia about the entire nature of 2nd wave feminism but that's another argument I'm not getting into here. The point of her article is that Hillary is damaged psychologically from an abusive upbringing. I know that this line of argument is unpopular among the HBD crowd but I subscribe to it.)

Puzzled

Anonymous said...

PS - I apologize for providing a link to Salon, which has become the worst of the shitlib websites. But for Paglia and this subject, I had to do it. IRONY NOTE: Next to this article is a link, which I will NOT click: "Stop Blaming The Other Woman: The Toxic Sexism Behind Brangelina Infidelity Divorce Rumors."

Actually, I do happen to think that blaming the other woman is toxic, it takes two to tango. But do these people ever hear themselves? Monica, Juanita, Paula...I forget who else, there are so many. "Narcissistic looney tune"...all of these women were slimed and smeared - by HILLARY. Personally.

Puzzled

John Craig said...

Puzzled --
Aha, OK, it took me a while to see her sociopathy too. For a long time I didn't realize it, for the reasons I gave at the beginning of that post.

Yes, one of the most telling differences between Trump and Hillary is how they treat the "little people." Hillary spits on them, and leaves a long trail of people who hate her. Trump does not. Even when the Times did that hit piece on Trump trying to paint him as an unrepentant exporter of women, the two women interviewed for that article said that their comments were taken out of context and twisted around, and that they liked Trump. And evidently most of the people who've worked of him end up liking him too. He's incredible egotistical, but that's not the same as being mean.

John Craig said...

Puzzled --
I watched the video and read the article. Paglia is right on target: Hillary is fraud. I alway enjoy reading Paglia, enjoy watching her a little less, her overly rapid, almost staccato delivery is indicative of her intelligence, but not really fun to listen to.

Oh, and yes, it's amazing how many of the prominent feminists came from really dysfunctional backgrounds. Steinem did, and Sarandon (who's admittedly more of an all around Leftie than just a feminist) has also admitted that she did. I had wondered if it was Clinton's father who made her what she is, psychologically speaking, and sure enough.......

Thank you for those links.

John Craig said...

Puzzled --
No apologies necessary. And yes, Hillary's hypocrisy is breathtaking.

Anonymous said...

"unrepentant exporter of women" LOL. Exploiter, right? I think Bill's the "exporter."

I hate Hill so much that I simply try to ignore her, but you got me going. Here is the Snopes link on her failed bar exam:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/barexam.asp

Note the head: "Hillary Clinton did not succeed..." How do you like that?

"In 1973, in between the time she first began dating fellow Yale law school student Bill Clinton in 1971 and finally agreed to marry him in 1975 (after turning down an earlier proposal)"

What the fuck does this have to do with the issue? They insert this irrelevant factoid because they want to shift the blame to that awful Billy-goat Clinton, who wouldn't leave the poor girl alone.

(Part of their charming story is that she was the one who made the first move, in the Yale Law Library. They tell it all the time, as if this is something to be proud of. Everyone normal knows that the man makes the first move, and in relationships where the woman has made the first move, she will always be insecure about the relationship - for good reason.)

"sat bar exams in Arkansas and the District of Columbia"

Hmm. Which one came first? They make it sound as if she did the two at once, or intentionally decided to take both sequentially. Not clear. My guess is that she took the DC exam, failed, and took the AR exam after that, which she would have done, but still, the DC exam was the big prize.

"a piece of information that wasn't publicly revealed until thirty years later"

Thanks for that, Snopes. You might have given the fucking pub date, which I just looked up: 2007.

So we didn't learn until 2007, courtesy of Carl Bernstein, that genius Hillary failed her first bar exam. Fuck you Snopes.

The quoted Bernstein section tries hard to excuse her failure, situating it in her relationship with Bill, her unfamiliarity with her surroundings, etc. Violins?

The rest of the entry is relatively neutral: "As Bernstein noted, although the D.C. bar examination was "hardly one of the toughest in the nation," it was "far more difficult than the Arkansas exam." and notes that 551 of the 817 participants in the exam passed.

