hogan
Categories:

Archives:
Meta:
November 2017
S M T W T F S
« Oct    
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  
01/23/14
INTELLIGENCE? @ DAVOS?
Filed under: POLITICS, ECONOMICS, NEW NATIONALISM, OBAMACARE, #CGI, WAR ON WOMEN, #FEMINISM, #BLAME, #NEW_YORK, #SOCIALISM SQUIBS
Posted by: J. P. Hogan @ 8:56 am

What is intelligence?  What might be the results of an IQ test today in Davos of those gathered of the World Economic Forum?

Are they smarter than an average white American Democrat woman?  Any American woman over the age of 50?

It seems multiple choice queries would complicate what can now be limited to point and counter point and as focused around one current public figure and even so as such representative of the sex of female.

These may be better to be presented as a bulleted list as if for essays on point and counter points:  Discuss:

  1. Hillary Clinton of 1992 race did how oddly help Governor Clinton so succeed yet while they can be said to have run against family values.
  2. Hillary Clinton is a conundrum in a postured “feminism” how was it wrong in a management methodology for a First Lady to be otherwise structured in a West Wing job of a bureaucratic submissive duty to a President as spouse?  Wasn’t she an equal in marriage as First Lady but by choice just an underling as of a “job” in the Clinton Administration?
  3. Hillary Clinton has seemingly made a career of putting her husband and his career first - discuss how this now can be seen as an “example” of feminism.
  4. Hillary Clinton as First Lady did crusade across the world quite imperialistically of dictates as to how people of different cultural regions yet should be treating their women as she said.  Did she think about “turf” and “turfs” and enough how she was rabidly being inciting and incendiary to those more orthodox or radicalized?  How but for a surge in Afghanistan could she have seen her crusading not just have been of talk say for about fifty years — how was her crusading as First Lady supposed to have any muscle to it if not by future military intervention by armed forces of The United States of America?
  5. Hillary Clinton seems set up by spousal husbandry in executive decisions biased for selfish political positioning to be arranged to be inevitable and yet in a worked dramatic to be to cast to be a HAWK to a DOVE/Lover Boy image for her Husband.  Now in hindsight how dangerous was it that the Clintons seem to have postponed prudent global engagements during their eight years too much just because they though it might be more fun if such saved for a Presidency for HAWKISH Hillary?
  6. Hillary Clinton talked tough as First Lady and tougher in ways that her spouse the President.  Was President Clinton of avoidance and inaction because he was yellow at the helm of the ship of State or was it a more dangerous politics of thinking time could wait upon their plans for his/their return via an election of them by a ticketing of his wife?
  7. Hillary Clinton did try to sell Hillarycare as if “universal” though just for a nation - but now how is it that the Democrats supposed leading authority/expert on healthcare asked to be Secretary of State and not the Secretary of Health and Human Services responsible for showing Obamacare could and would work?
  8. Hillary Clinton asked to be Secretary of State — How for feminism does this complicate a “feminist” tag for her?  Isn’t it that at State she seems to have been to being a facilitator for her husband and his global initiatives and like yet a travel office still for his priorities?  Isn’t it that at State she was supposed to be a “rival” to President Obama and that so there her loyalty has to be questioned as it seems reasonable that Clintons did want her at State to help them be together in global initiatives of a rivalry to President Obama?  How is it feminism for her to have been so compromised by CGI and especially as she was then the officer of the Obama cabinet most responsible for oversight duty to the People about Bill Clintons’ vast meddling by global initiatives?
  9. Hillary Clinton did not have any executive experience until she was President Obama’s Secretary of State, right?  Though she pledged if President she would be ready from day one and even at any 3am/crisis moment isn’t it that even with lesser and more focused duties just of State she did fail to live up to her promises? 
  10. Hillary Clinton did serve a few years as a Senator from New York state.  Isn’t her time as Senator really now historically her only resume stuffing as her as a politician?  How many years as a politician should we think necessary for any candidate for the Presidency?  Have we learned yet that as few as she and President Obama had really is too little and as it also so it seems devoid in executive instinct and experiences?
  11. Hillary Clinton didn’t insist on being HHS Secretary — could she have done at least as good a job as the executive in charge of launching a workable Obamacare?  She supposedly was the Democrats top expert due to her years attempting to bring a national Hillarycare said “universal” likewise to The United States proper — wasn’t President Obama best chance for healthcare reform to have been if Hillary Clinton had been at HHS and firstly to caring about the People and their healthcare?
  12. Hillary Clinton is of the plurality of “The Clintons” as per their former NSC member Philip Bobbitt and his book TERROR AND CONSENT.  She insisted on being part of the bureaucracy of the administration and not yet safely private and equal as just First Lady Hillary — any candidate Hillary now is of the title as TERROR AND CONSENT and not TERROR OR CONSENT and how he as a national security expert was to explaining that the Clintons lies do beget terrorism.  Philip Bobbitt’s words were known before half of her Hollywood thought friends publicly humilated her with tagging of the Clintons as BIG LIARS — but as per his warning per terror like that when a White House and Hollywood work too closely together (in posturing lies) such does dangerously beget terrorism.  It seems the Clintons in 2008 were defeated by themselves - by truths and warnings from their own circle of friends and national security experts - it seems still that Hillary Clinton lost in 2008 because enough new by Hollywood fractured friendships and TERROR AND CONSENT that the Clintons were BIG LIARS and that their lying was by at least one expert said to be of begetting terrorism.
  13. Hillary Clinton, however really a feminist or not, seems, however set up to be a HAWK to a DOVE earlier by her husband administering, too much still as of a yet unexplained “inevitable” as if she was best to be elected because she already had a working relationship with so many of those now deposed across the world that could last.  Right?  Hillary Clinton though of no executive experience and no personal experience as a politician but her few years as a Senator was in 2008 of suggesting she was the best candidate because the Clintons were still better friends around the world with socialists, tyrants, autocrats, and even specifically dictators more now of the deposed?

Ok, all can participate.  Please work up your 13 essays to at least develop your own critical thinking.  It seems we have to dissect Hillary Clinton at least and now as we can be said to of economies that haven’t been able to recover while of days newly where a dynamic of the economics is that more women are now in management and executive duties these days as recovery has been slow or barely existent.  Across all thirteen essay teased posits we have a consideration that maybe women are more to blame and as these days are of a new dynamic so of a record number of women now, however, running things.

Ok, with all this said it may be and should be polite to let the women go first.

Comments are closed.