|
Post by admin on Aug 13, 2013 6:14:05 GMT -8
Making a work of fiction movie about Hillary Clinton will be more influential over Americans than the trail of dead bodies she has left and the crap job she has done and the blatant lies she has told.
The GOP needs to get a black man to run against her in 2016. The majority of black voters will throw her under the bus again like in the primary against Obama, and vote their race.
|
|
|
Post by section8vet on Aug 13, 2013 12:55:28 GMT -8
trail of dead bodies? such as the illegal cia operation moving missiles from Libya into Syria?
I think she did a great job as secstate.
black republican, like herman cain? the only black republicans are think tank uncle toms who are at the beck and call of the masters who fund cato, heritage, and aei.
majority of black voters are not conservatives or republicans and it's doubtful they would vote against THEIR economic self interests unlike edneck whites and Midwestern dumbass farm whites.
case in point: rand paul. talk about style over substance! his pre-election claim-besides daddy's liitle libertine,er.libertarian name recog- was a call to repeal the 17th amendment, which, of course, is every American's right to advocate.
but paul represents a backward state with little or no 21st century industry or services and is almost entirely dependent on farm subsidies and government income transfers and redistribution. so paul under the guise of the Federalist and the original constitution wants to remove the popular direct election of himself from the boobs who voted him in the first place and shift that decision to the state legislature which is corrupt and servile to business interests wholy anathema to the rubes and rubettes who live in Kentucky.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Aug 13, 2013 13:09:43 GMT -8
I disagree totally.
I would bet that if a black Republican ran against Hillary in 2016, the majority of blacks would vote for the black candidate.
Why do I believe this? Because of the primary between Hillary and Obama. They would do the same and vote race...even if it's against their 'own interests' which are? Welfare? Continued high unemployment? No job opportunities?
I don't see how they think voting liberal has helped them in any way. Why aren't things better for blacks even since Democrats had control of all houses of government?
As for black Republicans being 'uncle Toms', I faced the same accusations for DARING to be Hispanic and not towing the liberal line. How DARE minorities have a mind of their own!
Btw, I don't like Rand Paul and don't see him as a serious contender in 2016. There are no serious GOP contenders...yet.
|
|
|
Post by mickeeteeze on Aug 14, 2013 3:46:59 GMT -8
Well.....maybe they often have voted style over substance. I have to say? Ron Reagan would be a great example. Seriously, the man was in every living room once a week as a movie host/pitchman for corporate America for years. This was via TV, the most powerful media of it's time. Let's not forget his iconic movie portrayals were mostly charming and sympathetic, when film was the most powerful entertainment of it's time. Ronnie somehow managed to appeal to Corporations, while projecting a Depression Era 'regular guy' image. He was revoltingly likeable, which is as much a contradiction as 'Ron the politician' really was.
And, yeah, I'll put JFK on the list as well as Obama. Any Democrat was winning in 2008, BTW. Republicans still to this day refuse to 'own' the litany of bad choices made by the Bush Administration. The primary one being putting two wars out to free market, than lowering taxes and putting them on a credit card. The housing bubble may have been the trigger, but the weak foundation based on debt? This will all be common knowledge in history books years from now, but no one wants to admit it in the present.
On to Hillary. You are indeed correct in assuming Hillary is not a 'gimme' for POTUS in 2016. My reasons are undoubtedly different than yours.
Hillary is not insanely popular with voters because she is polarizing. This isn't because of Benghazi, as the Shill Hannity would have us believe. It's because she is a feminist who inserted herself into her husbands Presidency. She is the 'Gloria Steinham' of politics, the women's movement come to fruition. It has often been whispered Hillary is the 'smartest person in the room', and knows it. Add to that a touch of perceived vindictiveness? Well, she's not very 'cuddly'. It's sad an old sexist stereotype (the angry harpy) has hurt her politically, but it has.
I was a Hillary supporter in 2008. I was as surprised as anyone witnessing "Comet Obama". As for 2016? I'm waiting on the field. Her time may have passed, let's see who else is running. I'm not above voting for a moderate Republican, BTW, but the "Tea Party" may kill that option.
