Assassination Reverberates Through U.S. Presidential Race – WSJ.com
 |
— It was in this WSJ story about the Bhutto assassination that these two pics appeared. One of a serious McCain and the other of a Hyena-faced laughing jackal of a Hillary Clinton. Are they serious with this pic? It looks nothing like her. But is she supposed to look better? Or like a buffoon? Hard to say. |
Who cares? There will be another false flag terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11 2008. Bush will enact NSPD-51 and suspend the elections.
Welcome to the New World Order!
Best picture of Hillary I’ve ever seen.. I know who’s side the WSJ is on.
C’mon John, it looks just like her, looking up and smiling. On the other hand, they didn’t choose McCain’s “good” side when illustrating, did they?
I immediately knew who it was when I looked at it. Isn’t that the point? Besides the WSJ doesn’t use human artists to make the pictures any more, it’s done through a computer now, right?
#1… It will come sooner than that with the Pakistan situation.
There be nukes there and if the power behind Bush feels a small threat of them falling into the wrong hands (which sadly they are already but that’s another story) they will enact their worse case senario presidential order and we will have the elections scrapped until we hear:
“In order to ensure the security and continuing stability, the Republic will be reorganized into the first American Empire, for a safe and secure society, which I assure you will last for 10,000 years. An Empire that will be continue to be ruled by this august body and a sovereign ruler chosen for life. An Empire ruled by the majority, ruled by a new consitution.”
Then all will be done on their part.
Cursor_
Dvorak said: a Hyena-faced laughing jackal of a Hillary Clinton. Are they serious with this pic? It looks nothing like her.”
For once I agree with Dvorak. The picture looks nothing like her.
A realistic picture would look much worse than the one used by WSJ.
WSJ doctored McCain’s picture to look way better than in real life. He normally has 11 chins. On this one he has 5.
I will NEVER subscribe to the WSJ as they are loaded with Bush lackeys.
It’s an exact replica. Hillarius is a hyena-faced laughing jackal (among other things, like the Antichrist)
Dallas, I don’t know where you’re getting 5 chins. I see 1 primary chin, 2 small sub-chins and 1 large sub-chin.
John McCain needs some plastic surgery done on his neck.
I read the blog in spite of the pointless, idiotic posts that run rampant, just to get to read the occasional thought-provoking post that hasn’t been on Fark already. I had to comment on this post because it seems to me that John is flirting with Troll-ism on this one. The responses are totally predictable. If you like Hillary, you’ll dislike the picture. If you dislike Hillary, you’ll like the picture. To sum up, I will paraphrase my favorite quote of all time:
“Mr. Dvorak, what you’ve just posted is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent post were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone who reads this blog is now dumber for having read to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
#1 – Who cares? There will be another false flag terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11 2008. Bush will enact NSPD-51 and suspend the elections.
Welcome to the New World Order!
The Bush administration is just incompetent neo-cons. They aren’t Bond Villains. Don’t be so paranoid.
#6, jb
A realistic picture would look much worse than the one used by WSJ.
Do you feel better now that you said it? Does getting that off your chest make you a better person? Why do you hate America so much?
That is the most flattering picture of Hillary I have ever seen. Maybe you should worry more about how she thinks than how she looks. I do.
#7 – Dallas
“I will NEVER subscribe to the WSJ as they are loaded with Bush lackeys.”
I see by that comment that you don’t actually read the paper, since if you did read it for a week, you would be surprised (as I was myself, many years ago); the newspaper itself, outside of the Money & Investing section, is actually a very good, often-excellent left-of-center, which is to say moderate-liberal newspaper.
The WSJ has an effective firewall between news and editorial departments.
It’s the Op-Ed pages, only, that feature hardcore Republican cheerleading and propaganda. The tone of the news stories are of a distinctly populist bent, and often expose corporate wrongdoing that other papers are scared shitless of touching, for fear of alienating advertisers.
It’s not as leftist as the NYT (what is?), which means they try to be more even-handed and objective, rather than blindly promoting PC and burying anything that doesn’t support it.
In fact, a couple weeks spent reading both and comparing how each covers social issues is an eye-opener. No longer will you be able to snicker when you hear the phrase “liberal bias” in reference to the NYT. The details you can’t help but notice that the Times plays down, and even totally omits, prove the accusation true.
But the GOP-Über-Alles editorials, particularly on the left page, are real pieces of work. Pro-corporatist, pro-theoplutocracy propaganda at it’s finest. Fun reading, a lot of the time.
#12
Dvorak is the one who used the term Hyena-faced laughing jackal and I agree with him.
Hillary IS a jackal.
This a good pic of Hillary. I have literally dozens of real pic’s of her that look a whole lot worse. John McCain looks bad here. He actually has a good side and a frontal like this isn’t it.
Hillary is trying to show her softer side, so the pic is ok….McCain is usually a serious person, but a smiling pic of him would have been much better.
I think you drank a bit of the kool-aid this morning John….it’s a non-issue.
As someone above said…..listen to what she is saying and don’t worry about how she looks. I notice a lot of stories on Hillary’s looks, good and bad, but we never see those stories on the male candidates, or on what the men are wearing.
I may not vote for her or even support her, but she is a serious candidate (unlike some women in the past) and needs to be treated as such.
Stories like I saw in the Washington Post on how she has bag’s under eyes and more wrinkle’s are just effing ludicrous, you won’t see one like that about Obama (who has very dark circles and bags around his eye’s that he didn’t have 3 months ago) or Huckabee or Romney.
I just wonder who she’ll have under HER desk.
That doesn’t strike me as a flattering McCain picture either.
That pick has Jane Fonda’s mouth.
Why is McCain even in the race? Have the voting public alrady forgotten he’s one of the “Keating Five”?
Oh well, so much for integrity in the White House.
Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
- Monday’s PC Magazine Column Online and print columns posted for online viewing
- Spam! End it! Here’s How.
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
