Surely you have more than that. Is that the best you can do?
Surely you have more than that. Is that the best you can do?
Oh, I see...it was ok when Romney did it, but not when it was done to him. That's pretty much what I would expect from you.
And there is PLENTY more out there...if you don't think so then you are in denial big time.
[Edited on 10/29/2014 by gondicar]
I'm sure you had no problem with this ad...
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/08/is-romney-to-blame-for-cancer-death/
Ever hear of Karl Rove........? The fact that you think it is only democrats is ludicrous.............
Oh, FFS. Everyone keeps engaging alloak and Doug in political discussions as if they think that they and other conservatives have some modicum of respect for you. They don't. They call you "low-info voters," claim you lack "objectivity" and "understanding," and have in the past accused people of suffering from "cognitive dissonance." They laugh at you. They pity you. They think you are idiots. Your opinions do not matter. Your real-life experiences do not matter. They detest Democrats, liberals and Obama, and you too.
Why engage anymore? I certainly understand the love of the argument and have slung plenty of mud myself, but why give anyone who thinks they are smarter and better than you the time of day?
"But it's not personal!" BS. It's always personal.
Ever hear of Karl Rove........? The fact that you think it is only democrats is ludicrous.............
________________________________________
The Architect !
Kicked liberal a$$ for a decade.
Interesting reply posts from the liberals lately.
Not one of you made an argument for Hillary.
Not one of you listed an accomplishment of Hillary.
Not one of you …
When confronted, liberals, with nothing to offer attack everyone else.
No wonder the democrats will be roundly defeated in a week.
And on the lying, democrats (the party of no morals or ethics) are fine with that. Bill Clinton made lying under oath popular.
_______________________________________________________________________
Here are the liberals for Hillary:
You are a reprehensible jackass.
The lies you post are libelous. The fact that know nothing about any of this never stops you from being a jackass. Hey, I have a question for you. When did you stop beating your wife?
Why is old news only relevant when you want it to be.
So now you think it is ok for you to act like that? And then you will be incensed when someone does this to your candidate. You want it both ways. And that remark you made was as reprehensible as anything that has been said on this site.
So now you're either a doctor or counselor? Please post your notes from Hillary's last office visit with you. I'm sure we can put aside HIPAA regulations this one time for the sake of your credibility.
Funny that you keep bringing up Romney as an excuse for your own behavior and lies, you must be pretty bitter.
As for campaign styles, the GOP wrote the book on going negative, although both sides are doing it even more than I can recall during this election cycle...all the PAC money is certainly making the marketing agencies that produce the ads and the media outlets that run them a lot of money, so I guess at least it is good for the economy on some level (even if they they make the entire electoral process feel even dirtier than it is). The Koch brothers PAC, among other GOP interests including the Republican Governor's Alliance are all spending big here to run ads in support of the independent candidate in hope that support for him siphons votes from the democrat (who by all polling data would win going away if the independent dropped out)...it might not be illegal or even unethical, but it is certainly dishonest to try to promote one candidate when they are really trying to promote someone else.
It obviously bothered you, and despite that you don't seem to have a problem with engaging in the same kind of behavior that you find so reprehensible in others.
Also, you are so one-sided in your criticism of this type of politics that its like you are blind to the fact that it isn't one-sided at all.
So Joe,
That gives you license to just make up things on the fly & say anything even if you have no factual basis to support it?
Complete BS, Mr. Joe Blow. Try taking off your red-state colored glasses for once and see the world for how it really is. Sheesh.
Oh, I see...it was ok when Romney did it, but not when it was done to him. That's pretty much what I would expect from you.
And there is PLENTY more out there...if you don't think so then you are in denial big time.
Oh, FFS. Everyone keeps engaging alloak and Doug in political discussions as if they think that they and other conservatives have some modicum of respect for you. They don't. They call you "low-info voters," claim you lack "objectivity" and "understanding," and have in the past accused people of suffering from "cognitive dissonance." They laugh at you. They pity you. They think you are idiots. Your opinions do not matter. Your real-life experiences do not matter. They detest Democrats, liberals and Obama, and you too.
Why engage anymore? I certainly understand the love of the argument and have slung plenty of mud myself, but why give anyone who thinks they are smarter and better than you the time of day?
"But it's not personal!" BS. It's always personal.
Good words & advice, Hawk. I've fed one internet troll enough on this site to know that I won't waste my time nor bandwidth feeding him anymore.
Oh, FFS. Everyone keeps engaging alloak and Doug in political discussions as if they think that they and other conservatives have some modicum of respect for you. They don't. They call you "low-info voters," claim you lack "objectivity" and "understanding," and have in the past accused people of suffering from "cognitive dissonance." They laugh at you. They pity you. They think you are idiots. Your opinions do not matter. Your real-life experiences do not matter. They detest Democrats, liberals and Obama, and you too.
Why engage anymore? I certainly understand the love of the argument and have slung plenty of mud myself, but why give anyone who thinks they are smarter and better than you the time of day?
"But it's not personal!" BS. It's always personal.
Good words & advice, Hawk. I've fed one internet troll enough on this site to know that I won't waste my time nor bandwidth feeding him anymore.
____________________________________
Whining and crying and running home.
Sad.
Hillary Clinton: A Profile In Failure
Donald Lambro | Sep 17, 2014
WASHINGTON - The nightly news shows made it very clear this week that they've gotten behind Hillary Clinton's expected 2016 campaign for president.
The network news programs gave Clinton's trip to Iowa the gushing, royal treatment on Sunday, repeating it again on Monday, as she appeared before a throng of cheering Democrats where her party's first presidential nominating caucuses will be held. The coverage of her speech, which was loaded with empty platitudes and little else that was newsworthy, bordered on the worshipful.
That she has the 2016 Democratic nomination virtually sewed up at this juncture tells us everything we need to know about the sad state of the Democratic Party today.
She is manifestly ill-equipped to be president and has shown no talents to be a chief executive of anything, let alone the most powerful nation on the face of the earth.
No one can name a major achievement in her career as First Lady, senator from New York, or Secretary of State. Indeed, her role in all three jobs has been marked by failure, incompetence and grandstanding.
When President Clinton put her in charge of health care reform, she glued together a hopelessly incomprehensible Rube Goldberg contraption that no one could understand, or that could pass muster within her own party on Capitol Hill.
Republicans hit the road, making its defeat their No. 1 issue, and it wasn't a hard sell.
I remember a newsmaker health care panel I chaired at the time to discuss her plan, and the chief lobbyist of the politically powerful AARP told me it was so complicated and murky even he couldn't fully understand how it would work.
Her plan was so bad, House Democratic leaders never even brought it up for a vote in committee, let alone bring it to the House floor. It was a humiliating experience for the Clinton administration and a devastating defeat for a First Lady who was clearly in over her head on health policy.
But the little-known fact about Hillary's years in the White House was that she was often at odds with her husband over key issues and policies.
During that time, President Clinton worked closely with the centrist-leaning Democratic Leadership Council which he had chaired during his time as governor. Their agenda was focused on expanding trade, reforming welfare, and championing non-union, charter school, education reforms -- positions that were fiercely opposed by the party's liberal base.
DLC leaders at the time told me that Hillary, who was far more liberal than her husband, opposed their centrist agenda within the White House.
Obviously, Clinton dismissed her complaints when he expanded the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), signed Republican legislation cutting the capital gains tax, and enacted the GOP's welfare-to-work reforms.
Then came Hillary's Senate years, choosing to run in the overwhelmingly Democratic state of New York, not in Arkansas where she and her husband established their political careers.
Can anyone name one major legislative initiative that she made during her time as a senator? One legislative reform that she authored, fought for and managed through Congress?
Yet by 2008, she believed she was ready to run the country and lead the Free World. Democrats didn't think so.
In the first major nominating contest that year, Hillary finished a humiliating third in the Iowa caucuses -- behind Obama and then-Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina. Her candidacy was seen as presumptuous and her aloof, humorless personality on the stump didn't help, either.
But President Obama made her his secretary of State, despite the fact that she had no foreign policy experience whatsoever. But, then, neither did Obama, who had been an untested freshman senator of no accomplishment for a mere three years before he ran for president.
