Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Hillary: “I am so sick …”

Hillary: “I am so sick …”

… of the Sanders campaign lying about me.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dC4Pvm6Oj4A

Hillary Clinton was confronted by a Greenpeace activist as to whether Hillary would reject donations from people in the fossil fuel industry.

Hillary did not take it well. The pressure of several straight wins by Bernie Sanders is starting to wear on her.

The Weekly Standard reports:

“I am so sick, I am so sick,” Clinton says, shouting and wagging her finger at the activist, “of the Sanders campaign lying about me. I’m sick of it.”

Greenpeace explained the exchange, “At a Hillary Clinton rally at SUNY Purchase campus today, the presidential candidate lost her patience with a Greenpeace activist who thanked her for her commitment to climate change then asked her whether she’ll reject fossil fuel money moving forward. Pointing her finger at activist Eva Resnick-Day, Clinton claimed she only takes money from people who work for fossil fuel companies and called the accusations lies.”

In case you missed the money quote:

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

legacyrepublican | March 31, 2016 at 10:15 pm

Well,she didn’t earn $694k from a speech give to Greenpeace.

This does provide a “cheap distraction” from the FBI stories

Try being Donald Trump

She’s been at this a long time … still not very good at it, though.

    forksdad in reply to tom swift. | April 1, 2016 at 2:23 am

    She get’s a pass for being a democrat. She is obviously corrupt like the picture of Dorian Gray in reverse her sins are there for the world to see but they are blind.

    I guess we can be happy she is not still SoS and bombed them out of spite like the French.

So, Greenpeace supports polluting the land, air, and water… somewhere else. Then there are the windmill gauntlets and solar ovens that prey upon the flying fauna. The massive and progressive disruption of the local environment by low-density energy producers. Finally, the non-renewable technology of the “green” industry that exploits energy of renewable drivers. People aren’t so green to accept their marketing hype on faith.

    forksdad in reply to n.n. | April 1, 2016 at 2:29 am

    It’s a religion nothing else. They do not believe what they say they do and if they did they would all go live in a third world country and grow organic sweet potatoes after sterilizing themselves for ZPG. Since it is a religion we no more need to concern ourselves over what they believe than the Seventh Day Adventists. As long as they stop their protesting.

      rabidfox in reply to forksdad. | April 1, 2016 at 4:21 pm

      Unfortunately, this particular religion is demanding – and getting – billions of dollars in tax payer support.

Clinton: “I am so sick … ”

This is the first time in her life the lying piece of dung has told the truth.

And we are all so sick of you, Mrs. Clinton.

Hillary Clinton was confronted by a Greenpeace activist as to whether Hillary would reject donations from people in the fossil fuel industry.

…Clinton claimed she only takes money from people who work for fossil fuel companies and called the accusations lies.

Wait, what? Does she consider the fossil fuel industry money that pays the salaries of people who then give it to her, as being ‘laundered’, no longer tainted?

A fine distinction, it seems.

    Neo in reply to rinardman. | April 1, 2016 at 9:23 am

    In order to avoid taking money that was being ‘laundered’, you would have to avoid people who use fossil fuels.

“I am so sick, I am so sick,” Clinton says

This may go down in history right next to …

Hi. I’m Ed Muskie … Go take a bath

I love it when they eat their own.

Greenpiece understands that to make renewable energy sources competitive with fossil fuels, it is necessary to either (1) tax the snot out of fossil fuels, or (2) mandate the use of renewables. The path away from fossil fuels must be paved with government coercion.

Sometimes one wonders if the promised fossil-fuel-free future might not arrive sooner if the efforts of environmentalists went toward improving the cost and quality of alternatives instead of using government to prevent their use.

Unfortunately improving technologies requires talent, whereas coercion requires only the willingness and ability to use force.

    Ragspierre in reply to Albigensian. | April 1, 2016 at 1:03 pm

    Very good.

    No “renewables” will be economically viable in anything like the near future.

    The engineering and physics are just not there.

      Nuclear breeder reactors are renewable energy, but that’s probably not what Greenpeace has in mind…

        Henry Hawkins in reply to Ichneumon. | April 1, 2016 at 3:43 pm

        Well, the problem with nuclear reactors is that they are already self-sufficient, cost-effective ways of producing energy, meaning they don’t require bucket loads of federal money, which precludes the cronyism and kickbacks necessary for this administration to make the “investment”.

“Clinton claimed she only takes money from people who work for fossil fuel companies”

Oil company CEOS are people who work for the companies, right?

Henry Hawkins | April 1, 2016 at 5:13 pm

“Clinton claimed she only takes money from people who work for fossil fuel companies”

Inadvertantly revealing one of the ways donations from big oil to Clinton’s campaign are laundered.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend