(For other material, please scroll down)
Here is your chance to opine according to the parameters below:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective
Note: comments consisting of blog gossip will be deleted as soon as an administrator of this blog becomes aware of such comments.
Those voters that voted for Obama will vote for Hillary, there are very few that care anything other than she is a democrat and will (or so they believe) push through their agenda. The vast majority of democrat voters do not care that she is a rich 1%er, which they claim to despise. They don't care that we lost Ambassador Stevens on her watch. They wont care about her age, the numerous women of Bill's improprieties that she personally destroyed. THEY DON'T CARE, they will vote for her anyway. Almost a full 50% of the voting public are so devoted to vote for a democrat that they have already elected Obama, who is and was at the time so unqualified and under qualified for the position it defies logic.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure why I'm bothering other than perhaps some spare time on a Saturday morning.
DeleteYour analysis is amusing, to be charitable. While I'm no Hillary fan, it boils down to the reality that one can only vote for 1 of 2 candidates (actually, a few more but realistically, it's going to be ether the D candidate or the R candidate. Age is a nothing burger as we've been down that road many times. Might I remind you of Reagan's age? Benghazi is an over exploited conspiracy scam. Yes, people did die, just as they did in 14 similar embassy and consulate under GWB's watch which many on the right cover their ears and sing "la la la" to. The "vast majority of democrat voters", at least that I know of, do not despise rich people. Again, to be charitable, your argument is akin to what one might expect from Laura and Hardy.
If you'll entertain a bit of reality about elections, Obama won twice not necessarily because he was Democrat or his policies but rather that the Republican nominee was so pathetic.
I've said before that GWB beat John McCain twice, once in the 2000 primaries and again in 2008. He beat him in 2008 because McCain couldn't distance himself from him. Democrats successfully ran on "another 4 years of Bush" at a time when voters had their fill of Bush.
I've also said before that Obama should have lost to a tree stump in 2012. But folks had to choose between him and an arrogant plutocrat running on social Darwinism. It wasn't that voters hated Romney because he was rich but rather they didn't trust him and even sense he himself had a disdain of the less wealthy. His running mate pushing a budget of hitting many voters in the pocket while coddling the wealthy didn't help matters.
I understand that a Bill Maher quote would be like fingernails across a chalk board here but I really believe he summed it up best:
"When it comes to voting, when we only have two choices, you got to grow up and realize there's a big difference between a disappointing friend and a deadly enemy. Of course the Democrats are disappointing. That’s what makes them Democrats. If they were any more frustrating they’d be your relatives. But in this country they are all that stands between you and darkest night. You know why their symbol is the letter ‘D’? Because it’s a grade that means good enough, but just barely. You know why the Republican symbol is ‘R’? Because it’s the noise a pirate makes when he robs you and feeds you to a shark.”
And when you consider the lot in the GOP clown car running, it really doesn't give voters much of an alternative.
When you opine about Romney's "disdain of the less wealthy," or how Benghazi's details were similar in any way to the unfortunate deaths under Bush's watch, or that Conservatives are "la la la'ing," implying they don't listen to all points of view, or your astonishing remark by Maher, as if he said it, you agree, so that's that.....Wow.
DeleteTo be "charitable," I'll just call it "amusing."
What you might want to remember is about half this country usually votes Republican and to infer anything about "clowns" is pretty small thinking and nasty.
I'll admit the R's just can't keep promising D's goodies, free phones, simplicity by which to get your food stamps, and survive because the D's, particularly this pres, have weakened Americans to the point that they actually believe they deserve entitlements, so we may lose again... but be careful what you ask for.
While I'll concede a tone of rhetoric in my argument, it certainly debunked The Right Hand Cowboy's rather ridiculous analysis of election results and the reasons Americans vote the way they do.
DeleteFor starters, my opinions of Romney aside, he failed to sell himself to the American people, the working class or less than ultra wealthy. I think the time that most exposed this was when he was asked if he enjoyed NASCAR. His response was that he had several friends that owned NASCAR teams. You see, that just gets eye rolls from Joe the Mechanic or BBQ Bob or your average NASCAR fan. This is just one of many examples of his failing to relate. And it didn't help it when Dems were hammering him on his vulture capitalist resume, that he wouldn't release his tax returns, his buying and closing of plants which put 1000s out of work, his gaffe that he "liked to fire people" and his very own take on "the 47%".
GWB may have been lots of things and no better than Romney but he was perceived as perhaps a fun guy to have at a BBQ, quick with a joke and a light of your smoke, he had personality.
I also argue that Paul Ryan hurt him as his infamous "Ryan Budget" was just too bitter for voters to bite on. You make a good argument that Rs can't promise goodies and I agree with you. But you're not going to win an election by taking a knife and promising to slaughter the government owned village milk cow, cut out the filet mignon and handing to the wealthy, leave the carcass for the villagers to bury, and tell them this is how they too will some day enjoy the finer steak. And that analogy is very comparable to the Ryan Budget as it guts Medicaid, hits SSI, ends Pell grants, and leaves a lot questionable such as school lunches, WIC, et al. It then promises huge tax breaks for the top earners while doesn't explain how it gets paid for. It simply went way too far for people to buy.
I stand by my argument that Benghazi is an exploited scam of the right. It has been from day one for no other reason than political gain which anyone that continues to stir it should be morbidly ashamed. Yes, there were 13 very similar attacks on various embassies and consulates around the world where 60 people died under GWB's watch. These unfortunate events happen. It's part of war. It's happened 44 times in the last 50 years. If it weren't for Hillary as a POTUS runner, the House would not be pursuing their umpteen failed investigation. Indeed, the GOP should be ashamed of exploiting this unfortunate reality of armed conflicts.
And lastly (I'll bypass Maher albeit a dead ringer comparison), the GOP lineup is pretty much viewed as a clown car worldwide. I'm not the one who coined the term but it pretty much seems consistent. Most every candidate is late night comedy TV fodder. I mean, they're dumber than a huge sack full of Sarah Palins. I can see a Hillary landslide from my house!
Ronald,
Deletethere were 13 very similar attacks on various embassies and consulates around the world where 60 people died under GWB's watch
But not a single U.S. ambassador died in any of those attacks.
That a bunch of Islamist thugs can kill and otherwise demean such a high-ranking U.S. official served to embolden those thugs.
the GOP lineup is pretty much viewed as a clown car worldwide
But Hillary Clinton is not?
Ronald,
DeleteAs for Paul Ryan's budget proposal, the fact is this: if something isn't done to curb that kind of expenditure, the entire Medicare/Medicaid system will collapse. Such a collapse would be even worse, IMO.
AOW, thanks for the civil and constructive rebuttal.
DeleteWe could review the history of the other 7 U.S. ambassadors killed in the line of duty but I'm not sure how that pertains. We've read the report of the House Intelligence Committee (ran by Republicans) pretty much exonerate Clinton and Obama. I stand by my argument that if it weren't for a possible Clinton run and an Obama reelection bid, Benghazi would have been dismissed as no more than a very unfortunate event, just as the 13 under Bush, 31 in the 40 years prior to Bush, and the 7 U.S. ambassadors that died in those conflicts. This is simply another "Birther" issue that as the Romney's said, is a good thing to keep alive.
To be clear, I'm not a Hillary fan by any stretch. But getting back to the argument of my original comment, she brings considerably more to the table.
But aside from her resume, what separates her from from the clown car club (and in fairness, each GOP candidate should be considered on their own merit) is the the rest are rather unhinged and can only stray so far from the strings of their corporately owned puppet masters. The agenda of the clown car club is that of plutocracy and social Darwinism and doesn't set well with the electorate.
The problem with the Ryan budget is that it's no more than a gift to his corporate bosses at the expense of American workers. Ultimately, it raises taxes on workers to offset the cost, something the GOP will not address or explain, as if it will be resolved with a splash of pixie dust, or, something.
Ronald,
DeletePlease specify what you mean by she brings considerably more to the table. No snark intended or implied.
As for Ryan's plan's burdening the workers, so will the aging Boomers. Longer life spans usually entail greater medical expenses (Medicare/Medicaid). In reality, few age as well as the elderly wonders so often covered in the media (broadcast and print) -- see Bittersweet Season and Being Mortal, two books worth reading.
