HILLARY'S ARMOR: A decades-old story...

GOP USA via Free Republic ^ | 1.11.06 | Mia T

[norwaypinesavage]

"The politicalization of this appears to be a long stretch."

Good point. I should have said the people that politicized this study are fools. The analysts that actually conducted the study are doing a worthwhile job trying to save soldiers lives.

[Mia T]

bump

[Mia T]

do you have that photo?

[WorkingClassFilth]

Here you go, Dear. Courtesy of DFU.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1446237/posts

P.S. It's a genuinely authenticcated snub of the beast, too.

[Mia T]

Thanx guys. :)

Any of us could take her on easily.

There is a reason for her 'listening-tour" muteness, her prescreened audiences, her scripted interviews and questions, her programmed responses, her sycophantic 'interviewers,' her rent-a-crowd boosters, her thuggish removal of dissidents.

There is a reason missus clinton's own people refuse to take off her training wheels....

[Mia T]

thanx WCF. :) Great work, doug.

Coerced handshake during missus clinton's 2003 self-serving Thanksgiving visit to Iraq
See (hillary's Iraq Turkeys)

 

Hillary Clinton (D-NY) has already started her 2008 presidential campaign by aligning herself with the military and pretending to be tough on terror. Fortunately, the ultra-liberal Hillary has yet to brainwash all of the voting public into believers that her symbolism is really substance. Guess some folks will never forget that she was co-president for eight years in an administration that I QUOTE: "Loath the military" -doug from upland

 

AUTHENTICATION OF PHOTO

The picture shows that this soldier has been thru Survival School and learned his lessons well. He's giving the sign of "coercion" with his left hand. These hand signs are taught in survival school to be used by POW's as a method of posing messages back to our intelligence services who may view the photo or video. This guy was obviously being coerced into shaking hands with Hillary Clinton. It's ironic how little she knew that he would so inform us about the photo---perhaps because she's never understood our military to begin with.

 

 

It isn't that they can't see the solution. It is that they can't see the problem.

G. K. Chesterton

 

... While America appears not to be ready for a female president under any circumstances, the post-9/11 realities pose special problems for a female presidential candidate. Add to these the problems unique to missus clinton. The reviews make the mistake of focusing on the problems of the generic female presidential candidate running during ordinary times.

These are not ordinary times. America is waging the global War on Terror; the uncharted territory of asymmetric netherworlds is the battlefield; the enemy is brutal, subhuman; the threat of global conflagration is real.

Defeating the enemy isn't sufficient. For America to prevail, she must also defeat a retrograde, misogynous, troglodyte mindset. To successfully prosecute the War on Terror, it is essential that the collective patriarchal islamic culture perceives America as politically and militarily strong. Condi Rice excepted, this requirement presents an insurmountable hurdle for any female presidential candidate, and especially missus clinton, historically antimilitary, forever the pitiful victim, and, according to Dick Morris, "the biggest dove in the clinton administration."

It is ironic that had the clintons not failed utterly to fight terrorism... not failed to take bin Laden from Sudan... not failed repeatedly to decapitate a nascent, still stoppable al Qaeda... the generic female president as a construct would still be viable... missus clinton's obstacles would be limited largely to standard-issue clintonisms: corruption, abuse, malpractice, malfeasance, megalomania, rape and treason... and, in spite of Juanita Broaddrick, or perhaps because of her, Rod Lurie would be reduced to perversely hawking the "First Gentleman" instead of the "Commander-in-Chief."

Mia T, 10.02.05
HILLARY'S COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF PROBLEM
(see descriptor morphs)

[Wolverine]

No. I don't have the hillary x_hex pic.

[Mia T]

thx.:) see above.

[Mia T]

THE ABSURDITY OF A COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF HILLARY

[Mia T]

 

 

THE DANGER OF RUNNING VICARIOUSLY:

Bill O'Reilly chews up and spits out the hillary clinton candidacy

by Mia T, 10.27.05

 

the principal being more worthless even than its phantom proxy, both alike unsubstantial, and the former shapeless to boot

--Samuel Taylor Coleridge

 

or the most part, missus clinton operates in absentia, by proxy.

You rarely see her. You almost never hear her. (Think of it as the hillary! 2000 'listening tour' extended ad nauseam.)

And in those rare instances where she does actually speak, the 'event' is always prearranged, prescripted, prepeopled and preprogrammed by the clinton machine....

COMPLETE ARTICLE

[Mia T]

[Mia T]

thanx yoe :)

A Soldier Informs with the Facts

 

[oxcart]

No, thank you!

[Mia T]

but you're welcome :)

[Mia T]

"nanotech uniforms" _bump

NANO-PRESIDENT
the danger of the unrelenting smallness of bill + hillary clinton

by Mia T, 7.31.05

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

Ian Hunter recently observed that our leaders are shrinking. "From a Churchill (or, for that matter, a Margaret Thatcher) to a [pre-9/11] Tony Blair; from Eisenhower to Clinton; from Diefenbaker to Joe Clark; from Trudeau to Chretien -- we seem destined to be governed by pygmies."

Mindless rhinestone-studded-and-tented kleptocracy
Mia T, November 1999

ur leaders are inexorably shrinking.  According to current mathematical models, they are shrinking at a rate of 6.7 per linear dimension per election cycle per terrorist attack.  At this rate, most leaders will be nanoleaders by the 2020s.

The leader-shrinkage function is discontinuous for
1992 =< t <= 2000 and continuous for all other t.

The 1990s saw in America a sudden, discontinuous drop in leader size, a drop that retrospectively, post-9/11, has been theorized to be its greatest lower bound.
(Can anything be lower than a clinton?)

"Two for the price of one," the clinton pitch in '92 -- (Did the clintons understand at the time that one was not enough?) -- only made matters worse. Missus clinton in the West Wing actually added to this discontinuous decrease in leader size.

History will record, therefore, that the clintons--the twofer, (1992-2000), were America's first nano-president.

The clintons continue to imperil virtually every sector of society, indeed, continue to imperil America and the world, with their exponentially increasing facility in manipulating electoral/policy matter and energy at ever smaller scales. Their "school uniforms" of the '90s became "nanotech uniforms" today; both are proxies for "fight terrorism," which the clintons have neither the stomach nor the know-how to do.

The twofer construct, transposed to circumvent the 22nd Amendment, is now poised to retake power. A self-replicating, Constitution-specific pathogen, the clinton nano-presidency, post-9/11, is a danger that we cannot -- we must not -- abide.

 

 

[Mia T]

bump