Rand Paul? God, let's hope not. He's certainly a squeaky wheel. I'm with Sec8 here. Another anti tax guy who's mostly relevant because of subsidies.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Aug 14, 2013 5:24:47 GMT -8
Yes, I didn't specify parties because they both are guilty of it. Granted, it does take charm and charisma to get people to support a candidate, but at least there was a time when experience, know-how, and ability counted for something, and there was no way an inexperienced 'community organizer' could've ever been POTUS.
As for Hillary, she is still very popular with Democrats and they would choose her to run if another black man doesn't run on their ticket. Whether she would win, I doubt it. There are lots of misogynists in the Democrat party, and they would vote for a Republican before they'd vote for a woman...but I digress.
Sec8vet says Hillary did a great job as sec of state, yet doesn't say what she did that was so great.
When I think of Hillary, I think of her saying she 'dodged sniper fire'; all the strife she has presided over with no ability or influence over it; and of course, that one we'll be seeing over and over if she does run: "What difference at this point does it make?" regarding how four Americans were murdered in Benghazi.
Did she do anything as senator of NY?
That's why the liberals have to make a fictional movie about her to fabricate something she can run on. Will voters believe the movie rather than the truth? Probably.
After all, they bought Obama's fabricated resume hook, line, and sinker.
|
|
|
Post by mickeeteeze on Aug 14, 2013 7:22:01 GMT -8
Hillary didn't do a whole lot in NY. It was just a platform to keep her in national politics until a presidential run. Nothing new or particularly treacherous with this. If I'm not mistaken, Bobby Kennedy went from the White House, to NYS, back to a POTUS run (1968). I forget the details, but I believe FDR did the same. Secretary of the Navy, back to NYS, back to the White House, maybe? Governor Thomas Dewey ran for POTUS two or three times during the 40's, and was a major figure in the R party for decades.
NYS politics live and die by NYC, and the revenue of Captalism (Wall St), the irony being it's a blue state. Generally, the most prominent NYS pol is the Mayor of NYC. Once 100 miles out of NYC, most of NYS is quite rural. I would not be surprised if NYS is more 'red' in terms of square miles, but more 'blue' in population centers. It's a huge state in terms of area.
In any case, Democrats don't wholly love Hillary, not IMO. She can be cross, is certainly an Alpha personality, even more so than her husband, and that's saying something.
Benghazi was a tragedy, but bottom line? It went down because some people really hate us. Did they dodge and fabricate initial reports? Of course! They wanted to be noncommittal while appearing like they knew everything that happened.
As to the movies? Well, I doubt they will be very critical. you are probably right. The Clinton's have some very powerful friends. However, many of those friends jumped ship to Obama, so we'll see what she's got left.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Aug 14, 2013 8:53:46 GMT -8
There are LOTS of people (Islamic fanatics) who hate us, and that's exactly why she should have made sure there was extra security on the anniversary of 9/11 in an Islamic country. That should've been a no-brainer.
IMO, there is more to that than meets the eye. Why were the Seals ordered not to go in and rescue them? Why are witnesses being intimidated into not answering questions? The whole thing is suspect and, IMO, there's a coverup.
As for the initial reports, they didn't dodge initial reports...they covered them up. They did not say they didn't know what happened. They went on TV and claimed it was because of a YouTube video...no ifs ands or buts. They adamantly claimed it was the YouTube video, proving that they aren't even good liars. She and Obama even apologized to Muslims for the video and ARRESTED the creator of the video.
The way she is going to grovel, pander, and kowtow to Muslims if she campaigns for POTUS is going to sickening.
|
|
|
Post by mickeeteeze on Aug 14, 2013 13:08:01 GMT -8
There are LOTS of people (Islamic fanatics) who hate us, and that's exactly why she should have made sure there was extra security on the anniversary of 9/11 in an Islamic country. That should've been a no-brainer.
"Ahhh. Y'know, I don't believe there is much we can do in a way of stopping determined murderers if they plan it well, and keep it secret. If someone were to show me where the Obama Admin willfully stepped down security, as opposed to the 1st through 9th 'Anniversaries', I might be inclined to support a full investigation. Instead, this is about statements made following the attack. I do get a sense this is an example of 'better to have said nothing at all'."
IMO, there is more to that than meets the eye. Why were the Seals ordered not to go in and rescue them? Why are witnesses being intimidated into not answering questions? The whole thing is suspect and, IMO, there's a coverup.
"It wouldn't surprise me if we don't know, and maybe never will know quite what happened here. I believe this sort of 'misinformation' is rather common. Before I go on here, I'll admit "BenghaziGate" hasn't exactly been high on my list of priorities. With that in mind, I have just spent about an hour + with google verifying your assertions. I have been doing it in good faith, seriously, trying to find some smoke. Here's what I'm reading, basically: the investigators claim the Admin knew straight away, this was a terrorist attack. I agree with this. The investigators insinuate the Admin lied to cover up an order of 'stand down', which caused the death of 4 Americans. Not sure either way. They say the Libyans were going to handle it. This is tricky ground, here. It's the host Nations responsibility to protect the Embassy. Something else could be deemed an act of war, not that it would happen this way. The Libyan Government ultimately did handle it, albeit too late."
As for the initial reports, they didn't dodge initial reports...they covered them up. They did not say they didn't know what happened. They went on TV and claimed it was because of a YouTube video...no ifs ands or buts. They adamantly claimed it was the YouTube video, proving that they aren't even good liars. She and Obama even apologized to Muslims for the video and ARRESTED the creator of the video.
OK, you win. They are wrong here.
The way she is going to grovel, pander, and kowtow to Muslims if she campaigns for POTUS is going to sickening.
"Pandering to who, and for who? The Muslim vote? Ridiculous. Partisan nonsense."
|
|
|
Post by admin on Aug 14, 2013 13:30:28 GMT -8
Yes, just watch. If she runs she will kowtow to blacks and Muslims. Why do I think that? Because she has already started to!
I was going to ask what exactly qualifies her to be POTUS besides having been the wife of one, but after two terms of Obama, it's evident that qualifications aren't necessary.
|
|
|
Post by mickeeteeze on Aug 14, 2013 16:39:13 GMT -8
I was going to ask what exactly qualifies her to be POTUS besides having been the wife of one, but after two terms of Obama, it's evident that qualifications aren't necessary.
Your partisan blinders can run deep at times. She's certainly qualified. Her involvement with the Clinton Presidency is relevant, IMO, BTW. Let's look at some fun facts, shall we? Was a young operative in the Goldwater campaign of 1964. Graduate of Wellesley College, where she was chosen commencement speaker. On to Yale and a law degree. First female partner at Rose Law. Voted in top 100 most influential lawyers twice. Appointed by President Carter to chair the Legal Services Corporation, a govt directed non profit group to oversee the poor get legal representation. I'm not out of the 1970's yet. During her husbands governorship, she helped author laws, created foundations, etc, etc, infinite, all the while acting as board member to numerous private Corporations, and still practicing law. Took an active role in her husbands Presidency. No running sandwiches, slinging hash browns for her. Need I mention Healthcare initiatives, among other things? After his Presidency, won two terms as the Jr Senator of an influential wealthy political State. Ran a combative campaign for POTUS in 2008. Served as SOS for 4 years. Want details? Visit Wiki. Hillary Rodham Clinton is one of the most accomplished women in US history in terms of achievement, 'big stage', and willingness to make hard decisions on that same 'big stage'. Not liking her politics, that's fine. Calling her unqualified? Laughable. She was appointed by a POTUS to a govt watchdog when Bobby Jindal and Mark Rubio were 8 years old. 7 years before they were born, she was a Goldwater Girl. Chris Christie was in diapers sucking on a pacifier. She is the ultimate insider. While we are on the subject of time frames? Let's take a good look at Lord God Ronnie Reagan, amen. Guess what year Ron first dabbled in politics? Oh, you are going to love this, babe! .....wait for it, wait for it........ Ding Ding Ding Ding!!!!....you guessed it, the 1964 Goldwater campaign! stkout-007 That's some fun factin' going on there, eh? He was 43 years old. Before that? He was a sportswriter and an actor. Yes, he was elected head of the Union. I'm curious, what do you think of unions? Oh never mind! Hillary turned 43 in 1990. Already politically experienced and accomplished. Ron served as California Governor from 1967 to 1975, 8-9 years. He ran in 76 and lost, then won in 1980. Hillary served as Senator of NY from 2001 to her appt of SOS in 2009, stepping down in 2013. 2013 minus 2001 equals 12 years. Ya see where I'm going with this? BTW, none of this includes her involvement with her husbands political career, which she was actively involved with on all levels. That spans from 1976 to 2000, or 24 years as an insider. Before she held any elected office. No Heeeeey, you can hate her politics all you want, but to dismiss her credentials? Mickee says in a deep authoritarian voice: "Turn the Hannity off, drop the remote, and step away from the couch with your hands in the air......"