Clinton's credentials, like her or not, speaks for themselves. This ranges from 8 years in the WH (albeit not a true accomplishment for her but it does have prestige) from U.S. Senate to Secretary of State. And other than some howl-at-the-moon conspiracy theories, she comes with little baggage. Benghazi and emails are no more than static noise as she will appeal to more of voters real concerns. A Tea Party format (as vague and unrepresentative as it is to the overall electorate) will not prevail on the national stage.
DeleteMy argument is that approaching the Medicare, Medicare, and SSI problems with the milk cow slaughtering mentality while coddling the wealthy is not likely to win elections, and, likely played a role in the Romney/Ryan fall. This again represents that Tea Party swindle that's so 2010.
Ronald, I can't read all the exchange between you and AOW right now but very much appreciated your response to me. I came back only to write that I might have been a bit hard on you, not knowing you as I know other commenters here and at my place) but when I read you believe Hillary has good credentials, then I know something's not quite right after all.
DeletePut Benghazi aside and let us know what other great things she did as SoS. How are you feeling about the email obfuscation....? Comfy with the fact that her people are doing the deleting? Sort of like our D0J investigating itself so often lately! Republicans would NEVER EVER get away with that. And I believe you are well aware of that.
When you say "coddling the wealthy" would you suggest you're more into income distribution or just want higher taxes on them?...(which will lead to income dist. in SOME way or the other, come to think of it, right?) I'm all for the wealthy who HIRE and BUY luxury items and give huge amounts to charity (More Republicans give than Dems, by the way, statistically)
Some of what I'm reading from you, particularly the part of the GOP being disrespected around the world, is true, but I've lived in Munich and Paris for years and, believe me, what THEY get to read (in English, Fr. and German), is mostly a translation of OUR New York Times and other big city leftwing papers, so they don't hear truth too much, either. It used to stun me that none of the bosses of those 'opinionists' have realized their 'journalists' aren't writing, they're copying in their own language. Very well paid translators, I assure you.
Even the TV News there is slanted to the left because their media, as is ours, is slanted to the Left. Although far less biased than msnbc, for example. They're starting to get FOX now, at least in Paris, and I know friends who are grateful to hear two sides of issues (they didn't know they existed in America from what they read and hear!)
People in Europe love to hate America for its goodness and power; this is what Obama's trying to bring down as it's pretty clear he himself doesn't either believe in it or think we deserve it after all the good we have done.
Also, nobody likes war. (even Republicans) but the war mongering is placed squarely on the GOP while we know as a fact that intel has been wrong and all parties have gone to war based on that, that Bush even explicitly told Tenet to make sure no WMD intel was exaggerated (ask Bob Woodward). And foreign countries which got the same intel were gung-ho.
Anyway...you might be the only liberal who I respect in these forums, so glad to know you and I'm actually honored to be discussing with you, with returned civility, these important subjects..
Thanks!
There's a lot to digest there but to answer your questions of Hillary's emails, I'm not all that thrilled about it. I think she'll likely govern in secrecy and corruption will prevail in many areas. I think Hillary will kowtow to Wall St at the expense of Main St.
DeleteBut this argument forces me back to invoking Bill Maher again and his above quote. We only get to realistically vote for one of 2 candidates. So I'm forced to either vote for the worse of 2 evils or just not vote at all (and yes, I'm aware I write in or pick from a losing party).
You and I may understand the political system but I'd wager 7 out of 10 voters can't name the 3 branches government. They're not political analyst and would rather waste their time on things like earning a living, raising their kids, and such meaningless tasks. I would argue that Hillary's emails will challenge issues that concern them such as minimum wage increases, loss of benefits, overtime pay, workers rights, things that most of the clown car lot adamantly oppose.
To be clear, when I say "coddling the wealthy", I'm saying that I am indeed against wealth redistribution but it's redistributing it to them that I'm against. You see, I have a problem with not raising the MW because the wealthy (Walmart, the banking industry, Motel chains, foreign contractors for the U.S., et al) are raking in $billions yet I'm subsidizing their full time workers with SNAP, WIC, housing, medicine, etc. Many of these are actually providing their workers with training seminars on how to apply for Fed assistance. They've learned to use working tax payers like me to fill the void of their low wages while raking in fortunes.I oppose that. Around 50 of the Fortune 500 companies are paying NEGATIVE taxes. And we have the Tea Party clown car group screaming for even lower taxes for them. They are insistent on keeping wages low, forcing my wealth to be transferred toward the most wealthy.
MSNBC nor Fox News can only be deduced as an opinion or propaganda news outlet. Neither are interested in reporting news but are only selling their ideology. But I will add this. MSNBC goes out of their way to only highlight what they want to air. Fox does this as well but are more guilty of editing clips, distorting reports, and mislabeling a (D) or (R) in front of a politician's name to suit their agenda,
Iraq was by far more than an interpretation of intelligence.
Ronald,
DeleteIn my view, a lot more than what you cited caused the Romney/Ryan fall. Frankly, I don't credit the electorate with as much analysis as you do.
Anyway, to get back to Hillary Clinton....One can make the case that Hillary's first term in the U.S. Senate accomplished some worthwhile things; her second term is more problematic.
Benghazi aside for the moment, Hillary's term as Secretary of State was not a success over time although at first appeared to be a success.
Ronald,
DeleteI stand by my argument that Benghazi is an exploited scam of the right.
I can't agree with you there.
Blaming a "movie," which actually turned out not to have possibly been the cause because the timeline doesn't fit, is one factor that has led to the various "conspiracy theories." And are they really conspiracy theories? We may never know. Deleted emails and all that.
The Republican ran House has spent considerably in their investigations, only to come up empty handed. As argued, such embassy and/or consulate attacks are nothing new in such hostile environments.
DeleteAgain, thank you and Z for a constructive and civil debate and I welcome your analysis of what precisely crushed the Romney/Ryan campaign.
I think it's less "empty handed" and more that the many instances that show there was negligence on the side of Clinton and the WH are being explained away. Ronald, I have listened too much to those men who were there who have nothing to gain by saying what they've held tight to; that they were told to stand down.
DeleteI appreciate that you disagree, but this falls also under the same category as Bush and WMD... and how he has so much blame for so little guilt, though I never thought we should have stayed in Iraq more than the topple of Saddam and, every day, I'm wishing we hadn't done even that.
Regarding the Romney/Ryan analysis, I think you were right on a lot of it; But I happen to agree with what Romney said about the 47%;
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.
Romney went on: "[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives." "
Perhaps that number should have been 37% because I do know a LOT of affluent people who voted Obama, but in general? He was dead right. And, really, what was the point in trying to win Black voters away from a Black Pres. nominee? Heck, even I cried a little at the excitement the night Obama was nominated, first black pres, seeing young Black kids crying....I was VERY moved. We all know the percentage was something like 98% of Blacks voted for him!
I happen to know the 3 who didn't, as a matter of fact (smile!)
Nobody will convince me that most Obama voters who aren't on Wall St and don't need money think, in the back of their minds or not, "i'll get a lot more from the government with this guy."
Sadly, not the tax breaks that could get this economy jump kicked.
Ryan is a very interesting point; I kept wondering where Ryan was because I'm quite a fan of his.....he barely appeared on TV, anywhere... Suddenly, I was hearing others agree "is the Romney campaign or the GOP muzzling Ryan?" Sure enough, once THAT was out, I heard 2 or 3 speeches by him. Amazing 'coincidence"?
For some reason, they had muzzled him, I'm convinced, and that was stupid. Probably a GOP thing since I notice folks like Rove don't cater too well to the nonconformist Republicans.
The thing about the dog on his car was nonsense but had legs, the 47%, the mistake that he'd been given his riches (he gave away his inheritance then made his own way), that he wasn't good to people (when we conservatives saw story after very old story of amazing things he'd done for people without talking about it, etc.
Romney's exactly what we needed....and Ryan was a terrific addition...fiscally, they had it all. I believe they'd have been better about NOT immediately deserting Iraq, too...perhaps we wouldn't have ISIS today if the WH had been smarter and realized whatever they thought had happened to Al Queda didn't mean islamist jihadists were going to disappear. They've only grown in horrid pace and huge amounts.
Romney is a very good guy....he should have won.
I know this country would be a lot happier. I really do feel that. I have too many friends (and myself included) who are really suffering under Obama care...docs retiring under it, etc...
And it's NOT CHEAP!
Have you ever voted for a Republican, if you don't mind saying? And what geographic part of America are you in? I'm in West Los Angeles.
Above, by "explained away" in Re; to Benghazi, I should have included it's by the media....certain points ignored, the men who spoke against the reports are ignored, etc.
DeleteRonald.. I watch CNN, FOX and MSNBC. I need 2 sides to nearly every subject or I'm not a happy girl so it's mostly FOX. And, yes, an R or a D mistake is made; they all do that. You just don't hear about it when the leftwing media covers for its leftwing faves.
DeleteZ, I appreciate that you hold tight to your belief regarding a "stand down" order. Unfortunately, there is just no evidence supporting that view. Here's a FOX News report of the event.
Delete"A two-year investigation by the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee has found that the CIA and the military acted properly in responding to the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya.
The report alleges no wrongdoing by Obama administration appointees.
Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies surrounding the incident, the report concludes that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.
The report blames the Obama administration's inaccurate portrayal of the attack as having evolved from a protest on fragmentary and contradictory intelligence from the CIA. It finds no intent to mislead the American public."
It is just one of many GOP led investigations that have come to the same conclusion.
But this is different than the Iraq debacle. That was a failure of intelligence period. Plain and simple. And every investigation came to the same conclusion.
Apart from the extreme left, most get that, and I'm not one to believe anyone as President, including Bush, would lie for the purpose of harming America, or her people or soldiers.
On Benghazi, we've had hearings, many of them. All led by the GOP. And all have found no evidence of intentional wrongdoing, and like in the Iraq run up, no intent to mislead.
I've often wondered what some are alleging the Obama Admin and Sec of State are covering up. Am I understanding, from your comments, that it is the belief that a stand down order was given, and covered up, or is it something else?
Oh, not at all. I just tend to believe 7 servicemen who were there and have talked about the stand down many times over any hearing.
DeleteI know all the information above. Just don't believe it. I don't believe a lot of what we're told, a lot of what's testified to.
We're living in a country now where the DoJ investigates the DoJ and the SoS investigates the SoS who happens to be of the same politics of State. And, guess what! They win! :-)
But, I hope you're right. I truly do.
I don't trust this government as far as I can throw it. And I think hearings are a terrible waste of time. And i've never thought this about any Dem or Rep administration I've ever lived through.
Dave,
DeleteThe fact remains that this administration blamed a YouTube film for what happened in Benghazi. This administration even trotted out Susan Rice onto all the Sunday morning news shows to tell that lie. Why tell that lie over and over again?
I do not believe that this administration did not know that the movie story was a lie. Do you?
Z,
DeleteI'm with you on believing those 7 servicemen. They certainly appear to have a better record of credibility that this administration has.
Ronald, Z, and Dave,
DeleteDo you remember this?
ABC News’s Diane Sawyer destroys Hillary Rodham Clinton on Benghazi
Even Salon is criticizing Hillary:
DeleteThe cash donations Hillary simply has no answer for: The Clinton Foundation's business relationship with 20 foreign governments raises real questions about her judgment.
Look AOW... I'm not defending Hillary, and as I stated before, I'll not be voting for her, nor did I before. She brings too much baggage from the past for me. The same is true for JEB.
DeleteIt's time for a change.
But I am still left wondering what exactly folks believe is being covered up in regards to Benghazi. Now if one takes Z's stance, that whatever all the commissions come up with are not to be trusted, I guess the answer can be anything.
I'd just like a concrete answer. Right leaning people have alleged a cover-up for years regarding Benghazi. Can anyone cite what the admin is covering up?
read the comments above. That could help.
DeleteDave,
DeleteI still maintain that the film story was a coverup for something.
I don't know how we can get a concrete answer if obfuscation is afoot.
So Dave Miller, assuming it gets down to Hillary v Jeb. Or, Hillary v the godawful person you can imagine? Who then would you vote for?
DeleteZ, and AOW, what I am getting from your responses is this... the admin allegedly covered up the "real reason" for the attack. Is that accurate?
DeleteBut let me go further. And I know this will not be greeted warmly.
Conservatives have been saying for years that lefties who spout "Bush Lied, People Died" are a bunch of idiots. And yet those lefties have basically said, much like conservatves in this case, that the government can not be trusted to tell the truth.
Therefore, in their opinion, they will always believe we went into Iraq on a lie.
In Benghazi, conservatives are holding dearly to the same point of view, albeit, on a different issue.
I have always said Bush and his Admin made a mistake. Nothing evil, nothing premeditated. Just that they were wrong. Many lefties, of course do not agree with me.
Isn't is possible that in relation to Benghazi, the admin, in their zeal to get info and yes, good spin, out there, that they made a mistake on the root causes? With no evil or malice intended?
As for the stand down order Z, what you are saying is that a whole lot of military personnel, who disagree with your view, are liars and involved in a conspiracy to cover up the facts. As are the members of Congress, many GOP folks included. That is a whole of folks, generals, military leaders, senators, congressmen and lower level soldiers who are keeping quiet.
Why would they?
Dave,
DeleteThe timeline for Benghazi as compared to the blamed film is very simple snd doesn't fit chronologically. That is an error hard to overlook and not nearly as complex as "failed intelligence."
Dave,
DeleteAnswer me this....Why did Obama invade Libya in the first place?
AOW... A broad coalition of primarily NATO forces attacked Libya because the government had turned on its own citizens.
DeleteThe US helped organize the coalition, but did not provide front line troops, being criticized often for leading from behind.
But I am at a loss to understand where your question fits in the conversation? The film response may have been inaccurate, or even wrong. But here's the reality on that... whatever was said about it, true, false or somewhere in between would not have mattered in the lives of our dead soldiers. By the time the admin trotted out their reasoning, the soldiers were already dead.
The film reason, or excuse, depending on your interpretation, has absolutely no bearing on the actual attack of Benghazi, so please, could someone please tell me how it is germane to a cover-up of the events of that night.
Dave,
DeleteBut I am at a loss to understand where your question fits in the conversation?
If it was an error for GWB to upset the balance in the Middle East by deposing Saddam Hussein, why wasn't it also wrong to take out Gaddafi?
By the time the admin trotted out their reasoning, the soldiers were already dead.
Ahem. The bit about the film as a cause was (1) a lie and (2) served to promote the false narrative of the victimology of Muslims.
And why blame a film which couldn't possibly have been the cause? To hide something? To deflect from something untoward going on (such as our State Department's providing arms to Syrian rebels)?
For example, lets look at Hillary’s (possible involvement with Bengazhi, AND the deleted e-mails) and lets compare that with the media’s constant coverage of Chris Christie and his (possible involvement with George Washington Bridge scandal), he has been proven to had nothing to do with it what so even... And yet the media can’t seem to get his name out of the story whenever the story is written!
ReplyDeleteIn my eyes Madam Hillary is as Guilty as can be and she has been guilty time afte time in one scandal after another scandal .
If you don't believe Hillary is in violation of this through the Clinton Foundation you've got your head up your anus.
If you progressive Libs, can’t get yourselves to buy her involvement in the Bengazhi scandal. The you must believe at least one or tow of the other scandals she’s involved with, like the e-mail scandal, and certainly the story of the Clinton “Foundation”scandal!! According to the Washington Post The Clinton Foundation accepted millions of dollars from Foreign Governments in violation of ethics rules and Hillary's written agreement to the Obama Administration to cease taking for foreign money while she was Secretary of State. Don’t believe that? Well then how about the absolute LIE about the Bosnia scandal. Brian Williams got caught in a lie you and was fired for lying, and Madam Hillary got caught in a lie and it gets swept under the rug by her saying, “I miss-spoke”! She didn’t “miss-speak, she LIED! HOW CAN SOMEONE BE THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND BE A DOCUMENTED LIAR?
What does it say about her Character to tell a bold face lie, th the country and the world knowing that the event was recorded and there were witnesses there? Yet the liberal media will make it seem as if She Walks on Water. Hillary Clinton has never had “Character.” She comes from a “Characterless family.”
And the double standard media has yet conduct an interview with hard hitting questions about the Clinton Foundation, the foreign donations and now transparency. Also, why doesn’t the press ask where she stands on Obama’s Iran “deal” It's the most important foreign policy decision of our time and when it’s time to discuss it, she’s absent.
Try to visit Liberal / Progressive web-site and ask these questions and you’ll be blocked, and banned from commenting, and you’ll be called a “Troll”..