She quickly demonstrated that she had little or no skills in foreign policy statecraft, focusing instead on making lots of speeches, and building her travel record -- leaving the details of running the State Department and its embassies and consulates to others.
That led to the deadly catastrophe in Benghazi, Libya, where our ambassador and three other Americans were killed in a terrorist attack that State Department officials initially tried to coverup as a tame Muslim protest that just got out of hand.
Numerous investigations and congressional hearings were held, revealing the heart-breaking pleas from U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens for beefed up security at the besieged consulate -- which never came.
Since she stepped down from her post at the end of Obama's first term, and after writing a book about her four years at State, Hillary's had many opportunities to address the enormous problems that afflict our country under this administration.
Start with the weak, jobless, underperforming Obama economy, about which Hillary, incredibly, has had little or nothing to say. A Pew Poll late last month found 58 percent of Americans surveyed said "jobs are difficult to find."
Median family income has fallen from $53,100 in 2007 to $46,700 in 2013. About one-third of young adults, the so-called millennials, still live with their parents. The U.S. economy is stuck in a slow growth quagmire of less than 2 percent annually.
Hillary's government-centered solution at the steak fry in Indianola, Iowa Sunday sounded almost word for word like Obama's failed agenda: "…we are for raising the minimum wage, for equal pay for equal work, for making college and technical training affordable, for growing the economy to benefit everyone."
But raising the minimum wage would kill 500,000 to one million jobs, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says. How would she produce stronger economic growth, create more jobs and raise incomes? She doesn't say.
Her husband did it by cutting tax rates on investors that triggered a wave of capital investment in new businesses and pounded the unemployment rate to 4 percent. But in a party that wants to raise taxes, it's doubtful Hillary will be taking his advice.
I'm sure you had no problem with this ad...
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/08/is-romney-to-blame-for-cancer-death/
Why are you sure? Haven't I said over and over again here that both sides do it and that doesn't make it right?
Oh, FFS. Everyone keeps engaging alloak and Doug in political discussions as if they think that they and other conservatives have some modicum of respect for you. They don't. They call you "low-info voters," claim you lack "objectivity" and "understanding," and have in the past accused people of suffering from "cognitive dissonance." They laugh at you. They pity you. They think you are idiots. Your opinions do not matter. Your real-life experiences do not matter. They detest Democrats, liberals and Obama, and you too.
Why engage anymore? I certainly understand the love of the argument and have slung plenty of mud myself, but why give anyone who thinks they are smarter and better than you the time of day?
"But it's not personal!" BS. It's always personal.
Yep, sure seems that way.
Funny - amateur president is a new term - in say the last 6 years. Every other president before was somehow qualified...... lol
So who, in either party, would not be an amateur president? What does that even mean? Just another fake issue from the conservatives........
Other presidents learn from their mistakes and grow in office. This one has never made a mistake, at least one that he's acknowledged, thinks he knows everything and actually knows virtually nothing. We would be much better off having someone who knows nothing about these issues but knows how to hire smart experts and listen to their advice. He is the worst president of the 20th century by a magnitude.
Oh, FFS. Everyone keeps engaging alloak and Doug in political discussions as if they think that they and other conservatives have some modicum of respect for you. They don't. They call you "low-info voters," claim you lack "objectivity" and "understanding," and have in the past accused people of suffering from "cognitive dissonance." They laugh at you. They pity you. They think you are idiots. Your opinions do not matter. Your real-life experiences do not matter. They detest Democrats, liberals and Obama, and you too.
Why engage anymore? I certainly understand the love of the argument and have slung plenty of mud myself, but why give anyone who thinks they are smarter and better than you the time of day?
"But it's not personal!" BS. It's always personal.
I don't think anyone here is a low info voter. I never said that. There are plenty of people I respect here. I think many have misguided political views and that is what we discuss. I can see how you might think that means I have no respect for people because it is clear and obvious that the left has little to no respect for anyone who does not share their views starting with the president obviously. (Fox News! Fox News! Amuurrrica!)
Funny - amateur president is a new term - in say the last 6 years. Every other president before was somehow qualified...... lol
So who, in either party, would not be an amateur president? What does that even mean? Just another fake issue from the conservatives........
Other presidents learn from their mistakes and grow in office. This one has never made a mistake, at least one that he's acknowledged, thinks he knows everything and actually knows virtually nothing. We would be much better off having someone who knows nothing about these issues but knows how to hire smart experts and listen to their advice. He is the worst president of the 20th century by a magnitude.
_____________________________________
Well said.
And now on to finding someone to elect President in 2016.
A tall order. The circumstances will change many times during the campaigns, the primaries, the debates and the general election.
Today, nobody knows.
Hey, I have a question for you. When did you stop beating your wife?
And you really believe that with comments like this, you haven't stooped to the same level you find fault with?
You are a reprehensible jackass.
Pot, meet kettle.
Hillary: 'Don't Let Anybody Tell You' That 'Businesses Create Jobs'
I can't decide which is more humorous, your sense of "Fair play" or Hillary's concept of just who and what creates jobs.
For now, I am quite contenet to just say..."It is too close to call"..
Thanks for the chortle.
Oh, FFS. Everyone keeps engaging alloak and Doug in political discussions as if they think that they and other conservatives have some modicum of respect for you. They don't. They call you "low-info voters," claim you lack "objectivity" and "understanding," and have in the past accused people of suffering from "cognitive dissonance." They laugh at you. They pity you. They think you are idiots. Your opinions do not matter. Your real-life experiences do not matter. They detest Democrats, liberals and Obama, and you too.
Why engage anymore? I certainly understand the love of the argument and have slung plenty of mud myself, but why give anyone who thinks they are smarter and better than you the time of day?
"But it's not personal!" BS. It's always personal.
No, it's not. Let's not be afraid to whip up some drama. You take things too personally.
Funny - amateur president is a new term - in say the last 6 years. Every other president before was somehow qualified...... lol
So who, in either party, would not be an amateur president? What does that even mean? Just another fake issue from the conservatives........
Other presidents learn from their mistakes and grow in office. This one has never made a mistake, at least one that he's acknowledged, thinks he knows everything and actually knows virtually nothing. We would be much better off having someone who knows nothing about these issues but knows how to hire smart experts and listen to their advice. He is the worst president of the 20th century by a magnitude.
And of course you forget to mention in your last sentence that would be your opinion. If you have some scientific means or empirical data to support "by a magnitude", please share with us.
We've come to love reading your opinions which seem to be your standard operating procedure. I will give you this - even though I disagree with most of your opinions, I don't find you to be an internet troll like one of your brethren on this site.
I don't think anyone here is a low info voter. I never said that. There are plenty of people I respect here. I think many have misguided political views and that is what we discuss. I can see how you might think that means I have no respect for people because it is clear and obvious that the left has little to no respect for anyone who does not share their views starting with the president obviously. (Fox News! Fox News! Amuurrrica!)
Low-info types probably won't be hanging out on the WP.
What we DO have is a bunch of babies that can't stand being disagreed with, or tolerate political views different from their own. Just read through a typical thread carefully and you'll see which direction 99% of the name-calling, personal comments, ect come from first.
I don't think anyone here is a low info voter. I never said that. There are plenty of people I respect here. I think many have misguided political views and that is what we discuss. I can see how you might think that means I have no respect for people because it is clear and obvious that the left has little to no respect for anyone who does not share their views starting with the president obviously. (Fox News! Fox News! Amuurrrica!)
Low-info types probably won't be hanging out on the WP.
What we DO have is a bunch of babies that can't stand being disagreed with, or tolerate political views different from their own. Just read through a typical thread carefully and you'll see which direction 99% of the name-calling, personal comments, ect come from first.
You are right. Why, we even had one person here refer to a public figure as being an alcoholic without any evidence to back that up. Why type of person would do something like that?
Funny - amateur president is a new term - in say the last 6 years. Every other president before was somehow qualified...... lol
So who, in either party, would not be an amateur president? What does that even mean? Just another fake issue from the conservatives........
