Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
8 hours ago, B-Man said:
October 9, 2018

Bill and Hillary Clinton launch their ‘We’ll never go away, Democrats!’ tour

No longer able to get half a million bucks for a brief speech before foreign interests seeking the favor of the American government, Bill and Hillary Clinton are going the concert tour route, hoping to cobble together another fortune built on selling a few thousand tickets per show, from about $70 to $750.  The venues they have chosen, starting with the Park Theatre in Las Vegas (capacity: 5,200) and including the Beacon Theatre (capacity: 2,894) in New York are not in the Madison Square Garden league of stadia, though not yet quite as humiliating as a dinner theatre tour, but if they live long enough, I would not completely rule that out, eventually.

 

209576_5_.png

 

 

They were going to go on tour with former Vice President Joe Biden, but he was already booked

 

attachment.php?attachmentid=604082&stc=1

 

  • Haha (+1) 1
  • Replies 3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
1 hour ago, B-Man said:

YEAH, PRETTY MUCH:

The first few seconds of this are key. Hillary says there can be no civility until the Democrats are back in power. That is the language of would-be totalitarians. And watch @camanpour try and hold back her smile when she says it...

 

That almost sounds like blackmail, or extortion.  

 

Or Nazis.  "We'll be civil when we're in power, and no longer have to fight the extremist opposition in the streets."

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
1 hour ago, DC Tom said:

 

That almost sounds like blackmail, or extortion.  

 

Or Nazis.  "We'll be civil when we're in power, and no longer have to fight the extremist opposition in the streets."

 

Correct. It's out in the open for all to see... 

 

but conditioning is a hell of a thing. They can't see the projection. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
2 hours ago, B-Man said:

YEAH, PRETTY MUCH:

The first few seconds of this are key. Hillary says there can be no civility until the Democrats are back in power. That is the language of would-be totalitarians. And watch @camanpour try and hold back her smile when she says it...

 

Hey leftists...we know you don't post here much these days, and we get it. Things are bad. But here's the thing; in lieu of a party leader, this delusional nutbag is the voice of your party. Booker and Harris blew their shot with the way they puked during the Kavanaugh hearings. Warren is too far left. Bernie is...well...who knows where he is these days.

 

You better find a voice by the mid-terms, or it will be the HIllary show in 2020. And admit it. You can't tolerate that again. You just can't.

Posted
9 hours ago, LABillzFan said:

 

Hey leftists...we know you don't post here much these days, and we get it. Things are bad. But here's the thing; in lieu of a party leader, this delusional nutbag is the voice of your party. Booker and Harris blew their shot with the way they puked during the Kavanaugh hearings. Warren is too far left. Bernie is...well...who knows where he is these days.

 

You better find a voice by the mid-terms, or it will be the HIllary show in 2020. And admit it. You can't tolerate that again. You just can't.

I'm actually terrified of Bernie. If the Dem primaries weren't rigged for Hilary, he'd be President. It looks like he's preparing to run again too.

Posted

What is it with the left that makes them think picking a physical fight with the right is a winning strategy?

 

Do they somehow think we look at the antifa thugs assaulting people in their 70s and are afraid? Who's going to lead the charge? Hillary? She can't even climb a flight of stairs.

 

Be careful what you wish for, leftists, as you will surely get it.

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, LABillzFan said:

What is it with the left that makes them think picking a physical fight with the right is a winning strategy?

 

Do they somehow think we look at the antifa thugs assaulting people in their 70s and are afraid? Who's going to lead the charge? Hillary? She can't even climb a flight of stairs.

 

Be careful what you wish for, leftists, as you will surely get it.

 

I'll put my money on the side with all the guns.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

More: 

 

 

 

Looks like Woods will get banned again soon.

Edited by KRC
Posted
On 10/11/2018 at 12:28 PM, Deranged Rhino said:

Flashback Thursday: 

DpPM3-_XgAA4sUu.jpg

 

(the media is lying to you about the popularity of the socialist/clinton message)

 

 

You think they would have at least photo shopped some non-white people to placate the SJW

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted (edited)

I wanted to add this here as it may be signaling the end of the Clinton Policial Dynasty


Hillary Clinton and Cheryl Mills lost/gave up their security clearance.

Hillary Clinton lost security clearance

this tweet has more links...

https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1050859523177627648/photo/1


Here is Grassley's letter about her clearance

Hillary Clinton's security clearance administratively withdrawn


Reading this, she "requested" her security clearance be removed (and it happened in August). 

Possibly for testifying purposes? Something to do with the Judicial Watch/Benghazi suit? 
To avoid the "removed for corruption" headline (asked for it to be removed when she told it was going to be removed)?
If she "requested" her security clearance be removed, does that mean she still has some sort of clearance as a former first lady (this has to be the first time a former first lady "requested" her clearance be removed)?  Is it a different clearance than the what she had as SOS?

 

Edited by Buffalo_Gal
Posted (edited)

Ok, so I am reading her clearance was up for renewal, and they would have investigated her up to and including the Clinton Foundation (her finances).  She'd never have survived that. (I do not know if this is why she gave it up, but it is plausible.)

@DC Tom , do you know how the clearance of former Presidents and First Ladies work compared to a former SOS? IOW, could she still have a clearance as a first lady but have lost her former SOS clearance? Or are they all the same? And if so, how deeply does a former president's (and first lady) finances get looked at for security purposes compared to a clearance for a current (or former) cabinet position clearance? 

Edited by Buffalo_Gal
Posted
3 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Ok, so I am reading her clearance was up for renewal, and they would have investigated her up to and including the Clinton Foundation (her finances).  She'd never have survived that. (I do not know if this is why she gave it up, but it is plausible.)

@DC Tom , do you know how the clearance of former Presidents and First Ladies work compared to a former SOS? IOW, could she still have a clearance as a first lady but have lost her former SOS clearance? Or are they all the same? And if so, how deeply does a former president's (and first lady) finances get looked at for security purposes compared to a clearance for a current (or former) cabinet position clearance? 

 

I have had a crazy past 48 hours and haven't really gotten a chance to do much digging myself into this topic - but I heard one thing I wanted to float out there to the group because it made little sense to me. A friend told me they believe dropping her clearance makes Clinton harder to track if she were to make a run for it - which sounds shaky to me, but who knows...

Posted
8 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I have had a crazy past 48 hours and haven't really gotten a chance to do much digging myself into this topic - but I heard one thing I wanted to float out there to the group because it made little sense to me. A friend told me they believe dropping her clearance makes Clinton harder to track if she were to make a run for it - which sounds shaky to me, but who knows...

Yes, running for the highest office in the land after having given up her security clearance makes a lot of sense. Trump would eviscerate her on this. It would even be a good way to remind people of her husband having to give up his law license.

Posted
1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said:

Yes, running for the highest office in the land after having given up her security clearance makes a lot of sense. Trump would eviscerate her on this. It would even be a good way to remind people of her husband having to give up his law license.

 

Sorry, I meant if she tried to flee the country. Not run for office. I should have been more clear. :beer:

Posted
1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I have had a crazy past 48 hours and haven't really gotten a chance to do much digging myself into this topic - but I heard one thing I wanted to float out there to the group because it made little sense to me. A friend told me they believe dropping her clearance makes Clinton harder to track if she were to make a run for it - which sounds shaky to me, but who knows...

 

How would it make her more difficult to track?  It's not like they RFID tag people with a clearance.

 

Bill and HRC are two of the most recognizable faces on the planet.  Include their entourage and the requirements of their lavish lifestyles, and they will be easy to track

Posted
1 minute ago, /dev/null said:

 

How would it make her more difficult to track?  It's not like they RFID tag people with a clearance.

 

Bill and HRC are two of the most recognizable faces on the planet.  Include their entourage and the requirements of their lavish lifestyles, and they will be easy to track

 

Agreed. It makes no sense to me so I don't put much stock into it, but figured I'd share it in case it did make sense to those with more experience dealing with clearances and what's required. 

×
×
  • Create New...