This women is an utter disgrace and does NOT deserve to even be considered to be the nomination of any party for this position.
I do not see anyway she survives these scandals. Sorry...Hillary is toas
Hillary is almost a shoe in, and the democrat machine are recruiting more and more democrat voters by any means possible to make up for the few that they lose when they come to their senses. Just look at the push to get ex-felons to vote, the amnesty programs and so on. The fact that Hillary is a viable candidate for the democrat party is so unconscionable to anyone that is smarter than a rock is the ultimate proof that the electorate has been corrupted beyond repair.
But I fear that I am wasting my time even trying to explain the idiocy of these useful Idiots. The same Idiots who criticized and called Condoleezza Rice all those vile names!
This coming from the same party that says, there is no such thing as "Radical Islam"
But I guess this is the world we live in these days!
But the unfortunate thing is that most people on the left won’t even bother to listen or read any of this because you’re actually using common sense, something that these people don’t use, or have. These people don’t even care about the deleted e-mails or about he lies and some don’t even know what your talking about when you say “Clinton Foundation” or even “Bengazhi”. We are talking about the UN-INFORMED USEFUL IDIOTS! And yet these people vote! But they vote for the candidate who will give them the most Free-Stuff.
ReplyDeleteThe people that will vote for her, will vote for her regardless of any of these “ scandals” they will just vote for her because she a Liberal democrat and because she’s a woman.
Yes, they are the uninformed and they really don't care about any of the issues. the lies, and the scandals.
Just like they voted for Obama because he would be the " First Black President", and because he was so cool, and yes because he promised all that free-stuff .
So lets not be under the delusion impression that the left really cares about Character, Laws or even Ethics. If we did Hillary would be Toast by now, and her Husband would have been run out of Town on a Rail, a long time ago!
Just like the Cockroaches, and the Idiots on the Progressive blogs chose to write about Joan Baez on Memorial Day instead of writing about and Honoring, Our Troops!
ReplyDeleteJoan Baez like Jane Fonda are the scum of the earth..
ReplyDeleteFrom SNOPES.COM
"Jane Fonda had the audacity to say that the POWs were lying about our torture and treatment. Now ABC is allowing Barbara Walters to honor Jane Fonda in her feature "100 Years of Great Women." Shame on the Disney Company.
"I had the opportunity to meet with Jane Fonda for a couple of hours after I was released. I asked her if she would be willing to debate me on TV. She did not answer me, her husband (at the time), Tom Hayden, answered for her. She was mind controlled by her husband. This does not exemplify someone who should be honored by '100 Years of Great Women.'"
"After I was released, I was asked what I thought of Jane Fonda and the anti-war movement. I said that I held Joan Baez's husband in very high regard, for he thought the war was wrong, burned his draft card and went to prison in protest. If the other anti-war protesters took this same route, it would have brought our judicial system to a halt and ended the war much earlier, and there wouldn't be as many on that somber black granite wall called the Vietnam Memorial. This is democracy. This is the American way.
"Jane Fonda, on the other hand, chose to be a traitor, and went to Hanoi, wore their uniform, propagandized for the communists, and urged American soldiers to desert. As we were being tortured, and some of the POWs murdered, she called us liars. After her heroes — the North Vietnamese communists — took over South Vietnam, they systematically murdered 80,000 South Vietnamese political prisoners. May their souls rest on her head forever!
______ Seen at the Window ______
ReplyDeleteGo quickly to the window; take a look.
Outside on the horizon past the lawn
An army gathers set to move at dawn.
From their demonic, sacred Holy Book
Authority for their campaign is drawn
To compensate for old affronts. Their aim
Provides excuse to loot, destroy and maim
Innocent descendants whose heads sawn ––
Slowly, severed from their earthly frame
In agony –– inspires holy zeal
Beyond the soul’s capacity to feel
Compassion –– Righteous Wrath’s eternal claim.
Too late! The future waiting to be born
Will in its womb be slashed, then die forlorn.
~ FreeThinke
FT,
DeleteRivaling W.B. Yeats there!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete______ SOUR PROMPTINGS ______
ReplyDeleteBeware the sour promptings always tempting
To think unkindly of those who annoy
With tone and gesture pushy and pre-empting,
Whose aspect mars and robs the day of joy.
