When "fundamentally" = "not"

by Black Catte

Jill Abramson, the latest EMT wheeled out to provide life support for Clinton’s clinically dead reputation, is telling us via the Guardian (where else?) that “this may shock you: Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest”
Well, Jill (I’m assuming first name terms since we’re all girls together here), I have to say it doesn’t shock me at all. If I were shocked every time some erstwhile well respected commenters, such as yourself, elected to spout morally and intellectually specious clickbait I’d never get anything done.
It’s not shocking, Jill. It’s just not true. And since you claim to have spent many years fearlessly tracking Clinton’s seedy and nefarious deeds – Whitewater and all – you must be well aware of this.
Or maybe you just plum forgot? After all it’s been a while, and none of us are getting any younger.
So, here’s a few reminders about why all those silly old “Hillary is a liar” vids are out there on Facebook.

See, Jill, even among her political peers (a group not known for its honesty and integrity), Hillary is noteworthy as an unscrupulous, self-serving, compulsive (and psychopathically incompetent) purveyor of terminological inexactitude. Even in Washington she stands out as a moral blank.
Think about that.
PS – I think Vince Foster might also have a few items to draw to you attention on this matter. Except he can’t, of course. Because he’s dead.
But of course you know all this. You know you have no material to help sell the line you’ve been asked to take, which is why your piece is nothing but a loose crochet of generalities and allusions. Seeking to persuade the gullible that black is actually white.
Are you happy with the way it turned out? Are you happy to have that sad and lukewarm defence of this dangerous lunatic hang on your reputation?
Or are you ashamed in the depths of your soul?
I really hope so. if not now then later.

OffG co-founding editor. Writer. Opinionated polemicist.

Filed under: latest, On Guardian


OffG co-founding editor. Writer. Opinionated polemicist.

newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Its similar to what the anglo-zionist have been doing with Putin but putting a positive spin. Like Putin probably ordered the murder of Livthenko hence Hillary is almost honest. Orwellian time we r living and we like sheeple just by all this rubbish will we ever learn . Most likely not cause these fools r still running around free from any prosecution Cameron ,Hammond , Obama ,Bush, Sarkozy, Hitllory all free to cause more damage to humanity.

Schwerpunkter +

I am not sure what to believe about the article being discussed or others in The Guardian, however, I am amazed and more than a little shocked as an American that The Guardian is so in the bag for Clinton. I mean, every iconography, the number of Clinton articles, the way a Sanders articles then say, “oh well, blimey, he won’t really ever win but what a good run he’s having.” Is there some strange marriage between the government of the US and… oh Blair and the Iraq War and all the economics of it all… never mind.


It’s the influence of Zionism which binds US,Europe,South America and the ME in darkness.
The meat of the nutshell.

Alan McLemore
Alan McLemore

This piece of shite is based upon another piece of shite done by Politifact.
And to be able to judge the truth of this claim, you need to get into the weeds a little bit:
The first thing to realize is that these are people’s opinions, not set-in-stone facts, when it comes to deciding that something is “mostly false” as opposed to “half true”, for instance. And then the particular items that are selected as data points are very telling. For instance, the following statements by Bernie were rated as “false”:
–“Not one Republican has the guts to recognize that climate change is real.” Well obviously this is a throwaway line generalizing about Republicans; of course there are some Republicans who know the truth about climate change. But why would a website touting itself as a “fact checker” not weigh how important a statement is to bigger issues–or take context into account?
–“never said … a newspaper endorsed us that did not.” You really have to read this exchange with Rachel Maddow to get a feel for what is happening. At worst the term “endorsed” was used loosely, but to imply that Bernie lied over such a minor thing is nonsense: http://www.politifact.com/trut
–“Says he was endorsed by the Valley News newspaper.” There was an early version of an ad that ran that did said a newspaper had “endorsed” him. That was changed. And even though the endorsement was not strictly factual, the newspaper in question had lauded him in an editorial: http://www.politifact.com/new-… Supported instead of “endorsed”. Why use that as a data point?
–“Almost all of the polls that have come out suggest that I am a much stronger candidate against the Republicans than is Hillary Clinton.” This statement was technically false, but not by much–and since then, more polling has shown it to be substantively true at this point. Another triviality.
–“The Koch Brothers are ‘spending more money than either the Democratic or Republican parties’ in the 2016 elections.” This statement was made before the general implosion into Trump-hood of the Republican party, and the subsequent closing of the wallets by the oligarchs who can’t find a proper puppet to carry their agenda. But at the time, the Kochs were expected to be spending such a sum of money, and at most Bernie stated as fact what was expected to be factual soon. Another technical but trivial “falsehood”.
–“We spend almost twice as much per capita on health care as do the people of any other country.” Depends upon what you mean by “almost twice”. The essential point–that we spend ridiculously-far more than any other nation for less medical coverage–is unassailable.
–“(Texas Republicans) believe in abolishing Social Security, abolishing V.A. health care.” Another generalization which is obviously not meant to be taken as literally true. (I’m from Texas, and I know many Republicans who believe at least partly otherwise.) And this is picked as a data point for Bernie’s truthfulness?
–“We now work the longest hours of any people around the world.” Once again, a slight exaggeration, with the ones ahead of us being mostly minor economies like Greece, Ireland and Israel; and even so, the difference isn’t that much: http://www.politifact.com/trut… (Interestingly, the supporting links in the article are not coming up for some reason.) And the claim was true for industrialized economies in 1997. Once again, why make this a data point?
On the other hand, these are some of the Clinton points that are adjudged to be False:
–“The Clean Power Plan is something that Sen. Sanders has said he would delay implementing.”
–“You are three times more likely to be able to get a mortgage if you’re a white applicant than if you’re black or Hispanic, even if you have the same credentials.”
–“We now have more jobs in solar than we do in oil.”
–“I am the only candidate on either side who has laid out a specific plan about what I would do to defeat ISIS.”
–“Every piece of legislation, just about, that I ever introduced (in the U.S. Senate) had a Republican co-sponsor.”
–“We now have driven (health care) costs down to the lowest they’ve been in 50 years.”
–ISIS is “going to people showing videos of Donald Trump insulting Islam and Muslims in order to recruit more radical jihadists.”
–The gun industry is “the only business in America that is wholly protected from any kind of liability.”
There are pages more of the “falses” listed for Clinton; go to the links for details.
The things Clinton is said to lie about are much more serious than the ones Bernie has been accused of. I really encourage everyone to look at the details here.
To use these Politifact cites as proof that Clinton is somehow more honest than Bernie is, shall we say, “misleading”. Lesson to learn: Read the materials yourself and don’t be misled by headlines.

