Hillary and the Black Panthers

[MaGZ]

Back in the 1960's Hillary Clinton along with other radicals were supportive of the Black Panther Party. Should this disqualify her as a presidential candidate?

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3966944c34b9.htm

[MaGZ]

The Real Story on Hillary and the Panthers

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/8/19/02154.shtml

[Puppycow]

Youthful indiscretion.
Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/panthers.asp)

Regarding the Black Panthers, it's bad, but in the context and compared to the KKK, it's understandable (not this crime, but the existence of an organization to counter the KKK).

[Dorian Gray]

George W Bush was busted for cocaine and drinking and went AWOL. Should that disqualify him as a presidential candidate?

[Tailgater]

Back in the 1960's Hillary Clinton along with other radicals were supportive of the Black Panther Party. Should this disqualify her as a presidential candidate?

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3966944c34b9.htm

It's a free country. Why would it?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

And Jesus Christ was a Jew. :rolleyes:

[MaGZ]

Youthful indiscretion.
Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/panthers.asp)

Regarding the Black Panthers, it's bad, but in the context and compared to the KKK, it's understandable (not this crime, but the existence of an organization to counter the KKK).

"Youthful indiscretion."?

What if a college aged David Duke lead a demonstration back in those days in a Nazi uniform protesting campus radicals?

Would you dismiss that to "youthful indiscretion"?

[varwoche]

The evidence presented is lacking.

Insight Magazine is a right-wing gossip rag that is part of Rev. Moon's press empire and is an abject journalistic joke.

I enjoyed this bit though... And, at length, Insight found a source that appeared to stand the test of credibility. That source is David Horowitz Not even on planet X is Horowitz credible.

[fuelair]

One of the neat things about the Black Panthers was their newspaper. They, quite intelligently, put out a well written - in standard English - paper which espoused their views. Doesn't mean I agreed with all their points (I don't agree with all of anybody's points AFAIK).

[MaGZ]

The evidence presented is lacking.

Insight Magazine is a right-wing gossip rag that is part of Rev. Moon's press empire and is an abject journalistic joke.

I enjoyed this bit though... Not even on planet X is Horowitz credible.

Actually Insight is part of the Washington Times which was set up by the Moon (Unification Church) group.

The question is why? Any ideas?

What does Rev. Moon have against Hillary?

[linusrichard]

It'd be a shame to have a president who condones torture. I mean - another one.

Seriously, though, it's hard to take this kind of criticism seriously from someone who has cited davidduke.com (or maybe it's .org, who cares?) as a source.

That is - coming from MaGZ, this can't really be interpreted as "She shouldn't be allowed to be president because she supported a domestic terrorist organization," but rather "She shouldn't be allowed to be president because she supported the wrong domestic terrorist organization."


Personally, I'm not a fan of violence, and therefore, not of the Black Panthers. (Also not a fan of Clinton - a separate issue.) However, the Panthers are almost infinitely better than the KKK, and considering also the level of Clinton's support (according to the Snopes article, I mean - newsmax and freerepublic are not reliable sources), along with the fact that she didn't appear to do anything illegal at all, even accepting the worst interpretation - no, she obviously shouldn't be disqualified from the presidency for this non-issue.

[varwoche]

Insight Magazine is a right-wing gossip rag that is part of Rev. Moon's press empire

Actually Insight is part of the Washington Times which was set up by the Moon (Unification Church) group. Well if you want to nitpick minutia, you are not quite correct. Insight is owned by News World Communications as is the Times. NWC is the Unification Church's media arm. link (http://www.cjr.org/resources/index.php?c=newsworld)

[Cleon]

"Youthful indiscretion."?

You didn't bother reading the link, did you?


What if a college aged David Duke lead a demonstration back in those days in a Nazi uniform protesting campus radicals?

Would you dismiss that to "youthful indiscretion"?

Well...Since he'd do the same thing today, probably not, no. However, Hillary did nothing that is remotely similar to that (nor would she be particularly inclined to today). Which you would know if you bothered reading the Snopes link.

[Puppycow]

"Youthful indiscretion."?

What if a college aged David Duke lead a demonstration back in those days in a Nazi uniform protesting campus radicals?

Would you dismiss that to "youthful indiscretion"?

You are equating the Black Panthers with the Nazis?
I'm not an expert on the Black Panthers, but from what I know they weren't nearly as bad as the Nazis. We all have an understandable urge to push back when we have been pushed. That's how I see it.

[tomwaits]

Granted, I don't know much about it (I was only born in 1985!) but from what I've seen the Panthers weren't that bad for the most part. A lot of their activities revolved around patrols where they would monitor police activies to make sure there was no brutality going on (although, this comes from Bobby Seale so take it with a grain of salt).

The problem is that the views of the party were highly diverse. Some of them were more "revolutionary" then others, which would understandably cause public opinion to paint them as violent and anti-white.

As for the "self-defense" doctrine, I am torn. Non-violence is, to me, the most effective and benevolent strategy for civil rights, but it's hard to denounce self-defense, especially when I've had it pretty easy for my life.

Anyway, I'd be glad if someone had their own opinion on the Panthers that was around during the 60's and 70's.

[The Painter]

Granted, I don't know much about it (I was only born in 1985!) but from what I've seen the Panthers weren't that bad for the most part.



I'm not an expert on the Black Panthers, but from what I know they weren't nearly as bad as the Nazis.


Yeah, Kill all the Whiteys. That's not so bad.

[linusrichard]

Yeah, Kill all the Whiteys. That's not so bad.

Source?

Probably not.

[tomwaits]

Are you mistaking the Panthers with the Nation of Islam? Because NOI was/is crazy.

[Puppycow]

Yeah, Kill all the Whiteys. That's not so bad.

I'm not saying its good, just understandable. If someone pushes you what do you do? do you push back or not? The Nazis commited genocide on defenseless people. The Black Panthers were trying to defend defenseless people who were being oppressed, no?

[The Painter]

Source?

Probably not.

I got your source right here. I lived through it.

[daredelvis]

You didn't bother reading the link, did you?

Well...Since he'd do the same thing today, probably not, no. However, Hillary did nothing that is remotely similar to that (nor would she be particularly inclined to today). Which you would know if you bothered reading the Snopes link.

It will be interesting to see how many tools continue to post in this thread without reading the link in post #3. You and your "reality-based world".

Daredelvis

[MaGZ]

It'd be a shame to have a president who condones torture. I mean - another one.

Seriously, though, it's hard to take this kind of criticism seriously from someone who has cited davidduke.com (or maybe it's .org, who cares?) as a source.

That is - coming from MaGZ, this can't really be interpreted as "She shouldn't be allowed to be president because she supported a domestic terrorist organization," but rather "She shouldn't be allowed to be president because she supported the wrong domestic terrorist organization."


Personally, I'm not a fan of violence, and therefore, not of the Black Panthers. (Also not a fan of Clinton - a separate issue.) However, the Panthers are almost infinitely better than the KKK, and considering also the level of Clinton's support (according to the Snopes article, I mean - newsmax and freerepublic are not reliable sources), along with the fact that she didn't appear to do anything illegal at all, even accepting the worst interpretation - no, she obviously shouldn't be disqualified from the presidency for this non-issue.

You are mistake. I did not provide any David Duke links.

[MaGZ]

Granted, I don't know much about it (I was only born in 1985!) but from what I've seen the Panthers weren't that bad for the most part. A lot of their activities revolved around patrols where they would monitor police activies to make sure there was no brutality going on (although, this comes from Bobby Seale so take it with a grain of salt).

The problem is that the views of the party were highly diverse. Some of them were more "revolutionary" then others, which would understandably cause public opinion to paint them as violent and anti-white.

As for the "self-defense" doctrine, I am torn. Non-violence is, to me, the most effective and benevolent strategy for civil rights, but it's hard to denounce self-defense, especially when I've had it pretty easy for my life.

Anyway, I'd be glad if someone had their own opinion on the Panthers that was around during the 60's and 70's.

New Haven Black Panther trials
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Haven_Black_Panther_trials

[MaGZ]

Yeah, Kill all the Whiteys. That's not so bad.

"Off the Pigs!" Was their slogan.

Recently I saw a documentary on the radical days of Berkeley. One outspoken Panther in the film later became a Hollywood star.

Any guesses?

[MaGZ]

I'm not saying its good, just understandable. If someone pushes you what do you do? do you push back or not? The Nazis commited genocide on defenseless people. The Black Panthers were trying to defend defenseless people who were being oppressed, no?

You are ignorant of how dangerous the Panthers were.

[MaGZ]

I got your source right here. I lived through it.

Please comment. I remember them from the news coverage but never meet any. I did find a Black Panther pamphlet once which I kept. It basically was Maoist in orientation, also a lot on Fanon.

[Pardalis]

You are ignorant of how dangerous the Panthers were.

So I take it that there's no more problems with Hillary being a candidate now.

[Puppycow]

You are ignorant of how dangerous the Panthers were.

Speaking of ignorance, aren't you a holocaust denier and 9/11 conspiracy theorist? With all due respect, I'm afraid that pretty much demolishes your credibilty from the get-go. Sorry.

I looked up the wikipedia article on the Black Panthers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_panthers) and I didn't find anything too suprising. It's about what I expected. Compare to the KKK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kkk).

[gtc]

Yes, the Black Panthers were bad.

Yes, Hillary Clinton helped to monitor a trial of Black Panthers activists for civil liberty violations.

No that doesn't make Hillary illegible for public office.

In fact it just proves that Hillary cares so much about Human Rights that she even worked to make sure that the rights of people as bad as the Panthers were not violated.

No, I am not a liberal partisan. It is just that MaGZ is enough to make Nixon vote Democrat.

[linusrichard]

You are mistake. I did not provide any David Duke links.

Oops: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3165799#post3165799

[autumn1971]

Wow, so anyone who supported the basic tenets of Communism as set forth by Marx is directly responsible for Stalin's atrocities?
Even those who had no way of knowing what the actual practices in Communist countries were?
I'm fairly certain the Hillary was never welcomed into the private meetings of the Black Panthers. If they were willing to torture their own officers to death upon suspicion of police complicity, I find it hard to believe that they would have welcomed a rich little white girl into their sanctum sanctorum.

[Ryokan]

You are ignorant of how dangerous the Panthers were.

So tell me. Are they worse than, or just as dangerous, or less dangerous, than the Jews?

[Darth Rotor]

However, the Panthers are almost infinitely better than the KKK,
Why do you say that, particularly the infinitely part?

DR

[Rob Lister]

One of the neat things about the Black Panthers was their newspaper. They, quite intelligently, put out a well written - in standard English - paper which espoused their views. Doesn't mean I agreed with all their points (I don't agree with all of anybody's points AFAIK).

Wow, standard English and everything. Who'd have thunked it!?

[linusrichard]

Why do you say that, particularly the infinitely part?

DR

Well, "infinitely" might be hyperbole, but as far as why I say the Panthers were better than the Klan - I guess it would be that the Black Panthers were motivated by self-defense, the Black Panthers were not mainly driven by racial hatred, the Panthers were out to resist oppressors, not to further oppress the already-oppressed... I could go on and on. Honestly, I think it's weird to even have to give reasons, because it should just be obvious.

As I said, I'm not a fan of violence. I'm also not a fan of Marxism, and particularly Maoism. So, I don't really like the Black Panthers. But compared to the worst terrorist organization in the history of the U.S., yes, they're much better.

[Darth Rotor]

Well, "infinitely" might be hyperbole
OK
but as far as why I say the Panthers were better than the Klan
- I guess it would be that the Black Panthers were motivated by self-defense,
Revolutionaries and self defense? I suppose it depends on where you sit.
the Black Panthers were not mainly driven by racial hatred,
Nope. Try again. Racialist motivation is a core part of their organization.

Ever meet any?
the Panthers were out to resist oppressors, not to further oppress the already-oppressed...
I thought about this one.

The Panthers were certainly a resistance movement. Yes.

Strangely enough, the early versions of the Klan were something of a resistance movement, in terms of resisting the Reconstruction and its effects, but the Klan has of course morphed a bit since then, with the 20th century version being most certainly not a resistance movement, given its power base.
I could go on and on. Honestly, I think it's weird to even have to give reasons, because it should just be obvious.
Not really, you assign a value while I'd rather look at the similarities and differences. They have both.

The core distinction between two racially, racialist, and racist based groups seems to me mostly in your eyes, on the color of the skin, and a virtue assigned, or not assigned, to one color, and an assumption or two along the way.

That the Klan was able to blend into "the mainstream" far more easily than the Panthers I'll not dispute, which perhaps accounts for its longevity, and the difficulty in addressing some of its more odious habits.
As I said, I'm not a fan of violence. I'm also not a fan of Marxism, and particularly Maoism. So, I don't really like the Black Panthers. But compared to the worst terrorist organization in the history of the U.S., yes, they're much better.
Different, certainly, and when you consider the position of societal underdog on a racial basis, OK, that is a core difference in motivation, as opposed to the Klan's support of second class citizen status for "their racial and cultural inferiors." IIRC, the Klan also has a case of the ass about Jews, Catholics, and a few other subsets.

So if "infinitely" is set aside, you find less to dislike about the Panthers than the Klan.

DR

[linusrichard]

OK

Revolutionaries and self defense? I suppose it depends on where you sit.

Nope. Try again. Racialist motivation is a core part of their organization.
Not in the same way it was for the Klan.


Strangely enough, the early versions of the Klan were something of a resistance movement, in terms of resisting the Reconstruction and its effects, but the Klan has of course morphed a bit since then, with the 20th century version being most certainly not a resistance movement, given its power base.
I think what you say about the early Klan is somewhat up for debate, but it looks like we agree about the later Klan.
Not really, you assign a value while I'd rather look at the similarities and differences. They have both.
Just because I'm comfortable assigning values doesn't mean I don't want to look at the similarities and differences. But I don't really see the problem with assigning values too. There are similarities and differences between the Klan and the Democratic Party. There are similarities and differences between the Federalist Society and al Qaeda. There are similarities and differences between poop and peanut butter. Why be shy about assigning values?

The core distinction between two racially, racialist, and racist based groups seems to me mostly in your eyes, on the color of the skin, and a virtue assigned, or not assigned, to one color, and an assumption or two along the way.
No. Not only is that untrue, but I think it's unsupported by anything I've said. The difference - to me - is the relative positions of power between the group and their victims/targets, and their core motivations. The Panthers targetted certain white people (usually cops or other authority figures) because they observed (correctly, as it turns out) that most of the people of privilege and power in this country are white, and that believed that it was people of privilege and power who were oppressing the black community. Is that okay? No. But - the Klan targetted and targets any and all black people and Jews because they plain hate black people and Jews. Is this worse than what the Panthers did? I feel comfortable saying yes. Find me a country where the economic and political power structure is black and white people are a disadvantaged and oppressed minority, and I will value the white so-called "racist" group over the black racist group in that country.

Too, I don't happen to believe that "Kill all the Whiteys" (as someone posted above) is an accurate representation of the Black Panther "platform." If I can be shown to be wrong on this, I'll rethink my relative valuations of the two groups.
Different, certainly, and when you consider the position of societal underdog on a racial basis, OK, that is a core difference in motivation, as opposed to the Klan's support of second class citizen status for "their racial and cultural inferiors."
There you go.
IIRC, the Klan also has a case of the ass about Jews, Catholics, and a few other subsets.
That too.
So if "infinitely" is set aside, you find less to dislike about the Panthers than the Klan.
Yes. I think "infinitely" is always going to be kind of a nonsense word when comparing two groups. Do I like the JREF "infinitely" more than the American Nazi Party? Do I like Modern Lovers "infinitely" more than Nickelback? No... it's silly - hyperbole - read it as "very much."

[Darth Rotor]

Find me a country where the economic and political power structure is black and white people are a disadvantaged and oppressed minority, and I will value the white so-called "racist" group over the black racist group in that country.
Look no farther than Mugabe Land, unless all the whites have simply left. An odd sort of ethnic cleansing has been going on there, in terms of making it difficult to be white and live there.
Too, I don't happen to believe that "Kill all the Whiteys" (as someone posted above) is an accurate representation of the Black Panther "platform." If I can be shown to be wrong on this, I'll rethink my relative valuations of the two groups.
A part of it was simply inimical to Whitey, but certainly not the whole of it. Some of it was a more purely empowerment deal.

Cheers. Thanks for your elaboration. :)

DR

[linusrichard]

Look no farther than Mugabe Land, unless all the whites have simply left. An odd sort of ethnic cleansing has been going on there, in terms of making it difficult to be white and live there.
Zimbabwe did spring immediately to mind while I was writing that, but I don't have enough information. I do know that the political power structure is black, but I'm not sure if the white farmers have economic power there or not. It's possible that, if the white farmers were to organize an armed resistance against the Mugabe regime, I would consider them "less worse" than the government, but I don't have all the facts. There are a lot of differences to take into consideration - for example, blacks in America have been disadvantaged and oppressed since they were brought here against their will centuries ago, whereas whites in Zimbabwe enjoyed power and privilege (as Rhodesians) until only a few decades ago. Likewise, the Mugabe regime, as horrible as it is, is motivated by an arguably understandable (not to say legitimizing) ressentiment that is absent (or at least unjustified) in the Klan. So the equation is somewhat different - without more information, I'm not sure how it would turn out.

Cheers. Thanks for your elaboration. :)

Back at you!

[MaGZ]

Speaking of ignorance, aren't you a holocaust denier and 9/11 conspiracy theorist? With all due respect, I'm afraid that pretty much demolishes your credibilty from the get-go. Sorry.

I looked up the wikipedia article on the Black Panthers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_panthers) and I didn't find anything too suprising. It's about what I expected. Compare to the KKK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kkk).

I’m a holocaust skeptic because I have read Butz’s book. My views on 9/11 are a bit complicated, but I reject the idea it was an inside job.

As to the Black Panther wiki article, they really toned the article down. You need to do more independent research on the topic.

[GreNME]

"Youthful indiscretion."?

What if a college aged David Duke lead a demonstration back in those days in a Nazi uniform protesting campus radicals?

Would you dismiss that to "youthful indiscretion"?

George W Bush. Cocaine. Drunk driving. Get over it.

[MaGZ]

Yes, the Black Panthers were bad.

Yes, Hillary Clinton helped to monitor a trial of Black Panthers activists for civil liberty violations.

No that doesn't make Hillary illegible for public office.

In fact it just proves that Hillary cares so much about Human Rights that she even worked to make sure that the rights of people as bad as the Panthers were not violated.

No, I am not a liberal partisan. It is just that MaGZ is enough to make Nixon vote Democrat.

Hillary wasn’t just assisting in the defense of the Panthers; she had an ideological commitment to this murderous radical organization. Her concern wasn’t civil liberties but radical politics. Can you imagine her doing the same for a Klansman? This wasn’t the ACLU she was working with on the Panther defense but instead Stalinist Communists. Take a look at the lawyers who were defending the Panthers. Recently it was revealed that after Hillary finished law school, she wanted to go to work for a Communist law firm in California.

[MaGZ]

Oops: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3165799#post3165799

I did not provide any David Duke links for this thread. So far, no one has noticed the significance of my David Duke analogy.

[linusrichard]

Hillary wasn’t just assisting in the defense of the Panthers; she had an ideological commitment to this murderous radical organization.
Source?
Her concern wasn’t civil liberties but radical politics.
Source?
Can you imagine her doing the same for a Klansman?
Yes.
This wasn’t the ACLU she was working with on the Panther defense but instead Stalinist Communists.
Source?
Take a look at the lawyers who were defending the Panthers.
Why? What do those lawyers have to do with Hillary Clinton?
Recently it was revealed that after Hillary finished law school, she wanted to go to work for a Communist law firm in California.
Source?

I did not provide any David Duke links for this thread.
No one said you did.
So far, no one has noticed the significance of my David Duke analogy.
I've noticed its insignificance.


I think the words you're looking for are, "I'm sorry I said you were mistaken when you said I had used davidduke.com as a source. You were right and I was wrong, I have in fact used davidduke.com as a source." It's okay to admit when you've made a mistake.

[Cleon]

I’m a holocaust skeptic because I have read Butz’s book.

Why don't you get an education on the subject, instead?

[MaGZ]

Wow, so anyone who supported the basic tenets of Communism as set forth by Marx is directly responsible for Stalin's atrocities?
Even those who had no way of knowing what the actual practices in Communist countries were?
I'm fairly certain the Hillary was never welcomed into the private meetings of the Black Panthers. If they were willing to torture their own officers to death upon suspicion of police complicity, I find it hard to believe that they would have welcomed a rich little white girl into their sanctum sanctorum.

Here is an article on one little white girl the Panthers killed.
http://www.salon.com/news/col/horo/1999/12/13/betty/

[MaGZ]

So tell me. Are they worse than, or just as dangerous, or less dangerous, than the Jews?

There is no need to try to bait me.

[MaGZ]

Well, "infinitely" might be hyperbole, but as far as why I say the Panthers were better than the Klan - I guess it would be that the Black Panthers were motivated by self-defense, the Black Panthers were not mainly driven by racial hatred, the Panthers were out to resist oppressors, not to further oppress the already-oppressed... I could go on and on. Honestly, I think it's weird to even have to give reasons, because it should just be obvious.

As I said, I'm not a fan of violence. I'm also not a fan of Marxism, and particularly Maoism. So, I don't really like the Black Panthers. But compared to the worst terrorist organization in the history of the U.S., yes, they're much better.

You know little or nothing about the Black Panthers. You ignorance speaks volumes.

[GreNME]

Yes, you do a good job of that yourself.

There are a lot of things to dislike about all of the candidates, Hillary included, but this is straw-grasping at its finest.

[MaGZ]

Why don't you get an education on the subject, instead?

You are unfit to be a moderator. Stay on topic.

[linusrichard]

You know little or nothing about the Black Panthers. You ignorance speaks volumes.

Let's assume for the sake of argument you're right about my ignorance. How does it "speak volumes"? How does it have anything to do with this thread? Clinton was helping monitor the trial for civil rights violations. This is always a good thing. It doesn't matter if the trial was for a Klansman, a Nazi, al Qaeda, or you. It doesn't matter if the Black Panthers were as bad as you think they were or as bad as I think they were. Trials should be fair. Making sure trials are fair is a good thing. No information about the defendants is relevant.

[Cleon]

You are unfit to be a moderator.

Yes, you've said that before. In any event, please discuss Forum Management issues in the Forum Management forum. It is off-topic here.


Stay on topic.You brought it up, not me.

[Cleon]

Hillary wasn’t just assisting in the defense of the Panthers; she had an ideological commitment to this murderous radical organization. Her concern wasn’t civil liberties but radical politics.

This is a lie.

Had you bothered to read the snopes link (http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/panthers.asp), you would know this.


Can you imagine her doing the same for a Klansman?

Organizing legal witnesses to make sure the trial was fair? Probably not, seeing as how she's now a first-tier presidential candidate and not a campus activist anymore.

This wasn’t the ACLU she was working with on the Panther defense

Again, lie.

but instead Stalinist Communists. Take a look at the lawyers who were defending the Panthers.

The only article I've found to go in depth about the trial is this one (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,902777-1,00.html), which refers to defense attorney (note the singular) Theodore Koskoff. I'm not aware of any reliable information identifying Koskoff as a "Stalinist Communist."

Recently it was revealed that after Hillary finished law school, she wanted to go to work for a Communist law firm in California.

Riiiiight.

Any chance you'll tell us who did this revealing, what the evidence was, or what the "Communist law firm" was?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

[MaGZ]

Hillary Clinton: Unreformed communist?

http://www.wernerpatels.com/canuck_columnist/2007/11/hillary-clinton.html

[MaGZ]

Hillary Clinton's Radical Summer

http://www.nysun.com/article/66933

[Cleon]

Hillary Clinton: Unreformed communist?

http://www.wernerpatels.com/canuck_columnist/2007/11/hillary-clinton.html


So...Even assuming the information in that blog is accurate (call me a cynic, but I'm skeptical), this means that Clinton was a clerk at a law firm where one partner was a Communist Party member.