veryhappy
|
|
|
Post by admin on Aug 14, 2013 18:04:07 GMT -8
I don't hate her. I don't deny that she has held many 'titles' and positions and got herself 'appointed' to positions, and many other things she did to add to her resume (although she had to omit that she once "dodged sniper fire") etc., but I would still like to know what piece of legislation she was successful in getting passed, and what she did that was so great as Sec of State? Syria is falling apart, as is Egypt, and Benghazi happened on her watch. Yeah, she 'got the job', but what did she do during them? What did she do as senator? What did she do when she was sitting on the board of those big corporations that even OBAMA bashed her about during the Democrat primary? As we've seen with Obama, it's one thing to get the job and the title, but then you have to actually do the JOB.
And I could post a litany of things too that don't favor her in the least.
I will concede that she would be a tremendous improvement after two terms of Obama, but that's not saying much.
|
|
|
Post by mickeeteeze on Aug 15, 2013 5:33:38 GMT -8
I don't hate her. I don't deny that she has held many 'titles' and positions and got herself 'appointed' to positions, and many other things she did to add to her resume (although she had to omit that she once "dodged sniper fire") etc., but I would still like to know what piece of legislation she was successful in getting passed, and what she did that was so great as Sec of State? Syria is falling apart, as is Egypt, and Benghazi happened on her watch. Yeah, she 'got the job', but what did she do during them? What did she do as senator? What did she do when she was sitting on the board of those big corporations that even OBAMA bashed her about during the Democrat primary? As we've seen with Obama, it's one thing to get the job and the title, but then you have to actually do the JOB.
And I could post a litany of things too that don't favor her in the least.
I will concede that she would be a tremendous improvement after two terms of Obama, but that's not saying much.
Look, basically what you are saying is you don't like her politics. I used the word 'hate'. I didn't mean to suggest you 'hate' her personally, so we'll scratch that. Y'know, some people like what she's done, Sect8 being a good example. I am also OK with the overall job she's done. For the record, I can't think of anything spectacular done by a recent NYS Senator. The last NYS Senator I can think of with any real juice was Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and he's been sleeping the eternal sleep for quite awhile now. As to the Middle East, 'arab spring', and all that stuff? We as a nation state can no longer afford to jump in 'solo' every time a nation decides to go in a direction we don't like. The fact is, it's not 1945 anymore. The Atlantic/Pacific oceans can no longer protect us from a major war outbreak. The conservatives are correct. We have oil left. A fair amount of it, more than our govt lets on. But our 'mighty military' is a gas guzzler. Remember your WWII history? Germany attacks Poland, sending Germany, France, England, Italy, and the USSR into a free for all. So, why was Northern Africa a major theater of combat when it isn't even on the same continent? Of the major oil consumers of Mid East oil, guess who's the furthest away? We are in a very changing world. The middle east is actually starting to come out of a, let's say, more rural and tribal society, and finding itself connected (through western technology) to the rest of the world. There are religious fundamentalists who are resisting these changes. They are indeed, the conservatives of their world. And I am not at all equating them to American Conservatives, not my point. I have some American Conservative values. "Conservative" is not a bad word to me. But these fundamentalists prone to indiscriminate violence are growing pains. Note they are killing far more of their own than us. 9/11, London and Spain are their big splashes, but their killing eachother everyday. Short of starting a WWIII, inclusive of 100% draft and a total war to grab the oil, we are going to have to wait and see, to a degree. We wouldn't win it anyway. We'd start out fast, but eventually Russia and China would wear us out and cross the oceans. They're not going to sit back and let us take the oil grounds. China is todays version of 1917 USA, with it's industrial awakening and manpower. Believe it or not, I'm more with Ron Paul here. We could do ourselves a huge favor by stepping back from this huge military 'projection'. Note that I'm not saying 'cut the military'. I'm saying strengthen our homefront. We need to work more closely with Latin America and Canada. Venezuelan and Cuban governments aside, we actually have good relations overall. There's oil in the gulf and northern South America. Anyways, this huge 'digression' (although, it's not, really) points to a changing world. We can't tell others what to think. We are going to have to let these people decide for themselves how they want to live. And as long as they aren't bombing us, it's going to have to be acceptable. There are no easy answers in the Middle East. If it were just one nation State in the region, or two, maybe our military could control things. But it's the whole region. Laughably, Iran is one of the more stable Nation states over there, next to Israel. One unforeseen side effect of Iraq is we tipped the balance of power to Iran. Iraq was a blunder on so, so, so many levels. I dunno. What would you have preferred? Clinton have us at war in Libya, Egypt, Syria, not to mention Iraq and Afghanistan? Do you really think our troubled economy has no relation to our outside spending? We don't live in an isolated bubble. Iraq and Afghanistan isn't just a show we see on TV. They cost us huge amounts of money, everyday, never mind some innocent people die, which is horrific to me. The Soviets broke themselves trying to tame the same tiger. That tiger will eventually have US by it's tail. We need to rethink our 'one man police force' attitude. We just can't sustain it anymore.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Aug 15, 2013 7:05:14 GMT -8
I don't know if you voted for Obama or not, but this was supposed to be the 'messiah' with the golden voice who was simply going to 'talk' his magic to these America-haters and bring peace to the world. He then proceeded to go on an 'apology' tour apologizing for how mean the US was to people (the US gives more in aid to these ingrates than any other nation), and kowtowing, kissing rings and ass all over the place. What did he get for it? For one, he was just recently bitch-slapped by Putin, and then we see the result of him getting involved in Egypt and helping to get Mubarek thrown out of office. What's happening in the ME now can be directly tied to that.
So, what you are saying is that Hillary is okay because she's held so many titles and positions, and if her judgment is worth crap (as it was regarding Benghazi) and her influence is limited to being pleasant company (nevermind all the foreign policy failures) well, that's okay because she's been in public office since Marco Rubio was a little boy and Chris Christie was a chubby little dickens. Obama took Hillary's time sitting on boards and used it to slam her at the debates during the primary and said she was a cronie of big corporations.
I am taking all of that to mean that you and section8vet can't think of a single thing she's done in all that time (a piece of legislation that got passed...anything) that was so great. Like all politicians and people who run for office, she's got a big ego, she likes the power, and that's been her driving force, IMO. Just like Obama. He wanted the 'title' of POTUS but when it comes down to actually doing the job and being a leader, he can barely be chased off of the golf course.
There is so much the GOP could use against her now, but I think she could still win because she's got style.
|
|
|
Post by mickeeteeze on Aug 15, 2013 8:15:55 GMT -8
I don't know if you voted for Obama or not, but this was supposed to be the 'messiah' with the golden voice who was simply going to 'talk' his magic to these America-haters and bring peace to the world. He then proceeded to go on an 'apology' tour apologizing for how mean the US was to people (the US gives more in aid to these ingrates than any other nation), and kowtowing, kissing rings and ass all over the place. What did he get for it? For one, he was just recently bitch-slapped by Putin, and then we see the result of him getting involved in Egypt and helping to get Mubarek thrown out of office. What's happening in the ME now can be directly tied to that.
So, what you are saying is that Hillary is okay because she's held so many titles and positions, and if her judgment is worth crap (as it was regarding Benghazi) and her influence is limited to being pleasant company (nevermind all the foreign policy failures) well, that's okay because she's been in public office since Marco Rubio was a little boy and Chris Christie was a chubby little dickens. Obama took Hillary's time sitting on boards and used it to slam her at the debates during the primary and said she was a cronie of big corporations.
I am taking all of that to mean that you and section8vet can't think of a single thing she's done in all that time (a piece of legislation that got passed...anything) that was so great. Like all politicians and people who run for office, she's got a big ego, she likes the power, and that's been her driving force, IMO. Just like Obama. He wanted the 'title' of POTUS but when it comes down to actually doing the job and being a leader, he can barely be chased off of the golf course.
There is so much the GOP could use against her now, but I think she could still win because she's got style.
Well, there is GWB kissing the Arab guy...... This is what they do. Yes, Obama indeed tried to backpedal from the 'you're with us or against us' stance laid out by the previous Administration. Was it a mistake? Time will tell. In all honesty? The 'backpedaling began in Bush's second term. While I'm on Bush, I assure you: I have tremendous empathy for GWB. 9/11 forced him to define his tenure as the "Terror" president. I'm sure he would have much preferred to help Africa, initiate trade with China, and bust Unions. I don't like all of those choices, but you do get prizes for winning. See Obamas HC act. In terms of her so called 'accomplishments', ie, name on a bill? OK, I can't, ya got me. Let's see: "Glass–Steagall", "McCain-Feingold", and "Dodd-Frank". That's what springs to mind for me, and one of them is 80 years old. Throw in "Taft-Hartley" from 1947, as I was a member of a trade union. That's it, that's all I got without 'google'. I'm not saying there isn't 100's, even 1000's more. I'm saying what is most relevant today, in the news, etc. Look, that place is a complete clusterfuk, as I laid out in detail above. My reputation as board 'pedant' is secure, I'm sure. <---- :D I don't know how it's going to play out, no one does. Obama is responsible for the problems in the Mid-East because he allowed a populist revolution to occur? Oh, boy. Sorry, I believe you are very short sighted and partisan here. This cauldron has been brewing for decades, maybe even 100 years. GWB certainly put gas on the fire by attacking a sovereign nation who were actually quite Westernized, but even that isn't the cause of all the strife over there. In terms of Hillary's failures? Oh, so you actually agree with what Obama had to say during the run up to his election. A first! smiley-lol You guys are going to thank him in 2016, he did your heavy lifting 5 years ago. That's politics. It's also one of the reasons I'm not sure of her in 2016. Not having any 'dogma' to follow, I can agree to opposing viewpoints. I don't have a "Democrats are right, Republicans are wrong" strategy to adhere to. You say she's unqualified, I say she isn't. I correctly point out she's been involved in high level politics since the Rep likely candidates were in grade school. I am correct. And it speaks to 'experience'. What was GWB's big 'accomplishment' before he ran? Running the Texas Rangers? His golf game? Governor of Texas, I believe 8 years? Well, they all count. But? How about he was lucky enough to be born into an absurdly wealthy 3rd generation political dynasty? By birthright, he was a political insider? I recognize this stuff counts.It may not even be fair, but it counts. Hillary wouldn't be running for POTUS, in all likelihood, had she not married Bill Clinton. But she did. And found herself, much like GWB, in a position of gravitas. That's life. You can't paint one side of the spectrum as right or wrong. Never mind that. I CAN'T, OK?I could argue Hillary is far more the 'winner' in life than a lot of politicians out there. She was considered 'exceptional' at every phase in her formative years, when self reliance was her only tool at hand. The same is not true for GWB, except I understand he is no 'accidental politician', given his backround. Hillary Clinton doesn't marry Bill? She is at very least a prominent attorney, in all probability holds local (at least) office some where. GWB isn't born into the Bush family riches? Judging from his Yale and Military backround? Maybe a military officer? Nothing wrong with that, BTW. One more thing. It's all hypothetical, but had Hillary remained the Conservative she started out as? And had the same exact career in terms of appointments, elections, accomplishments? I'm pretty sure you wouldn't view her as unqualified. All that said, the 2008 primaries were pretty nasty. She got muddied up severely by one of her own. At this point in time, it might be wiser to for the DNC to use Hillary as a 'king maker' more so than 'king'. You are absolutely correct. Hillary doesn't have skeletons in the closet. She has bodies on the front lawn. But, I'll never underestimate her willingness to try to overcome them.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Aug 15, 2013 8:38:15 GMT -8
Lol.
On the other board I used to post on, I coined the term 'Heeeeey's Law', similar to Godwin's Law, where if a discussion about Obama occurs long enough, someone will bring up Bush.
You mentioned Reagan. At least he didn't spend both his terms bitching and moaning about the previous admin and playing the blame game all the time.
When does Obama start to be held accountable for his policies and the job he's doing? I would say now, because recent polls show his approval ratings tanking.
Btw, I think both Obama and Bush were 'lucky' and had other forces behind them to pay their way, only who knows who financed Obama's education? There are no records to verify that he was even ever a law professor.
|
|