| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Hillary's campaign strategy
Hillary apparently has adopted a new campaign strategy. Don't talk to the media and if you must, ignore their questions. Kristen Walker (NBC News) caught up with Hillary in Iowa as Hillary exited a building. Here's the basics of their exchange: Walker: "Madam Secretary, you lost Iowa in 2008. How do you win this time? What is your strategy?" Hillary: (with that false, phony tone of voice) "H-i-i-i-i. Nice to see you. I'm having a great time. Can't look forward hmmm anymore than I am." That's it. That's her answer to a respected NBC White House correspondent. What an arrogant woman with a sense of entitlement Hillary is. Hope she continues this style ... and that of constantly repeating the words of (and sounding just like) Elizabeth Warren. She' going to very quickly turn off much of the mindless support she has as people actually start to listen to what she says ... and doesn't say. http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/hillary-clinton-tries-keep-low-profile-iowa-n341356 |
Hillary's campaign strategy
On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 6:44:51 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:
Hillary apparently has adopted a new campaign strategy. Don't talk to the media and if you must, ignore their questions. Kristen Walker (NBC News) caught up with Hillary in Iowa as Hillary exited a building. Here's the basics of their exchange: Walker: "Madam Secretary, you lost Iowa in 2008. How do you win this time? What is your strategy?" Hillary: (with that false, phony tone of voice) "H-i-i-i-i. Nice to see you. I'm having a great time. Can't look forward hmmm anymore than I am." That's it. That's her answer to a respected NBC White House correspondent. What an arrogant woman with a sense of entitlement Hillary is. Hope she continues this style ... and that of constantly repeating the words of (and sounding just like) Elizabeth Warren. She' going to very quickly turn off much of the mindless support she has as people actually start to listen to what she says ... and doesn't say. http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/hillary-clinton-tries-keep-low-profile-iowa-n341356 You mean the Iowa stop where journalists outnumbered student, and all but those few handpicked student were locked down in their classrooms? Where no normal folks from Iowa were allowed to get anywhere close? Where she said that she wanted to fix the dysfunctional government by getting rid of the unaccountable money, while she is reportedly set to raise a record 1.5 to 2 Billion in campaign money, a large portion from the secretive Democratic Alliance? She's a piece of work, that's for sure. I saw something similar in the toilet this morning before I flushed. |
Hillary's campaign strategy
|
Hillary's campaign strategy
|
Hillary's campaign strategy
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 4/15/2015 8:40 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/15/2015 8:01 AM, wrote: On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 6:44:51 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote: Hillary apparently has adopted a new campaign strategy. Don't talk to the media and if you must, ignore their questions. Kristen Walker (NBC News) caught up with Hillary in Iowa as Hillary exited a building. Here's the basics of their exchange: Walker: "Madam Secretary, you lost Iowa in 2008. How do you win this time? What is your strategy?" Hillary: (with that false, phony tone of voice) "H-i-i-i-i. Nice to see you. I'm having a great time. Can't look forward hmmm anymore than I am." That's it. That's her answer to a respected NBC White House correspondent. What an arrogant woman with a sense of entitlement Hillary is. Hope she continues this style ... and that of constantly repeating the words of (and sounding just like) Elizabeth Warren. She' going to very quickly turn off much of the mindless support she has as people actually start to listen to what she says ... and doesn't say. http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/hillary-clinton-tries-keep-low-profile-iowa-n341356 You mean the Iowa stop where journalists outnumbered student, and all but those few handpicked student were locked down in their classrooms? Where no normal folks from Iowa were allowed to get anywhere close? Where she said that she wanted to fix the dysfunctional government by getting rid of the unaccountable money, while she is reportedly set to raise a record 1.5 to 2 Billion in campaign money, a large portion from the secretive Democratic Alliance? She's a piece of work, that's for sure. I saw something similar in the toilet this morning before I flushed. Been watching MSNBC off and on this morning. Seems there are now revelations that her use of private emails was raised back in 2012. She refused to respond to House Committee questions about it and resigned 7 weeks later. She also is using Mrs. Beasly's (Elizabeth Warren) words and positions regarding major corporation CEO salaries as being unfair to the working class yet Hillary is quietly accepting campaign contributions from several of the very CEOs that she is bitching about. For the record, I am not necessarily against a qualified, honest Democrat running for POTUS. I just feel that an effort should be made to expose the "front runner" that the left loves to love as being the dishonest, manipulating, cagey and self centered and unqualified person she is. She is running with a sense of entitlement with an arrogance that is beyond belief. Ahh. The wrecked.boats right wing chapter of "I hate Hillary" with daily posts is in session. 😀 You betcha. Harry, you post disparaging comments about all candidates from the right on a daily basis. It seems to be a crusade for you in support of your "party". Some of your observations and comments I agree with. As I stated, I am not opposed to a responsible, qualified and honest person from the Democratic Party running for POTUS. Depending on the person I might even vote for him or her. However, I share the same distrust and dislike for Hillary as you appear to have against anyone with an "R" after their name. I reserve the same right you exercise to spread and hopefully influence people to really research Hillary's lack of qualifications, history of deceit and self serving ambition. I rarely feel as strongly about politicians but she takes the cake. I had a sense of accomplishment yesterday in a discussion I had with a very liberal friend who visited my home. He's a life long Democrat and was a mindless supporter of Hillary, caught up in the liberal media hype about her. Following our discussion ... which was non-emotional, factual and backed with facts, he left with an entirely different mindset about her. Good. One down. Several million to go. BTW, I am not alone in this. There is a growing number of people on the left that are starting to question if she should really be the presumptive candidate for the Democratic nomination. No candidates are more arrogant than Cruz, Rand, Walker and Carson. Rubio doesn't seem arrogant, perhaps because he isn't too bright. -- Sent from my iPhone 6+ |
Hillary's campaign strategy
On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 10:08:02 AM UTC-4, Keyser Söze wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/15/2015 8:40 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/15/2015 8:01 AM, wrote: On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 6:44:51 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote: Hillary apparently has adopted a new campaign strategy. Don't talk to the media and if you must, ignore their questions. Kristen Walker (NBC News) caught up with Hillary in Iowa as Hillary exited a building. Here's the basics of their exchange: Walker: "Madam Secretary, you lost Iowa in 2008. How do you win this time? What is your strategy?" Hillary: (with that false, phony tone of voice) "H-i-i-i-i. Nice to see you. I'm having a great time. Can't look forward hmmm anymore than I am." That's it. That's her answer to a respected NBC White House correspondent. What an arrogant woman with a sense of entitlement Hillary is. Hope she continues this style ... and that of constantly repeating the words of (and sounding just like) Elizabeth Warren. She' going to very quickly turn off much of the mindless support she has as people actually start to listen to what she says ... and doesn't say. http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/hillary-clinton-tries-keep-low-profile-iowa-n341356 You mean the Iowa stop where journalists outnumbered student, and all but those few handpicked student were locked down in their classrooms? Where no normal folks from Iowa were allowed to get anywhere close? Where she said that she wanted to fix the dysfunctional government by getting rid of the unaccountable money, while she is reportedly set to raise a record 1.5 to 2 Billion in campaign money, a large portion from the secretive Democratic Alliance? She's a piece of work, that's for sure. I saw something similar in the toilet this morning before I flushed. Been watching MSNBC off and on this morning. Seems there are now revelations that her use of private emails was raised back in 2012. She refused to respond to House Committee questions about it and resigned 7 weeks later. She also is using Mrs. Beasly's (Elizabeth Warren) words and positions regarding major corporation CEO salaries as being unfair to the working class yet Hillary is quietly accepting campaign contributions from several of the very CEOs that she is bitching about. For the record, I am not necessarily against a qualified, honest Democrat running for POTUS. I just feel that an effort should be made to expose the "front runner" that the left loves to love as being the dishonest, manipulating, cagey and self centered and unqualified person she is. She is running with a sense of entitlement with an arrogance that is beyond belief. Ahh. The wrecked.boats right wing chapter of "I hate Hillary" with daily posts is in session. 😀 You betcha. