quote:
Bush warned us that jihadists would emerge as soon as we leave. Wow, what a bold and brilliant prediction. It's silly to blame either Bush or Obama for today's mess over there. If our military decided on a strategy to cut and run to expose the cockroaches, who are we to decide whether it's right or wrong? Our military officials are the ones to influence a Presidents decision, so criticizing the President is really a criticism of our military. Neither Obama, Bush, nor Clinton have strategic military expertise in their background, so I would imagine they sign off on recommendations from our generals. Let's keep our heads straight and blame the mess in the Middle East on the lunatics that live there.
Huh? Let me get this straight. Our military "decided on a strategy to cut and run to expose the cockroaches?" Wait what? Our "military" didn't decide on such a strategy. Nor is this a strategy. It's called losing. And the decision to do this was most certainly NOT made by the military it was made by Obama. Obama is the Commander in Chief. As numerous persons including now Leon Panetta and Robert Gates have attested, Obama IGNORED the advice of the military as is his privilige. But to blame it on them? Truly bizarre. Who are we to criticize it? We are American citizens with brains and eyes and opinions and the ability to process what we see in front of us. You keep going off on this "Criticism is not legitimate" thing. I have no idea where it comes from.
Finally. It is always the president's responsibility to formulate policy. He listens to advice (thought his one doesn't seem to very much) and then he makes a choice. Bush listened to advice on what to do about Iraq after the fall of Hussein and it turned out to be a bad choice. He bears the responsibility. Just as Obama does. What is so dificult about this concept. But really "cut and run to expose the cockroaches"? Now I've heard it all.
____________________
quote:
Bush warned us that jihadists would emerge as soon as we leave. Wow, what a bold and brilliant prediction. It's silly to blame either Bush or Obama for today's mess over there. If our military decided on a strategy to cut and run to expose the cockroaches, who are we to decide whether it's right or wrong? Our military officials are the ones to influence a Presidents decision, so criticizing the President is really a criticism of our military. Neither Obama, Bush, nor Clinton have strategic military expertise in their background, so I would imagine they sign off on recommendations from our generals. Let's keep our heads straight and blame the mess in the Middle East on the lunatics that live there.
Huh? Let me get this straight. Our military "decided on a strategy to cut and run to expose the cockroaches?" Wait what? Our "military" didn't decide on such a strategy. Nor is this a strategy. It's called losing. And the decision to do this was most certainly NOT made by the military it was made by Obama. Obama is the Commander in Chief. As numerous persons including now Leon Panetta and Robert Gates have attested, Obama IGNORED the advice of the military as is his privilige. But to blame it on them? Truly bizarre. Who are we to criticize it? We are American citizens with brains and eyes and opinions and the ability to process what we see in front of us. You keep going off on this "Criticism is not legitimate" thing. I have no idea where it comes from.
Finally. It is always the president's responsibility to formulate policy. He listens to advice (thought his one doesn't seem to very much) and then he makes a choice. Bush listened to advice on what to do about Iraq after the fall of Hussein and it turned out to be a bad choice. He bears the responsibility. Just as Obama does. What is so dificult about this concept. But really "cut and run to expose the cockroaches"? Now I've heard it all.
____________________
I said "if" that was a strategy......but I can see how you need to pull cheap tricks like that to make a point. My point is that people like you sound foolish when you criticize such difficult and complex decisions in hindsight and act as though they are fools. And do you seriously believe that Obama ignored the advice of ALL our military advisors and made this decision soley on his own? If so, you are a buffoon. One minute you say he made this decision on his own and ignored the military's advice, and the very next line you say he received advice and made a choice. So which is it? And we all have a right to criticize decisions, but when you criticize Bush and Obama's choice in hindsight, with the intent to insult them, you again sound foolish.
"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists"
This statement (or one very similar) made by President Bush at the time really bothered me. I felt as though someone needed to remind him that he was not The King of America. There was so much flag waving fervor because of 911; just showed me how easily manipulated the voting populace can be in difficult times. Kind of like the CDC telling us "Not to worry about Ebola, we've the situation under control"
Right.
Back to topic, the mere thought of Hillary Clinton calling the shots scares the living Hell out of me.
So specifically who would you feel comfortable with calling the shots? Names?
Leftists believe int he implementation of their ideas by any means necessary. It is one of the things that distinguishes the two groups. One seeks to persuade, the other will do whatever it has to including lie to get the ideas IT KNOWS to be right implemented. Thank you for being one leftist honest enough to admit it.
Really? Any means necessary? Now I'm what? An eco terrorist?
Doug - that is a reprehensible characterization of me as a person.
I'm not characterizing you as a person at all. I don't even know you. I am simply stating that one of the hallmarks of the hard left is that it is totally result driven. The process is irrelevant. Lying or other forms of trickery are acceptable. I suppose its also true of the hard right but the hard right has no voice and no power. Liberals care about the process.
So true Doug - Remember when the left lied about weapons of mass destruction and got us in a war for no reason. Not to mention when they implied that Iraq had something to do with 9-11. And then they said that the US would be greeted in Iraq with flowers and dance and would be seen as liberators. Damn those damn lefties with their lying and their trickery!!!
Hey, that looks like something I would post. Why isn't anybody on the Left complaining? Maybe they haven't seen it yet. Great job, though.
I actually enjoy your snark alloak (well, at least sometimes). I find it a nice break from the rehashing of right-wing talking points that seem to get repeated over and over without any thought put into it at all.
Thanks 2112! The feeling is mutual, you've got the touch. I always knew you were a fine gentleman.
Leftists believe int he implementation of their ideas by any means necessary. It is one of the things that distinguishes the two groups. One seeks to persuade, the other will do whatever it has to including lie to get the ideas IT KNOWS to be right implemented. Thank you for being one leftist honest enough to admit it.
Really? Any means necessary? Now I'm what? An eco terrorist?
Doug - that is a reprehensible characterization of me as a person.
I'm not characterizing you as a person at all. I don't even know you. I am simply stating that one of the hallmarks of the hard left is that it is totally result driven. The process is irrelevant. Lying or other forms of trickery are acceptable. I suppose its also true of the hard right but the hard right has no voice and no power. Liberals care about the process.
So true Doug - Remember when the left lied about weapons of mass destruction and got us in a war for no reason. Not to mention when they implied that Iraq had something to do with 9-11. And then they said that the US would be greeted in Iraq with flowers and dance and would be seen as liberators. Damn those damn lefties with their lying and their trickery!!!
We were greeted as liberators. It's what happened after that went wrong. And much of the left lied when they pretended they opposed the war all along when they all supported it with a couple of exceptions (including Obama of course)
We were greeted as liberators initially but we overstayed our welcome and were soon seen as invaders. IMHO we also had no exit plan when things went sideways. As with Vietnam, we never seem to learn that we can't just invade a country, and set up a puppet Democracy, and expect the locals to embrace it and know how to make it work.
How do you know the left lied? it is quite possible they opposed the war initially but supported the President as there was tremendous pressure by the Bush Administration to conform and give their support. President George W. Bush, in an address to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001 said, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" so lets not pretend everyone in Congress was prowar. And lets not forget they were lied to about the existence of weapons of mass destruction by the Bush Administration when they made their decision to support the war in Iraq.
[Edited on 10/16/2014 by Bill_Graham] [/quote
One way or the other they lied. Either now or then. Either they opposed the war but voted for it out of political cowardice or they supported it and switched sides when it became politically expedient. Either way makes them look bad and deservedly so.
We were greeted as liberators
Those tight shots of a couple of dozen people milling around the Saddam statue kind of made it look like we were greeted as liberators.
We bombed and decimated the entire city of Baghdad. You really the residents of that city were happy with us?
It's cool Doug. You have made it clear that you love bombing innocents women and children. We just have a difference of opinion. As a liberal I'll tolerate your murderous, blood thirsty, glee.
Thak you we gleeful lovers of blood thirsty murderousness appreciate youur tolerance.
Chris Cristy fat ass blowhard.
Leftists believe int he implementation of their ideas by any means necessary. It is one of the things that distinguishes the two groups. One seeks to persuade, the other will do whatever it has to including lie to get the ideas IT KNOWS to be right implemented. Thank you for being one leftist honest enough to admit it.
Really? Any means necessary? Now I'm what? An eco terrorist?
Doug - that is a reprehensible characterization of me as a person.
I'm not characterizing you as a person at all. I don't even know you. I am simply stating that one of the hallmarks of the hard left is that it is totally result driven. The process is irrelevant. Lying or other forms of trickery are acceptable. I suppose its also true of the hard right but the hard right has no voice and no power. Liberals care about the process.
So true Doug - Remember when the left lied about weapons of mass destruction and got us in a war for no reason. Not to mention when they implied that Iraq had something to do with 9-11. And then they said that the US would be greeted in Iraq with flowers and dance and would be seen as liberators. Damn those damn lefties with their lying and their trickery!!!
We were greeted as liberators. It's what happened after that went wrong. And much of the left lied when they pretended they opposed the war all along when they all supported it with a couple of exceptions (including Obama of course)
We were greeted as liberators initially but we overstayed our welcome and were soon seen as invaders. IMHO we also had no exit plan when things went sideways. As with Vietnam, we never seem to learn that we can't just invade a country, and set up a puppet Democracy, and expect the locals to embrace it and know how to make it work.
How do you know the left lied? it is quite possible they opposed the war initially but supported the President as there was tremendous pressure by the Bush Administration to conform and give their support. President George W. Bush, in an address to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001 said, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" so lets not pretend everyone in Congress was prowar. And lets not forget they were lied to about the existence of weapons of mass destruction by the Bush Administration when they made their decision to support the war in Iraq.
[Edited on 10/16/2014 by Bill_Graham] [/quote
One way or the other they lied. Either now or then. Either they opposed the war but voted for it out of political cowardice or they supported it and switched sides when it became politically expedient. Either way makes them look bad and deservedly so.
Wait a minute I am confused now Doug. Paraphrasing your fellow conservative Mule. he says Democrats are cowards for not wanting to go to war yet you claim the Democrats in Congress are cowards for not opposing Bush's pointless wars?
No wonder the GOP is such a mess, even its constituents can't agree on policy. 😛
Leftists believe int he implementation of their ideas by any means necessary. It is one of the things that distinguishes the two groups. One seeks to persuade, the other will do whatever it has to including lie to get the ideas IT KNOWS to be right implemented. Thank you for being one leftist honest enough to admit it.
Really? Any means necessary? Now I'm what? An eco terrorist?
Doug - that is a reprehensible characterization of me as a person.
I'm not characterizing you as a person at all. I don't even know you. I am simply stating that one of the hallmarks of the hard left is that it is totally result driven. The process is irrelevant. Lying or other forms of trickery are acceptable. I suppose its also true of the hard right but the hard right has no voice and no power. Liberals care about the process.
So true Doug - Remember when the left lied about weapons of mass destruction and got us in a war for no reason. Not to mention when they implied that Iraq had something to do with 9-11. And then they said that the US would be greeted in Iraq with flowers and dance and would be seen as liberators. Damn those damn lefties with their lying and their trickery!!!
We were greeted as liberators. It's what happened after that went wrong. And much of the left lied when they pretended they opposed the war all along when they all supported it with a couple of exceptions (including Obama of course)
We were greeted as liberators initially but we overstayed our welcome and were soon seen as invaders. IMHO we also had no exit plan when things went sideways. As with Vietnam, we never seem to learn that we can't just invade a country, and set up a puppet Democracy, and expect the locals to embrace it and know how to make it work.
How do you know the left lied? it is quite possible they opposed the war initially but supported the President as there was tremendous pressure by the Bush Administration to conform and give their support. President George W. Bush, in an address to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001 said, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" so lets not pretend everyone in Congress was prowar. And lets not forget they were lied to about the existence of weapons of mass destruction by the Bush Administration when they made their decision to support the war in Iraq.
[Edited on 10/16/2014 by Bill_Graham] [/quote
One way or the other they lied. Either now or then. Either they opposed the war but voted for it out of political cowardice or they supported it and switched sides when it became politically expedient. Either way makes them look bad and deservedly so.
Wait a minute I am confused now Doug. Paraphrasing your fellow conservative Mule. he says Democrats are cowards for not wanting to go to war yet you claim the Democrats in Congress are cowards for not opposing Bush's pointless wars?
No wonder the GOP is such a mess, even its constituents can't agree on policy. 😛
1. I am not a constituent of the GOP. Unlike my fellow Conservative I do not believe the upcoming shellacking of the Democrats means the country wants Republicans. It just means the country is rightly rejecting Obama.
2. You are a coward if you don't stand by the courage of your convictions. Remember JFK's Profiles in Courage? It was all about Senators who took unpopular stances. If one opposes war then one should oppose it regardless of its popularity. Of course some Democrats did do that. The rest not only supported it but made speech after speech justifying it and basically parroting the line of the Bush administration so they could seem (as they say) more Catholic than the Pope. Then when it turned bad they not only turned against it but didn't even have the courage t admit they were wrong (As a number of pundits like Richard Cohen did). Instead they pretended that they got deliberately false intelligence from the Bush administration as if the entire government hadn't been relying on similar intelligence since the 90's. Political cowards the entire lot. The crown prince of this is John Kerry.
1. I am not a constituent of the GOP. Unlike my fellow Conservative I do not believe the upcoming shellacking of the Democrats means the country wants Republicans. It just means the country is rightly rejecting Obama.
Good point, and I agree.
Abandoning Conservative principals has reduced them to being a protest vote. A return to Conservatism will fix that problem. Explain it, sell it, enact it....Then explain why it's working. Never let up.
[Edited on 10/21/2014 by alloak41]
1. I am not a constituent of the GOP. Unlike my fellow Conservative I do not believe the upcoming shellacking of the Democrats means the country wants Republicans. It just means the country is rightly rejecting Obama.
Good point, and I agree.
Abandoning Conservative principals has reduced them to being a protest vote. A return to Conservatism will fix that problem. Explain it, sell it, enact it....Then explain why it's working. Never let up.
[Edited on 10/21/2014 by alloak41]
Can you drill down a bit deeper & provide some level of detail on how this will work for the GOP given its view and beliefs re: social issues such as 1) a woman's right to choose, 2) birth control, 3) gay marriage, 4) equal pay for women, 5) etc.? That should get you started.
Given the current stances taken in accordance with "Conservative principals" you alluded to, it seems like social issues is an area you will have a difficult time explaining & selling to an open minded society.
1. I am not a constituent of the GOP. Unlike my fellow Conservative I do not believe the upcoming shellacking of the Democrats means the country wants Republicans. It just means the country is rightly rejecting Obama.
Good point, and I agree.
Abandoning Conservative principals has reduced them to being a protest vote. A return to Conservatism will fix that problem. Explain it, sell it, enact it....Then explain why it's working. Never let up.
[Edited on 10/21/2014 by alloak41]
Can you drill down a bit deeper & provide some level of detail on how this will work for the GOP given its view and beliefs re: social issues such as 1) a woman's right to choose, 2) birth control, 3) gay marriage, 4) equal pay for women, 5) etc.? That should get you started.
Given the current stances taken in accordance with "Conservative principals" you alluded to, it seems like social issues is an area you will have a difficult time explaining & selling to an open minded society.
I KNEW that's the first place this would go. Despite every effort to steer the conversation in that direction, I would steer it back to a discussion of more pressing issues.
1. I am not a constituent of the GOP. Unlike my fellow Conservative I do not believe the upcoming shellacking of the Democrats means the country wants Republicans. It just means the country is rightly rejecting Obama.
Good point, and I agree.
Abandoning Conservative principals has reduced them to being a protest vote. A return to Conservatism will fix that problem. Explain it, sell it, enact it....Then explain why it's working. Never let up.
[Edited on 10/21/2014 by alloak41]
Can you drill down a bit deeper & provide some level of detail on how this will work for the GOP given its view and beliefs re: social issues such as 1) a woman's right to choose, 2) birth control, 3) gay marriage, 4) equal pay for women, 5) etc.? That should get you started.
Given the current stances taken in accordance with "Conservative principals" you alluded to, it seems like social issues is an area you will have a difficult time explaining & selling to an open minded society.
I KNEW that's the first place this would go. Despite every effort to steer the conversation in that direction, I would steer it back to a discussion of more pressing issues.
More and more I hear people describe themselves as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. That is where the GOP will have a problem trying to separate the social and economic issues. In many areas they are intertwined and can't be separated (health care, for example), and in others they are just hot button topics that won't go away any time soon. Any candidate that shies away from the social issues and simply tries to steer every conversation only to "more pressing issues" as you put it, will fail. The challenge for the GOP is to find a way to resonate with independents as well as centrist Rs and Ds not only on economic issues, but on social issues as well. If they can find a way to do that, the Ds would be in real trouble. All this is IMO of course.
[Edited on 10/21/2014 by gondicar]
No wonder the GOP is such a mess
News flash: The whole government is a mess.
The good news is that Obama's approval numbers are in the tank. Imagine how worse off we would be if he was at 65%. That would mean the public actually believes everything is swell. There's hope yet.
1. I am not a constituent of the GOP. Unlike my fellow Conservative I do not believe the upcoming shellacking of the Democrats means the country wants Republicans. It just means the country is rightly rejecting Obama.
Good point, and I agree.
Abandoning Conservative principals has reduced them to being a protest vote. A return to Conservatism will fix that problem. Explain it, sell it, enact it....Then explain why it's working. Never let up.
[Edited on 10/21/2014 by alloak41]
Can you drill down a bit deeper & provide some level of detail on how this will work for the GOP given its view and beliefs re: social issues such as 1) a woman's right to choose, 2) birth control, 3) gay marriage, 4) equal pay for women, 5) etc.? That should get you started.
Given the current stances taken in accordance with "Conservative principals" you alluded to, it seems like social issues is an area you will have a difficult time explaining & selling to an open minded society.
I KNEW that's the first place this would go. Despite every effort to steer the conversation in that direction, I would steer it back to a discussion of more pressing issues.
Great non-answer & no different than a conservative politician trying to avoid real issues. Are you incapable of detailing that answer, or are you so myopic that you can't believe that social issues are real, pressing, and make a difference to real people and at the booth? Maybe they aren't pressing issues to you, but they are to millions of impacted voters. This is the attitude & reason why conservative politicians will probably not win a national election for years to come. Economics is only part of the equation, and conservatives believe they can sweep social issues under the rug and pretend we live in times like 100 years ago. By not talking about them does not make these conservative LIABILITY issues go away. A narrow mindset on social issues is a guaranteed losing proposition.
Why would a person vote for do nothing incumbents as a way to show their disproval of Obama? Re-elect the worst Congress in history because you don't like the President's agenda.
Genius.
Why would a person vote for do nothing incumbents as a way to show their disproval of Obama? Re-elect the worst Congress in history because you don't like the President's agenda.
Genius.
Heck, out here in the fields we've got a Senator that doesn't live here, doesn't even own a home in Kansas. Been a senator for 18 years. Prolly gonna get re-elected.
Why would a person vote for do nothing incumbents as a way to show their disproval of Obama? Re-elect the worst Congress in history because you don't like the President's agenda.
Genius.
Heck, out here in the fields we've got a Senator that doesn't live here, doesn't even own a home in Kansas. Been a senator for 18 years. Prolly gonna get re-elected.
Must truly be a field of dreams.
Why would a person vote for do nothing incumbents as a way to show their disproval of Obama? Re-elect the worst Congress in history because you don't like the President's agenda.
Genius.
Heck, out here in the fields we've got a Senator that doesn't live here, doesn't even own a home in Kansas. Been a senator for 18 years. Prolly gonna get re-elected.
Must truly be a field of dreams.
That's one way of putting it! 
I doubt Hillary could win a presidential election. The last time she tried she lost in the primary to an amateur with no resume.
Hillary herself has no resume. She tried playing lawyer but for a few shady real estate deals and sitting on Wal-Mart’s Board of Directors she has no professional experience.
Unless of course you count attending formal dinners and making speeches, many to Wall Street firms the liberals claim they despise (except for their money).