Hillary did worse than 551 out of 817 participants on an easy bar exam.

The rest of the article contains passages from partisan pro-Hillary books that fabricate excuses for her failure.

I don't think it would be such a terrible thing to admit that Hillary has a second tier brain, and allowed her emotions to get the better of her. That is no crime in a 25 year old first time test taker. Oliver Wendell Holmes on FDR: "second class brain, first class temperament."

But in Hillary's case, you can't say that. The cult of personality is too entrenched.

Consult Snopes but be wary of their bias: hard core left.

The photo of Hill, despite the fact that it shows her at her bluestocking best, ain't bad.

***

It's not Hillary's hypocrisy I'm slamming here. It's the organized online so-called Left, exemplified by Salon.

Puzzled

John Craig said...

Pulled --
Yes, "exploiter"is what I meant, thank you. (AutoCorrect.) I should proof my comments for typos, but often forget.

Agree with everything you say. Hillary's performance in the bar is reminiscent of Joe Biden's performance in law school, finishing in the bottom third of his class. Just goes to show, getting ahead is not a matter of brains, it's a matter of character. Bad character. (I.E., the willingness to lie, brownnose, backstab, and wriggle your way to the top.)

The good thing about the bias of the media is that it's become so obvious that only idiots can no longer see it.

Anonymous said...

Paglia's article has one error: Hillary's eyes are not brown. When I first read this I was intrigued & looked up early pics of Hillary. Her eyes are some light color. The contacts make them bluer, but her eyes are not brown. It's a minor error but still.

Hillary's appearance down the years is very revealing. It's not the usual aging process, it's someone who purposely tries to deceive. Contrast that with Margaret Thatcher, who had the same look from 25 to 87. The only change was that in the 1950s, women didn't tease their hair.

http://primetime.unrealitytv.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/a-THATCHER-EARLY-YEARS-640x468.jpg

I suppose she colored it later on. But other than that, The Look was the same.

I hope you're right about people finally seeing the truth. But will it matter? All Hillary has to do is win certain states and she's in. A lot of people I know would vote for her if she died onstage and her effigy was carted around until election day.

Puzzled

John Craig said...

Puzzled --
Yes, it's too bad the public can't see Hillary as she would look without all the artifice, all the plastic surgery. She's been through as many iterations as Madonna.

I know, I know, Hillary could win. The electoral college math does seem to be in her favor. And the changing demographics of the country mean that a certain percentage will vote for the party of more taxes to support more welfare no matter what. If she does get elected, I doubt she lasts through her first term. And what would that leave us with? Kaine, who from my fleeing impression of him, is basically Hillary Lite.

Anonymous said...

I really want Trump to win, but a Hillary win might not be the worst thing in the world. Right, her health is terrible. She's such a liar even the left will become deathly sick of her. Everyone will hate her for different reasons - but I still want Trump to win.

Anyway I saw something interesting on Twitter (yes, I know), someone claimed that the NSA released Hill's emails. This has been percolating around the net for some time but the newest revelations (that Holder & Obama communicated w/Hillary using pseudonyms) are lending it renewed credence.

This is a stunning level of corruption. Thing is, people get so sick of corruption that they just tune out. There has to be something major to jolt them out of their complacency.

Puzzled

John Craig said...

Puzzled --
I think a Hillary Presidency wold be disastrous. She would let all sorts of people into the country who in the long run would help bring the country down. Demographics is destiny.

The NY Post had an article this morning saying that Obama had communicated with Hillary using pseudonym. Maybe he was aware of Hillary's email shenanigans. Yes, this administration has been all about corruption.

The Ambivalent Misanthrope said...

I'm amazed there has been no surprise third-party candidate rise to the surface and proclaim to save us all from the current offering. Sometime earlier this summer I thought, surely a figure will emerge from the darkness and seize this most auspicious of opportunities. Where are they? Please, anyone? John?

