Of course it's a leftist thing. She might as well have said she adores watermelon. Who is obsessed with hot sauce--European Americans?
Thais... various Indian cuisines... Jamaicans.... Mexican cuisine.... the occasional Hungarian dish.... the hottest meal I ever had in a restaurant was Korean.
All that desperate leaping aside, the subject has apparently been quite attached to hot peppers/sauces since before they went into the White House, where she kept 100 bottles of it. Not that, again, I knew any of this before the bogus desperate-leap HDS article, nor did I need to, but that info was right there in the same sources. So it's already on the record, for decades.
Hence the desperation of straining so hard to connect a 26-year personal quirk with a single comment, pretending it's the first time. HDS has gotta be a lot of work.
Also remember in the early 90's, her husband was considered the first black President.
---- by?
Did Bill Clinton claim that?
It's no secret how the left has pandered to minorities for decades.
What the hell do the Clintons have to do with "the left"?
Politicians do pander, speaking of this just in, but this doesn't appear to be an example thereof. Again --- guess we'll just continue to post this until it sinks in --- it's ON THE RECORD going back to
at least 1992. This didn't just pop up this week. It's a 26-year-long part of her everyday life. Now suddenly you want to notice 26 years on and cry "pandering" to a culture that isn't even connected with hot sauce in the first place?
Damn dood. Yeah that's it. Hillary Clinton planned a three-second comment 26 years in advance. SMGDH
Again, where do you get your info from? I love my television set. It not only informs me, but entertains me.
I'll tell ya what it does. It hypnotizes you. It massages your endorphins with scary stories that addict the emotions, the more salacious the better, all for one purpose and one purpose only: to persuade you to go buy a bunch of shit you don't need, which we call "advertising". It presents you with a two-dimensional superficial manipulated perverse view of the world, but only that part of the world it can use to massage emotions, just so it can convince you to go buy a truck that can tow an asteroid. It converts you into an insensate zombie, a passive sponge into which it then pours all sensations --- which it dictates, in full --- to your passive and malleable brain. It shuts off your senses and proclaims itself lord god supreme of what goes into your eyes and ears.
Walk into a room, any room, where people are watching TV and instead of following everybody's gaze to the screen, look instead at the watchers, the passive zombies obediently sponging up whatever Lord God TV tells them. You'll see visually exactly what I mean here. Wide-open blank stares, unspeaking, as if to say "yes Master, may I have another image". When an instrument forces you to sit down, shut up, accept whatever it tells you and the only thing you ever get up for is necessary bodily functions ---- you are enslaved.
TV is the most insidious propaganda device ever invented. It shuts down the senses, dictates its own realities, mines emotions, exploits its victims' gullibilities, and is utterly incapable of rendering any kind of proper context for the bullshit it spews. The only thing television is even remotely capable of rendering accurately is sports, and even then it's still limited to its two dimensions, and if you've ever compared a sporting event seen on TV to the same event witnessed in person, you know exactly what I mean there.
Just minutes ago I was offered a (free) 42" flat screen. I considered it briefly -- since it was free, for the purpose of watching stored/streamed videos and sports events. Then I measured the dimensions in the actual room. Freaking thing would have dominated the whole coffee table. WAY overkill. And that's half the size of yours.
This is another illusion they sell you, the idea that "bigger screen equals more content". It doesn't. It just milks more money out of your wallet. Unless you're displaying something for your neighbors down the street there's no point in that.
So who started the KKK, Republicans?
First thing you have to do is get over this ridiculous childish fantasy that the world consists of two elements named "Democrats" and "Republicans' and that's all there is. That's absurd. I for one belong to the largest political faction in this country, which is "none of the above". There are more of us than there are Democrats OR Republicans. K?
Second, the six guys who started the Klan were ex-Confederate soldiers, none of whom had any known political affiliations, nor was it founded for any political purpose anyway; furthermore political parties didn't even
exist in that place and time, which was Christmas Eve 1865 in Pulaski Tennessee. Now that Klan was defunct in less than a decade but the second iteration, founded 1915, the much larger and widespread one, was founded by an opportunist salesman huckster looking to milk money off memberships by making the mysterious brigade pictured in "Birth of a Nation" into a real thing. He was looking to make money by mining emotions, just as TV would later but that technology didn't exist yet. He too had no political affiliations.
Who knew it was possible to walk around and exist without a political party, huh.
The point being, you can't simultaneously attribute both a white-supremacist and the anti-white philosophy to the same group. They're
mutually exclusive. Hence the reference to Doublethink.
That'll do for now. Your homework is to abandon TV and pointless dichotomy fantasies. It'll probably take all day.