American is currently suffering from an amateur president and has had just about enough of him.
In her tenure as a U.S. Senator she, like Obama, carefully avoided taking a position on anything.
As Secretary of State she brokered no peace treaties, no trade deals and intervened in no world problems. She did manage to get our ambassador to Libya and three other Americans killed by the gross incompetence of the State Department during a terrorist attack.
How did that reset with Russia work out for us?
She did dance with the natives in Papua New Guinea.
When her husband was president she did try HillaryCare but that of course blew up in her face and her husband had to sit her down (not in his lap though, that spot was taken).
The Democratic Party primary will be interesting however. Hillary Clinton has always positioned herself as a centrist like her husband. Enter Elizabeth Warren who touts herself as a far-left liberal.
The Democratic Party doesn’t know who they really are now-a-days. Let the cat fight begin.
It’ll be fun to watch!
I doubt Hillary could win a presidential election. The last time she tried she lost in the primary to an amateur with no resume.
Hillary herself has no resume. She tried playing lawyer but for a few shady real estate deals and sitting on Wal-Mart’s Board of Directors she has no professional experience.
Unless of course you count attending formal dinners and making speeches, many to Wall Street firms the liberals claim they despise (except for their money).
American is currently suffering from an amateur president and has had just about enough of him.In her tenure as a U.S. Senator she, like Obama, carefully avoided taking a position on anything.
As Secretary of State she brokered no peace treaties, no trade deals and intervened in no world problems. She did manage to get our ambassador to Libya and three other Americans killed by the gross incompetence of the State Department during a terrorist attack.
How did that reset with Russia work out for us?She did dance with the natives in Papua New Guinea.
When her husband was president she did try HillaryCare but that of course blew up in her face and her husband had to sit her down (not in his lap though, that spot was taken).
The Democratic Party primary will be interesting however. Hillary Clinton has always positioned herself as a centrist like her husband. Enter Elizabeth Warren who touts herself as a far-left liberal.
The Democratic Party doesn’t know who they really are now-a-days. Let the cat fight begin.It’ll be fun to watch!
Really? please advise who the GOP has at the present who has a prayer of beating her?
I doubt Hillary could win a presidential election. The last time she tried she lost in the primary to an amateur with no resume.
Hillary herself has no resume. She tried playing lawyer but for a few shady real estate deals and sitting on Wal-Mart’s Board of Directors she has no professional experience.
Unless of course you count attending formal dinners and making speeches, many to Wall Street firms the liberals claim they despise (except for their money).
American is currently suffering from an amateur president and has had just about enough of him.In her tenure as a U.S. Senator she, like Obama, carefully avoided taking a position on anything.
As Secretary of State she brokered no peace treaties, no trade deals and intervened in no world problems. She did manage to get our ambassador to Libya and three other Americans killed by the gross incompetence of the State Department during a terrorist attack.
How did that reset with Russia work out for us?She did dance with the natives in Papua New Guinea.
When her husband was president she did try HillaryCare but that of course blew up in her face and her husband had to sit her down (not in his lap though, that spot was taken).
The Democratic Party primary will be interesting however. Hillary Clinton has always positioned herself as a centrist like her husband. Enter Elizabeth Warren who touts herself as a far-left liberal.
The Democratic Party doesn’t know who they really are now-a-days. Let the cat fight begin.It’ll be fun to watch!
Really? please advise who the GOP has at the present who has a prayer of beating her?
X2.
Let me take a crack at your question. The answer is probably not one of the GOP candidates that can be imagined.
Now let me take a crack at a couple of muleboy's points.
Point 1 & I quote, "Hillary herself has no resume."
Response - What a factually incorrect & clueless statement.
Point 2 & I quote, "The Democratic Party doesn’t know who they really are now-a-days. Let the cat fight begin."
Response - Really muleboy, really? Are you sure you're not describing the GOP. When the GOP candidates begin their individual runs for the nomination, you will see the real inner party fighting. Like 2012, there will be many GOP candidates. Do you really expect harmony between the GOP candidates? Last time there wasn't, and I doubt that will change. If they run, look at the egos of Perry, Paul, Cruz, Christie, etc. Do you expect any one of those to take a back seat and not take pot shots at the competition?