I looked at the NY Post article about Obama using a pseudonym with HC's illicit server venture. (HC, by the way, stands for Hell Cometh). All I have to say is that I'm reminded of this class I tok back in college on the ancient Near East and Egypt. Egypt was a grand old civilization that, as we know, eventually collapsed due to the usual causes --- corruption, stagnation, corruption, and, oh yes, did I mention corruption? The ruling elites spending the people's capital on their own luxury, monuments, outrageous media spin (which back then asserted their divine appointment, etc), and the further consolidation of their own wealth and power.

How did the common people eventually react? Through conduct which betrayed their contempt and ennui with the propaganda. They looted the 'sacred' tombs and monuments, left graffiti as a memento, and basically tried to extract the maximum profit from the broken system, recognizing it to be beyond repair.

And I really see us in exactly the same place.

The Ambivalent Misanthrope said...

Oh. And I'm so not voting for HC.

I'm ready to join the insanity and pitch me tent outside Trump's headquarters. He needs to clean up his narcissstic act. I mean, I get it, the man wouldn't ahve gotten as far as he has without his brand of grandiose buffoonery, but he needs to get serious now. He needs someone to check speech content and facts. Donald, please! Don;t make me fire you with my ballot. Get it together.

John Craig said...

Ambivalent Misanthrope --
For a while there was talk of Bloomberg mounting a third party candidacy, but he decided against it and endorsed Hillary. But he hasn't been actively involved in her campaign in any way, and we haven't heard anything from him since. I thought he might be a real threat, basically for the reasons you mention, and wrote a post to that effect, but virtually every commenter told me I was wrong, so who knows.

HC = Hell Cometh? Pretty good. How about Humongous Chutzpah? Or Harpy C___?

I never knew that about Egypt. You always hear that about Rome, but my knowledge of Egyptian civilization is close to nothing. (Or should I not admit that?)

Tump will never change, anymore than Hillary will. All we can hope is that his handlers will rein him in during the next six weeks enough for him to win the election. Monday's debate will be all important.

The Ambivalent Misanthrope said...

Can I be a Donald handler? Anything to block HC.

No need to feel bad about Egypt. Most people don't know that about Egypt, focusing on Rome instead. Rome is still this interesting case study, two thousand years later. There are endless books and TV specials about 'the Fall of Rome' but not on 'the Fall of Egypt'. I don't know why. But I always found Egypt more fascinating because it lasted a lot longer than Rome. And still -- it fell in the same way.

Corruption.

And all the ways the people expressed their cynicism in response, and felt just about zero loyalty to their government (eventually). As corny as it's going to sound, I don't want that happen!.

John Craig said...

Ambivalent Misanthrope --
It's probably not too late to be a volunteer for Trump, though he doesn't seem to have much of an organization.

That is interesting about Egypt. All of these great civilizations seem to follow a certain pattern, eventually becoming not only corrupt but soft as well. We've definitely reached both of those stages; who know what happens next.

I can't say I felt a lot of loyalty to the Obama administration.

Anthonyhehasnoname said...

Is Hillary Clinton the one running the entire thing? Are there people using her as a puppet to their wins? Or is she part of a group of equals in the whole scheme? When she gets what she wants, what will happen? What does she want? Does she have any ulterior motive, like a villian with a goal, or is she just doing it because she can? Is she truly a pragmatic villain knowing what she is doing or is she just incredibly destructive in a stupid way?

There is evil used as a means to an end, but sometimes a lot of people commit evil actions that compromise themselves! GHGHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAGGGGGHHHHHHRRRRGGGGHGHGHGG?!?!?!?

John Craig said...

Anthony --
My take on the whole thing is that everybody uses everybody else to get what they want. People are either useful, in which case they become allies, or not.

Anthonyhehasnoname said...

So what does she want?

John Craig said...

Anthony --
Power, the opportunity to go down in history as the first woman President, and more money.

At this point, she must want her health back, too.