Other presidents learn from their mistakes and grow in office. This one has never made a mistake, at least one that he's acknowledged, thinks he knows everything and actually knows virtually nothing. We would be much better off having someone who knows nothing about these issues but knows how to hire smart experts and listen to their advice. He is the worst president of the 20th century by a magnitude.
Considering he was elected in November 2008 the first mistake you made is Obama was not a President in the 20th century.
That being said you are certainly entitled to your opinion but how can you possibly think Obama has been a worse President then George W. Bush?
Bush got us into two needless boondoggle wars under false pretenses and the economy was on the verge of collapse when he left office. I could go on with a list of blunders his Administration made but I think you get the point.
Since I know some here love to quote approval ratings, Bush's made a steady decline from basically the time he took office and ended with one of the lowest if not the lowest approval rating post WWII, depending on what polls you believe, so I would say the American people know who the worst has been. 😉
What we DO have is a bunch of babies that can't stand being disagreed with, or tolerate political views different from their own. Just read through a typical thread carefully and you'll see which direction 99% of the name-calling, personal comments, ect come from first.
You are too funny!
please change the name of the thread title.
I'm tired of looking at it.
thanks in advance. 
Funny - amateur president is a new term - in say the last 6 years. Every other president before was somehow qualified...... lol
So who, in either party, would not be an amateur president? What does that even mean? Just another fake issue from the conservatives........
Other presidents learn from their mistakes and grow in office. This one has never made a mistake, at least one that he's acknowledged, thinks he knows everything and actually knows virtually nothing. We would be much better off having someone who knows nothing about these issues but knows how to hire smart experts and listen to their advice. He is the worst president of the 20th century by a magnitude.
Considering he was elected in November 2008 the first mistake you made is Obama was not a President in the 20th century.
That being said you are certainly entitled to your opinion but how can you possibly think Obama has been a worse President then George W. Bush?
Bush got us into two needless boondoggle wars under false pretenses and the economy was on the verge of collapse when he left office. I could go on with a list of blunders his Administration made but I think you get the point.
Since I know some here love to quote approval ratings, Bush's made a steady decline from basically the time he took office and ended with one of the lowest if not the lowest approval rating post WWII, depending on what polls you believe, so I would say the American people know who the worst has been. 😉
_______________________________________________
President Bush inherited a declining economy and a national intelligence so dysfunctional it allowed Islamic terrorists to attack us on 9/11. This was Clinton’s gift to America.
The American People, supported by the democrats including Hillary and Kerry, wanted The U.S. to go after Al-Qaeda.
Your “two needless boondoggle wars under false pretenses” statement is a flat out lie.
Obama’s approval rating is now equal to President Bush’s lowest. President Bush’s approval rating is now higher than Obamas.
President Bush had to deal with Pelosi and Reid who refused to pass any legislation from 2006-2008 that that was good for the country but would have shown President Bush in a positive light.
Reid and the democrats in the senate have continued this obstructionist policy with regard the anything from the House of Representatives.
Pelosi and Reid also spent hundreds of billions of dollars the country didn’t have.
BTW – Obama is he two president considered the worst since WWII.
The American People know the facts and will deliver their sentence to Obama in a week.
We are still waiting for the liberals here to name any accomplishment or professional experience of Hillary.
Notably Hillary's own state department cannot
Why, we even had one person here refer to a public figure as being an alcoholic without any evidence to back that up. Why type of person would do something like that?
What a Criminal! So what?... What type of person would be bothered by that?......After all, they are only lying politicians. ALL of them.
OMG, I just referred to all politicians as liars, with NO evidence!
please change the name of the thread title.
I'm tired of looking at it.
thanks in advance.
What makes you so special?
Hillary Fired for Lies, Unethical Behavior from Congressional Job: Former Boss
By: Ed Morrissey
Dan Calabrese’s new column on Hillary Clinton’s past may bring the curtain down on her political future. Calabrese interviewed Jerry Zeifman, the man who served as chief counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate hearings, has tried to tell the story of his former staffer’s behavior during those proceedings for years. Zeifman claims he fired Hillary for unethical behavior and that she conspired to deny Richard Nixon counsel during the hearings:
As Hillary Clinton came under increasing scrutiny for her story about facing sniper fire in Bosnia, one question that arose was whether she has engaged in a pattern of lying.