Any Republican candidate who can minimize social issues, while emphasizing a larger need for conservative economics, will win. Minimizing the social issues will send the message that he/she doesn't care either way, satisfying the voters who oppose conservative social issues. Emphasizing conservative economics will appeal to those who have been disappointed with Obama's performance. As mentioned earlier, this politician would get the millions of voters who say they are socially liberal and economically conservative. In other words, they need Christie.
I doubt Hillary could win a presidential election. The last time she tried she lost in the primary to an amateur with no resume.
Hillary herself has no resume. She tried playing lawyer but for a few shady real estate deals and sitting on Wal-Mart’s Board of Directors she has no professional experience.
Unless of course you count attending formal dinners and making speeches, many to Wall Street firms the liberals claim they despise (except for their money).
American is currently suffering from an amateur president and has had just about enough of him.In her tenure as a U.S. Senator she, like Obama, carefully avoided taking a position on anything.
As Secretary of State she brokered no peace treaties, no trade deals and intervened in no world problems. She did manage to get our ambassador to Libya and three other Americans killed by the gross incompetence of the State Department during a terrorist attack.
How did that reset with Russia work out for us?She did dance with the natives in Papua New Guinea.
When her husband was president she did try HillaryCare but that of course blew up in her face and her husband had to sit her down (not in his lap though, that spot was taken).
The Democratic Party primary will be interesting however. Hillary Clinton has always positioned herself as a centrist like her husband. Enter Elizabeth Warren who touts herself as a far-left liberal.
The Democratic Party doesn’t know who they really are now-a-days. Let the cat fight begin.It’ll be fun to watch!
Really? please advise who the GOP has at the present who has a prayer of beating her?
X2.
Let me take a crack at your question. The answer is probably not one of the GOP candidates that can be imagined.
Now let me take a crack at a couple of muleboy's points.
Point 1 & I quote, "Hillary herself has no resume."
Response - What a factually incorrect & clueless statement.
Point 2 & I quote, "The Democratic Party doesn’t know who they really are now-a-days. Let the cat fight begin."
Response - Really muleboy, really? Are you sure you're not describing the GOP. When the GOP candidates begin their individual runs for the nomination, you will see the real inner party fighting. Like 2012, there will be many GOP candidates. Do you really expect harmony between the GOP candidates? Last time there wasn't, and I doubt that will change. If they run, look at the egos of Perry, Paul, Cruz, Christie, etc. Do you expect any one of those to take a back seat and not take pot shots at the competition?
________________________________________________________
Okay, please list her accomplishments and as you love to say, be specific
________________________________________________________
Point 2 & I quote, "The Democratic Party doesn’t know who they really are now-a-days. Let the cat fight begin."
Response - Really muleboy, really? Are you sure you're not describing the GOP. When the GOP candidates begin their individual runs for the nomination, you will see the real inner party fighting. Like 2012, there will be many GOP candidates. Do you really expect harmony between the GOP candidates? Last time there wasn't, and I doubt that will change. If they run, look at the egos of Perry, Paul, Cruz, Christie, etc. Do you expect any one of those to take a back seat and not take pot shots at the competition?
____________________________________________________
You obviously follow the Democratic Party talking points.
When you have nothing, attack the GOP with unintelligible rants.
The Hillary camp is already attacking Elizabeth Warren. The Elizabeth Warren camp is already attacking Hillary. Why such dissent in the Democratic Party.
All the GOP candidates, if and when they announce, will be tight with the conservative policies that America is crying for to be put into law. You will see the proof on Nov. 4th.
Back to Hillary: list her accomplishments and as you love to say, be specific.
Muleman won't answer a single question. And once again he demands others answer him. People with room temperature IQ's tend to be that way. 😛
Muleman won't answer a single question. And once again he demands others answer him. People with room temperature IQ's tend to be that way. 😛
__________________________________
Wrong dumbass, that question was answered but not one of the liberals can list Hillary's accomplishments.
You got nothing.
