![]() |
If Hillary, We're Toast
Scratch the surface of a gathering of Republican operatives and you'll find some serious fear (you don't have to scratch the surface to find loathing). Fear, specifically, of Hillary Clinton. Time's Zeke Miller went to the Republican National Committee's spring meeting and found "more than two dozen operatives and officials [who] expressed worry that none of their party’s potential 2016 candidates can take her down." One early primary state RNC member put it simply: “If she gets in, we’re toast.” [...] And one former Romney aide here warned that grassroots activists pushing for an even more conservative GOP identity could seal the party’s fate: “If we listen to some of the people here and come back with a hardline conservative in 2016, she’ll wipe the floor with us.” It's early yet and things can always change, but given all the Republican rebranding fail going on here lately, they have good reason to worry. In general. When it comes to Hillary Clinton, fear is the right emotion. - - - - - Swiped from KOS Make it so, Hills... :) |
If Hillary, We're Toast
On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 13:27:42 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
Got 'Special Circumstances', FOAD? Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling' - the liberals' last stand. |
If Hillary, We're Toast
|
If Hillary, We're Toast
On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 16:24:57 -0400, Gogarty
wrote: In article , says... Hilary Clinton backed the invasion of Iraq against the opinion of her constituency, the voters of New York, and that cost her the presidency. She will founder on the same rock again. Maybe, maybe not. It's one issue. She was wrong. She admitted it. There's plenty of dirt on Clinton. She's been pretty well vetted over the years, and she did an outstanding job as SecState. |
If Hillary, We're Toast
On 4/12/13 4:24 PM, Gogarty wrote:
In article , says... Hilary Clinton backed the invasion of Iraq against the opinion of her constituency, the voters of New York, and that cost her the presidency. She will founder on the same rock again. Yeah, right, Mrs. Clinton so turned off her constituents in New York State that she won 67% of the popular vote when she sought re-election, compared to 55% in her first term. Where do you righties get these nonsense ideas? At the moment, if she decides she wants the nomination, it is hers, and there isn't a Republican at the moment who could defeat her. It's along way to the nomination and election, of course, so let the right-wing craziness continue. |
If Hillary, We're Toast
On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 17:49:19 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 4/12/13 4:24 PM, Gogarty wrote: In article , says... Hilary Clinton backed the invasion of Iraq against the opinion of her constituency, the voters of New York, and that cost her the presidency. She will founder on the same rock again. Yeah, right, Mrs. Clinton so turned off her constituents in New York State that she won 67% of the popular vote when she sought re-election, compared to 55% in her first term. Where do you righties get these nonsense ideas? At the moment, if she decides she wants the nomination, it is hers, and there isn't a Republican at the moment who could defeat her. It's along way to the nomination and election, of course, so let the right-wing craziness continue. As well as the Democrats have fixed the next election, only pure stupidity could cause them to lose. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling' - the liberals' last stand. |
If Hillary, We're Toast
On 4/12/13 6:57 PM, J Herring wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 17:49:19 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 4/12/13 4:24 PM, Gogarty wrote: In article , says... Hilary Clinton backed the invasion of Iraq against the opinion of her constituency, the voters of New York, and that cost her the presidency. She will founder on the same rock again. Yeah, right, Mrs. Clinton so turned off her constituents in New York State that she won 67% of the popular vote when she sought re-election, compared to 55% in her first term. Where do you righties get these nonsense ideas? At the moment, if she decides she wants the nomination, it is hers, and there isn't a Republican at the moment who could defeat her. It's along way to the nomination and election, of course, so let the right-wing craziness continue. As well as the Democrats have fixed the next election, only pure stupidity could cause them to lose. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling' - the liberals' last stand. Ohhh. Herring channels Scotty |
If Hillary, We're Toast
On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 19:01:41 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 4/12/13 6:57 PM, J Herring wrote: On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 17:49:19 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 4/12/13 4:24 PM, Gogarty wrote: In article , says... Hilary Clinton backed the invasion of Iraq against the opinion of her constituency, the voters of New York, and that cost her the presidency. She will founder on the same rock again. Yeah, right, Mrs. Clinton so turned off her constituents in New York State that she won 67% of the popular vote when she sought re-election, compared to 55% in her first term. Where do you righties get these nonsense ideas? At the moment, if she decides she wants the nomination, it is hers, and there isn't a Republican at the moment who could defeat her. It's along way to the nomination and election, of course, so let the right-wing craziness continue. As well as the Democrats have fixed the next election, only pure stupidity could cause them to lose. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling' - the liberals' last stand. Ohhh. Herring channels Scotty You think with all the giveaways, the rigged elections, the fighting against voter ID, the illegal alien citizenship, Obamacare, Obamaphones, etc, that the Democrats could lose? Ain't no channeling anywhere! BTW, Got 'special circumstances'? Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling' - the liberals' last stand. |
If Hillary, We're Toast
On 4/12/13 8:07 PM, J Herring wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 19:01:41 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 4/12/13 6:57 PM, J Herring wrote: On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 17:49:19 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 4/12/13 4:24 PM, Gogarty wrote: In article , says... Hilary Clinton backed the invasion of Iraq against the opinion of her constituency, the voters of New York, and that cost her the presidency. She will founder on the same rock again. Yeah, right, Mrs. Clinton so turned off her constituents in New York State that she won 67% of the popular vote when she sought re-election, compared to 55% in her first term. Where do you righties get these nonsense ideas? At the moment, if she decides she wants the nomination, it is hers, and there isn't a Republican at the moment who could defeat her. It's along way to the nomination and election, of course, so let the right-wing craziness continue. As well as the Democrats have fixed the next election, only pure stupidity could cause them to lose. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling' - the liberals' last stand. Ohhh. Herring channels Scotty You think with all the giveaways, the rigged elections, the fighting against voter ID, the illegal alien citizenship, Obamacare, Obamaphones, etc, that the Democrats could lose? Ain't no channeling anywhere! BTW, Got 'special circumstances'? Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling' - the liberals' last stand. If the Dems win again, it will not only be because it doesn't field a crazy candidate, it will be that the Republicans have managed to keep intact all the groups they've insulted to the point that the party is a poison pill to the voters. |
If Hillary, We're Toast
On 4/13/13 11:16 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 08:33:42 -0400, Hank© wrote: On 4/13/2013 12:22 AM, wrote: On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 17:49:19 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 4/12/13 4:24 PM, Gogarty wrote: In article , says... Hilary Clinton backed the invasion of Iraq against the opinion of her constituency, the voters of New York, and that cost her the presidency. She will founder on the same rock again. Yeah, right, Mrs. Clinton so turned off her constituents in New York State that she won 67% of the popular vote when she sought re-election, compared to 55% in her first term. Where do you righties get these nonsense ideas? At the moment, if she decides she wants the nomination, it is hers, and there isn't a Republican at the moment who could defeat her. It's along way to the nomination and election, of course, so let the right-wing craziness continue. Hillary is a neocon and the neocons are pro Israel. Why wouldn't she do well in New York? What's the alternative? Progressive? Def: Becoming more seve describes a disease that becomes more widespread or severe over time. If we don't come up with some sibilance of justice for the Palestinians we are going to be doomed to another century of war there. Agreed, but I am not sure "justice" for the Palestinians will calm down the crazies among them. |
If Hillary, We're Toast
|
If Hillary, We're Toast
On 4/13/2013 12:24 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 11:57:21 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 4/13/13 11:16 AM, wrote: If we don't come up with some sibilance of justice for the Palestinians we are going to be doomed to another century of war there. Agreed, but I am not sure "justice" for the Palestinians will calm down the crazies among them. It would go a long way toward making peace in that region. The West bank is the last vestige of European colonialism. Are you serious? Even if we gave them Israel, killed all the Israelis, they would still not change a bit. Their phony leaders "need" to make us the enemy so they can justify living like Kings and letting the rest eat cake as it were... |
If Hillary, We're Toast
In article ,
says... On 4/13/2013 12:24 PM, wrote: On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 11:57:21 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 4/13/13 11:16 AM, wrote: If we don't come up with some sibilance of justice for the Palestinians we are going to be doomed to another century of war there. Agreed, but I am not sure "justice" for the Palestinians will calm down the crazies among them. It would go a long way toward making peace in that region. The West bank is the last vestige of European colonialism. Are you serious? Even if we gave them Israel, killed all the Israelis, they would still not change a bit. Their phony leaders "need" to make us the enemy so they can justify living like Kings and letting the rest eat cake as it were... The Palestinians are living like kings??? Are you a complete moron or what? |
If Hillary, We're Toast
On 4/13/13 12:34 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 4/13/2013 12:24 PM, wrote: On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 11:57:21 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 4/13/13 11:16 AM, wrote: If we don't come up with some sibilance of justice for the Palestinians we are going to be doomed to another century of war there. Agreed, but I am not sure "justice" for the Palestinians will calm down the crazies among them. It would go a long way toward making peace in that region. The West bank is the last vestige of European colonialism. Are you serious? Even if we gave them Israel, killed all the Israelis, they would still not change a bit. Their phony leaders "need" to make us the enemy so they can justify living like Kings and letting the rest eat cake as it were... You're not qualified in any may to make such a judgment. You don't even know or understand what is happening in your own country. |
If Hillary, We're Toast
On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 00:22:59 -0400, wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 17:49:19 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 4/12/13 4:24 PM, Gogarty wrote: In article , says... Hilary Clinton backed the invasion of Iraq against the opinion of her constituency, the voters of New York, and that cost her the presidency. She will founder on the same rock again. Yeah, right, Mrs. Clinton so turned off her constituents in New York State that she won 67% of the popular vote when she sought re-election, compared to 55% in her first term. Where do you righties get these nonsense ideas? At the moment, if she decides she wants the nomination, it is hers, and there isn't a Republican at the moment who could defeat her. It's along way to the nomination and election, of course, so let the right-wing craziness continue. Hillary is a neocon and the neocons are pro Israel. Why wouldn't she do well in New York? Huh? Have you got your no-insanity booster? You're due. |
If Hillary, We're Toast
On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 12:24:22 -0400, wrote:
On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 11:57:21 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 4/13/13 11:16 AM, wrote: If we don't come up with some sibilance of justice for the Palestinians we are going to be doomed to another century of war there. Agreed, but I am not sure "justice" for the Palestinians will calm down the crazies among them. It would go a long way toward making peace in that region. The West bank is the last vestige of European colonialism. Maybe. That's not clear at all. It wouldn't hurt and it's a good thing, but there will always be some other excuse. |
If Hillary, We're Toast
On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 15:14:57 -0400, wrote:
On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 12:34:20 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 4/13/2013 12:24 PM, wrote: Agreed, but I am not sure "justice" for the Palestinians will calm down the crazies among them. It would go a long way toward making peace in that region. The West bank is the last vestige of European colonialism. Are you serious? Even if we gave them Israel, killed all the Israelis, they would still not change a bit. Their phony leaders "need" to make us the enemy so they can justify living like Kings and letting the rest eat cake as it were... If we were not propping up Israel we would not have any national interest there and we could just sit over here and ignore them ... like we do the crazies in Africa. We get more oil from Nigeria than we get from the middle east and I don't see us getting involved with their problems. Venezuela either. Right. One more Holocaust among friends, what the heck. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:51 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com