"No Woman Is Illegal"?
We have a standing U.S. senator who's also putting herself up for a candidate for president who either fails basic logic or fails government 101. Or panders so sickeningly that she ought to bring a barf bag with her on the campaign trail. What's your guess?
Through an opening in a wall, a man shouted that his wife was illegal.
"No woman is illegal," Clinton called back, with a crowd cheering in response.
What does this mean? Our laws apply to you only if you have a penis? She had some bad liverwurst for lunch? Or...maybe it's more of the kinder, gentler Hillary she's trying to portray.
I saw a bit of her appearing to attempt that on CNN. A woman was talking about how she got some ridiculous mortgage she couldn't afford and the camera went back to Hillary and she was wiping her eye. I think it was a try at a tear or two, but it looked more like she had something itchy in her under-eye makeup as she just wasn't able to wring out the desired emotion. The more I see of her, the less I like her. Of course, that's exactly what I think of all the nimrod Republicans, too -- especially those who believe man saddled up the dinosaurs (yeehaw!)
What a lackluster bunch of losers we've got running to run our country, and at a rather time with some very serious issues looming; economically, and with all those crazy Islamists running around.
After reading the whole article, I think you are making too much of a witticism.
What did the man mean? Was his wife an illegal immigrant? Why was he speaking through a hole in a wall? We can only speculate, and that's a waste of time. It was not a significant exchange.
Norman at January 14, 2008 12:57 AM
Yes, I think it's pretty clear, at least to us Americans, that he meant his wife is an illegal alien. What's significant is the fact that Clinton said this.
Amy Alkon at January 14, 2008 1:06 AM
It's damned obvious what this is about, she’s pandering to illegals to get the Hispanic vote. She knows that there will be a lot of black voters moving over to Obama, the polls are already showing a huge shift now. After remarks like, “he hasn’t done the ‘spade work’” and other thinly veiled racial remarks, some blacks are taking offense understandably. If she loses that group, she’s going to have to pull hard for Hispanics, which are already the largest voting minority bloc in the country and growing fast.
But to your point about the ‘lackluster bunch of losers’ you couldn’t be more correct, obviously your head is much clearer now, glad to hear. Look at the dems, you have, “Vote for me and shut the fuck up!” Hillary who lost her sister when a house fell on her, Obama who says absolutely nothing of consequence with eloquence, and John Edwards who is trying to convince us to vote for him to protect us from people like…….him! All three of these want to virtually erase the US/Mexican border.
On the other side, things don’t look that much better, the press swoon over Huck, ‘I’ll be the first real preacher in the whitehouse, wink, wink,’ Fibb and John, ‘God dammit, I want to be president before I die’ McCain, and Rudy 911 Guliani, all of who are closet libs and are totally fine with throwing the gates to the border wide open. You have Mitt ‘Mormon money bags’ Romney who may never get elected because of his weird religion and people resent his wealth. Personally I think a man who was a success running things might actually be an asset. I like Fred Thompson the best, but his biggest problem is that he is not really a politician like Huck or McCain, he’s not going to tell you what you want to hear and most Americans just don’t like that. His chances are pretty slim.
Bikerken at January 14, 2008 1:46 AM
And you're right about the rest of the Democrats, too.
Amy Alkon at January 14, 2008 4:10 AM
heh, the last person I got into a discussion about the way this idea is framed ['cuz clinton certainly didn't start this] my retort was that 'tis true that people aren't themselves illegal, they take actions that are illegal. Actions which have consequences. Consequences that they KNOW, in the case of illegal immigration. "but we have lived here for 5 years!" 'Yes? And you must have known that it would eventually end. What have you done to secure citizenship in the meanwhile? In that time you could have married into the "family" and become a citizen.' My ancestors were Immigrants too, several hundred years ago on one side of the family. On the other side only a generation. Thing is? They came in according to the dictate of the law at the time. They didn't break in and expect a reward for their cheekiness. /Rant
SwissArmyD at January 14, 2008 4:43 AM
Well, if Clinton meant "no woman is an illegal alien" then I agree it is an outrageous thing for her to say. I'm still puzzled by the man, though. What did he hope to gain?
I think the US should just buy Mexico. Mexico's southern border is a lot shorter than its northern border, so you'd save on fence posts. You'd solve most of the illegal aliens problem and get loads of cheap labour. It's not often that you can solve complex problems with money, but this is one of them.
Norman at January 14, 2008 6:08 AM
I think the US should just buy Mexico.
Yeah, but for how much? And would they sell? o_O
Flynne at January 14, 2008 7:19 AM
They'd sell if the price was right!
It would be a bit like a hostile take-over. US makes a bid. The US just increases its bid until the required majority, shown by a referendum, is in favour. (You'd need a high majority - say 80% - to keep the number of die-hards down.)
It's happened elsewhere, though perhaps not so blatantly, or on such a scale.
Norman at January 14, 2008 8:17 AM
Bikerken, even though all the republican howler monkeys are screaming about illiegals they are just as interested in creating a north american state as the dems are
lujlp at January 14, 2008 9:44 AM
You've got it all wrong. She meant that it'll be illegal to have "no woman". Yay! Vote for Hillary and it'll be bitches for all! Just bribe the authorities if you want to be assigned a hot one.
Todd Fletcher at January 14, 2008 12:04 PM
Lujlp, I fear you are probably correct about that. I don't think Fred or Mitt are like that. I hope not, but Bush most certainly is. I know this sounds a bit conspiritorial, but sometimes I wonder if the North American Union pushers are not trying to destroy the dollar in order to pave the way for a North American currency, ie Amero?
Bikerken at January 14, 2008 2:56 PM
Leave a comment