To get "unreformed Communist" from that requires a leap of logic so vast that it requires an interplanetary passport.

[ConspiRaider]

Hillary Clinton's Radical Summer

http://www.nysun.com/article/66933
You again! Tired of bashing the Jewish people, and so now it's the Presidential frontrunner's turn, eh? Or are you just taking a well-deserved break from bashing the Jewish people?

Why the hell are you posting a link to what some crazy Canadian thinks of Hillary? Most Canadians are not crazy, they're good and sane folks, and I think it's terrific that they have things to say about our American election - but just how much weight does it carry? This fool you linked to talks about the House Un-American Activities Committee as if that was a GOOD thing! Plus he likes Glen Beck!! That's a sure signpost to his idiocy right there.

Do you know what communism is? Do you know the difference between the Communist Party and the Democratic Party? Do you know ANYTHING?

[MaGZ]

I liked this part of the link where Hillary is supporting the Second Amendment gun rights for the Black Panthers.

Hilarious


The most eye-catching claim about Mrs. Clinton's time at the Treuhaft firm is that she attended a plea negotiation on behalf of armed Black Panthers who stormed into the California legislature on May 2, 1967 to protest a gun-control measure. The band of more than two dozen men toting rifles, shotguns and pistols caused alarm when they emerged on the floor of the legislature. They later insisted they were trying to reach the spectators' gallery and used the wrong door.

[Cleon]

I liked this part of the link where Hillary is supporting the Second Amendment gun rights for the Black Panthers.

*sigh* Except that the link has her doing no such thing. As a clerk, it was her job to take notes.




I can't believe I'm defending Hillary Clinton. I feel...dirty. :boggled:

[MaGZ]

From the Radical Summer article,


She did want to work for a left-wing movement law firm. Anyone who went to college or law school would have known our law firm was a Communist law firm," Treuhaft told Ms. Sheehy in 1999.


This makes Hillary a "fellow traveler" among Communists and therefor unfit to be President.

[Cleon]

This makes Hillary a "fellow traveler" among Communists

No, it doesn't.

[ConspiRaider]

From the Radical Summer article,

This makes Hillary a "fellow traveler" among Communists and therefor unfit to be President.
Nope, wrong again. Hillary ain't no fella.

She IS fit to be President. If her fit is a little off? Watch how they custom-build a chair for her usage, in the Oval Office, right about 13 months from now.

Won't it be great? Our first woman President! YAY!!! Aren't you excited about that, at least? Isn't this 43 white guys in a row, all WASP and one Catholic, just a bit much, when part of our charm in the USA is to celebrate equal opportunity for all?

You want a 44th white guy in a row. Explain. Who do you like? You've sorta indicated that Hillary ain't yer cup o' tea. Therfore, somebody Special IS your cup of tea. And this person is?

[Darth Rotor]

Nope, wrong again. Hillary ain't no fella.

She IS fit to be President. If her fit is a little off? Watch how they custom-build a chair for her usage, in the Oval Office, right about 13 months from now.

Won't it be great? Our first woman President! YAY!!! Aren't you excited about that, at least? Isn't this 43 white guys in a row, all WASP and one Catholic, just a bit much, when part of our charm in the USA is to celebrate equal opportunity for all?

You want a 44th white guy in a row. Explain. Who do you like? You've sorta indicated that Hillary ain't yer cup o' tea. Therfore, somebody Special IS your cup of tea. And this person is?
What is your beef against white guys, Conspi, yourself being one.

Curious.

DR

[ConspiRaider]

What is your beef against white guys, Conspi, yourself being one.

Curious.

DR
Darthster -

I absolutely don't have a beef against "white" guys (can't believe we're still coloring and classifying and separating ourselves, but - progress is so sloooowwwwwwww in this area) or any "color" people and I don't even think I have a beef against BEEF! Okay fine, beef brisket, but who doesn't hate that?

It just seems tremendously odd, that in a nation with separation of church and state (so-called); a nation of immigrants from all over the globe - different cultures and different ethnicities; and a nation half full of females that we have had 42 White Anglo-Saxon Protestants and one White Catholic - all males, as Presidents.

Don't you see that as glaringly odd?