Muleman won't answer a single question. And once again he demands others answer him. People with room temperature IQ's tend to be that way. 😛
__________________________________
Wrong dumbass, that question was answered but not one of the liberals can list Hillary's accomplishments.
You got nothing.
I shoot you down in every thread, but I got nothing? The next real point you make will give you a total of 1. 😛
Muleman won't answer a single question. And once again he demands others answer him. People with room temperature IQ's tend to be that way. 😛
keller,
You are so right. But since I'm a kind & giving person, I'm going to provide muleboy some reading that should pacify him. There's plenty of specifics & meat here.
http://www.historynet.com/hillary-rodham-clinton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton
Muleman won't answer a single question. And once again he demands others answer him. People with room temperature IQ's tend to be that way. 😛
keller,
You are so right. But since I'm a kind & giving person, I'm going to provide muleboy some reading that should pacify him. There's plenty of specifics & meat here.
___________________________-
Quoting a pro-Hillary newspaper and freely edited wikipedia? You are a joke.
I didn’t think the liberals could state any accomplishment of Hillary. It is hard to list nothing.
You are in the same position a 2008. Obama had no professional accomplishments either.
Now the People know Obama is an incompetent leader and his management skills are non-existent.
The American People won’t elect another amateur. We won’t get fooled again.
Discussing politics with you is like having a meeting with junior staff. Generally right out of college they still think that what their professors told them was accurate or what they read in a newspaper is actually news.
While most of them can be broken of bad habits or ideologies that are just wrong, some cannot. The cannots usually don’t last long.
You would be one of the cannots.
They have opinions of what should be but have no idea how craft a plan, sell it or implement the plan. But they do have an opinion.
Muleman won't answer a single question. And once again he demands others answer him. People with room temperature IQ's tend to be that way. 😛
keller,
You are so right. But since I'm a kind & giving person, I'm going to provide muleboy some reading that should pacify him. There's plenty of specifics & meat here.
___________________________-
Quoting a pro-Hillary newspaper and freely edited wikipedia? You are a joke.
I didn’t think the liberals could state any accomplishment of Hillary. It is hard to list nothing.
You are in the same position a 2008. Obama had no professional accomplishments either.
Now the People know Obama is an incompetent leader and his management skills are non-existent.The American People won’t elect another amateur. We won’t get fooled again.
Discussing politics with you is like having a meeting with junior staff. Generally right out of college they still think that what their professors told them was accurate or what they read in a newspaper is actually news.
While most of them can be broken of bad habits or ideologies that are just wrong, some cannot. The cannots usually don’t last long.You would be one of the cannots.
They have opinions of what should be but have no idea how craft a plan, sell it or implement the plan. But they do have an opinion.
In other words, you can't refute so you dismiss the source. There are 405 cited sources on the Wikipedia page. I doubt you bothered to read any of this. Lazy + dumb = low info voter.
Muleman won't answer a single question. And once again he demands others answer him. People with room temperature IQ's tend to be that way. 😛
keller,
You are so right. But since I'm a kind & giving person, I'm going to provide muleboy some reading that should pacify him. There's plenty of specifics & meat here.
___________________________-
Quoting a pro-Hillary newspaper and freely edited wikipedia? You are a joke.
I didn’t think the liberals could state any accomplishment of Hillary. It is hard to list nothing.
You are in the same position a 2008. Obama had no professional accomplishments either.
Now the People know Obama is an incompetent leader and his management skills are non-existent.The American People won’t elect another amateur. We won’t get fooled again.
Discussing politics with you is like having a meeting with junior staff. Generally right out of college they still think that what their professors told them was accurate or what they read in a newspaper is actually news.
While most of them can be broken of bad habits or ideologies that are just wrong, some cannot. The cannots usually don’t last long.You would be one of the cannots.
They have opinions of what should be but have no idea how craft a plan, sell it or implement the plan. But they do have an opinion.
In other words, you can't refute so you dismiss the source. There are 405 cited sources on the Wikipedia page. I doubt you bothered to read any of this. Lazy + dumb = low info voter.
______________________
Wikipedia is an open, freely edited website well known for inaccurate information.
If you actually use Wikipedia as a source for information it is no wonder you have no idea what you are talking about.