How could we know what factors brought to bear
Have shaped the character and destiny
That irritate the fortunate and fair
Who live above the fray decorously?
Have pity on the crude and poorly schooled.
If they could see themselves as others do ––
Realize the baseness by which they’ve been ruled ––
The pathos of their ways would make them rue
The day that they arrived innocently
Damned by patterns spawned genetically.
~ FreeThinke
Jane Fonda, Joan Baez, 2 asswipes, birds of a feather.
ReplyDeleteWrite about them on Menorial Day?
Only a Commie Pig Bastard would do that!
HILLARY:
ReplyDeleteThis goes out to anyone with such severely limited cerebral resources that they would vote for her. It appears that we have at least one on this thread.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=TfG0bSK6fH4
Instead of whom, L'il Ricky Santorum?
DeleteFace it, the Republican bench is long and very narrow.
The Democrat bench is empty.
DeleteJon,
DeleteGreat video! Thanks.
PS to Jon: I'll queue up that video for posting front-and-center.
DeletePart of the day has had me thinking about what a terrific investment a lousy 30 bucks for a couple bird feeders and seed turned out to be.
ReplyDeleteSnark would include Dennis Hastert.
Part of the day, make that MOST of the day I have been thinking about the many, many, idiots we have here in America that has brought us to the point we are in now. (The lowest, and the least respected Position that this one time Great country had alway been in before in my entire life). And this can only be atributed to the uninformed idiots who not only voted for Obama, but who voted for him twice!
DeleteYes, victims of blackmailers require punishment, especially former Republicans. Go DOJ!
DeleteFJ...remember the horrors of Robert Byrd at around the same age Hastert was when he allegedly did anything wrong as a wrestling teacher.
DeleteByrd recruited for the Klan....a horror to a whole race of innocent people.......Hastert may have had consensual sex with a young girl or, seemingly, a guy (at least that's a better story for the media; we don't know yet but probably...). The Left, particularly on blogs, ignores Byrd's horrible hateful racist heart and actions, but oh, brother..wait till details on Dennis H come to light.
Very sad about the death of Beau Biden; his family has faced a lot of loss over the years and he was way too young to die and went through a very tough time.
ReplyDeleteWe need to keep his wife and two children in prayer..
Z,
DeleteI heard. Probably glioblastoma.
Death from brain cancer is often hideous.
So sad. Ya, I think that's a bad way to go but it appears he's had periods of good health since having undergone his first treatment.... and this last thing went VERY fast, a couple of weeks.
DeleteI don't wish that on anybody, that's for sure. And he seems to have been so admired for the kind of man he was. Liberal or Conservative, we grieve as human beings.
Duck,
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think of the snow piles in Boston?
It looks like they didn't pay their CLIMATE TAX!
DeleteThat's received quite a bit of attention lately.
DeleteThe original pile was absolutely massive and I guess it became so compressed that the melting is inhibited.
Nothing on the definitive science has been published that I've seen.
The pile is full of trash and pretty disgusting.
Today's feel-good local news story:
ReplyDeleteRobbery Suspect Identified By Lumps He Took From Victim's Cane.
Obama Has Lowest Average 1stQ GDP Growth of Any President on Record
ReplyDeleteEven if you leave out the first quarter of 2009—when the recession that started in December 2007 was still ongoing--President Barack Obama has presided over the lowest average first-quarter GDP growth of any president who has served since 1947, which is the earliest year for which the Bureau of Economic Analysis has calculated quarterly GDP growth.
In all first quarters since 1947, the real annual rate of growth of GDP has averaged 4.0 percent.
In the seven first quarters during Obama’s presidency, it has declined by an average of -0.43 percent. And if you leave out the first quarter of 2009 and look only at the first quarters of the six years since the recession ended, it has averaged only 0.4 percent
In the six years of Harry Truman’s presidency for which the BEA has calculated quarterly GDP, the annual rate of growth in GDP in the first quarter averaged 4.5 percent.
Blame It on Global Cooling Obama Has Lowest Average 1stQ GDP Growth of Any President on Record
It's hard to get around the real numbers. Liberals will trot out the usual explanations that it's really Bush's fault, or the Republicans fault.
But Republicans are not to blame for this mess.
Lie your way out of this liberals.