Seamus Padraig
Seamus Padraig

The Clinton Crime Family.

Lucas white
Lucas white

I thought the whole thing was rigged for Hillary to win but Trump is looking more likely at this point.
The liberals that support sanders can’t really vote Hillary? Can they?
When sanders drops out and it’s a Clinton trump final, I can only see a further surge towards trump from disaffected sanders supporters, as sanders supporters have more in common with trump supporters than the media would like us to believe.
The hard core of brain dead guardian loyalists and other such social justice warriors will obviously support anything labeled as a “democrat” much as the sheeple that supported “new labour” did.
However those numbers are very small compared to the large volumes of born again Christians and gun lovers.
And if we put aside the average white middle American, even the more affluent and educated will have a very hard time justifying a vote for Hillary…I really do not know how even a life long democrat could vote for the woman..
I am beginning to think the whole divide and concur and promotion of black lives matter and disparaging of “all lives matter” has been a very successful psyop that can only aggravate the white majority..remember blacks only make up around 12% of the population and the Zionist media corps certainly wouldn’t have that minority’s interest at heart, no matter how many stories we heard about blacks being victimised by “whites”.
The whole game has been designed to play on black fear but to really target white frustrations at the bias PC media.
When you know what effects your going to get by winding up the majority, it’s no surprise at trumps popularity.
I’m sure it’s no surprise to the MSM either, no matter how much they protest otherwise about allegedly hating trump.
Trump is about as predictable as you could get under the despicable circumstances.

Lucas white
Lucas white

We all know Hillary is a compulsive lair. The guardian is once again pitiful, in it’s attempts to manipulate the left wing of public opinion. The rag is past the point of screaming in our collective face, “vote Hillary because your a misogynist if you don’t” in caps obviously.
I really do worry about Generation Y if thy actually fall for this shit? Judging by the types that protest trump rallies you can gauge the level of intellect.

Jennifer Hor
Jennifer Hor

The only thing that shocks me about Jill Abramson’s article about Hillary Clinton is The Guardian’s naivety (if that’s the right word) in allowing comments on the article. How can The Guardian not realise the extent and depth to which people dislike Hillary Clinton for her very palpable lack of honesty, her cynicism and her behaviour in covering up or making other people fall on their swords over her incompetence?
Unless The Guardian itself swallows all the lies and propaganda it peddles and actually worships the ground on which HRC walks. Now that’s truly shocking.


The Guardian’s editor is originally from the Jerusalem Post and the have combined editorials with the New York Times hence thenGuardian was bad b4 now its certainly on the main stream . Khazarian-Ashkanazi mafia is truely runnibg this rag. All the comment sections that r negative aginst the Zionist state get rubbed out. Anything against the agenda of the zionist mobsters gets taken off. It is worse now with the ex Jerusalem Post schill running it.Hence certain political figures become untouchable and this rag will spin a yarn hence it is part and parcel of the prostitutes that call thems selves members of the press.

Seamus Padraig
Seamus Padraig

Whom are you referring to? I don’t think either Alan Rusbridger or Katherine Viner ever worked for the Jerusalem Post.
However, there is a lot truth to the idea that The Graun has started trying to police discourse on Israel & Palestine in ways that go against what most of their readership would like. The always contemptible Nick Cohen is a good example of that. Here’s his latest little gem: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/19/why-i-am-becoming-a-jew-and-you-should-too

Seamus Padraig
Seamus Padraig

We came, we saw, she lied.


Come now! You are unfair to the poor Albright creature. She deserves a prize too, before she kicks the bucket, so maybe we could have a competition. Rumsfeld and Blair could be the judges as they are well experienced in villainy. Runner-up gets hanged next to the winner.


Hillary Clinton is an unscrupulous, lying, morally bankrupt psychopath. The adjectives to describe this evil creature are too numerous to list but there are no words in any dictionary that can defend her well deserved ill reputation.
This article only lists a few of her corrupt and morally disgusting escapades, probably because the list would fill a large volume in Encyclopaedia Brittanica under C.


Reblogged this on Worldtruth and commented:
Hillary Clinton is an unscrupulous, lying morally bankrupt psychopath. The adjectives to describe this evil creature are too numerous to list but there are no words in any dictionary that can defend her well deserved ill reputation.


Never in the history of mankind has one woman brought so much evil on so many to serve so few !
Hillary Goldman Sachs Clinton will be WW3 & we have to rely on “The Land of the Brave & Free” & GULLIBLE not to voter her into power – May God help us all !

Seamus Padraig
Seamus Padraig

Even NOBODY votes for her, Diebold will just fix the election anyway. Don’t you understand? Hellary has already been chosen by the powers-that-be.


Thanks: well done. Had a few similar thoughts myself, and there’s also the matter of her honesty being classically beside the point. It’s her aggressively war-promoting, Wall Street money-sucking policies that I care about more than whether she tells lies about anything.