The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther – and goes much deeper – than anyone realizes.
Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.
Why?
“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”
This isn’t exactly news. When her lachrymose performance arguably won her New Hampshire, Zeifman tried to tell people about Hillary’s duplicity. Patterico noticed the effort, but few others picked it up. Zeifman wrote at his website:
After hiring Hillary, Doar assigned her to confer with me regarding rules of procedure for the impeachment inquiry. At my first meeting with her I told her that Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino, House Speaker Carl Albert, Majority Leader “Tip” O’Neill, Parliamentarian Lou Deschler and I had previously all agreed that we should rely only on the then existing House Rules, and not advocate any changes. I also quoted Tip O’Neill’s statement that: “To try to change the rules now would be politically divisive. It would be like trying to change the traditional rules of baseball before a World Series.”
Hillary assured me that she had not drafted, and would not advocate, any such rules changes. However, as documented in my personal diary, I soon learned that she had lied. She had already drafted changes, and continued to advocate them. In one written legal memorandum, she advocated denying President Nixon representation by counsel. In so doing she simply ignored the fact that in the committee’s then most recent prior impeachment proceeding, the committee had afforded the right to counsel to Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas.
Funny - amateur president is a new term - in say the last 6 years. Every other president before was somehow qualified...... lol
So who, in either party, would not be an amateur president? What does that even mean? Just another fake issue from the conservatives........
Other presidents learn from their mistakes and grow in office. This one has never made a mistake, at least one that he's acknowledged, thinks he knows everything and actually knows virtually nothing. We would be much better off having someone who knows nothing about these issues but knows how to hire smart experts and listen to their advice. He is the worst president of the 20th century by a magnitude.
Considering he was elected in November 2008 the first mistake you made is Obama was not a President in the 20th century.
That being said you are certainly entitled to your opinion but how can you possibly think Obama has been a worse President then George W. Bush?
Bush got us into two needless boondoggle wars under false pretenses and the economy was on the verge of collapse when he left office. I could go on with a list of blunders his Administration made but I think you get the point.
Since I know some here love to quote approval ratings, Bush's made a steady decline from basically the time he took office and ended with one of the lowest if not the lowest approval rating post WWII, depending on what polls you believe, so I would say the American people know who the worst has been. 😉
_______________________________________________
President Bush inherited a declining economy and a national intelligence so dysfunctional it allowed Islamic terrorists to attack us on 9/11. This was Clinton’s gift to America.
The American People, supported by the democrats including Hillary and Kerry, wanted The U.S. to go after Al-Qaeda.
Your “two needless boondoggle wars under false pretenses” statement is a flat out lie.Obama’s approval rating is now equal to President Bush’s lowest. President Bush’s approval rating is now higher than Obamas.
President Bush had to deal with Pelosi and Reid who refused to pass any legislation from 2006-2008 that that was good for the country but would have shown President Bush in a positive light.
Reid and the democrats in the senate have continued this obstructionist policy with regard the anything from the House of Representatives.Pelosi and Reid also spent hundreds of billions of dollars the country didn’t have.
BTW – Obama is he two president considered the worst since WWII.
The American People know the facts and will deliver their sentence to Obama in a week.
- Clinton handed Bush a budget surplus while Bush handed Obama an economy on the verge of collapse.
- The Democrats supported thee war based false information and were under intense pressure to support the two trainwreck wars. As Bush stated in his TV address "You are either with us or with the Terrorists"
-Do your research as Obama's approval rating has never been as low as Bush's was when he left office Bush's dipped into the upper 20's at the end of his term and Obama's has never been that low so who is lying now.
- LOL you have a big pair nerve crying about the Democrats obstructing the GOP agenda considering how they oppose everything the Democrats have proposed during Obama's term.
- President Bush turned a surplus into a deficit increasing spending and massive tax cuts. And unemployment almost doubled under his Administration in 8 years.
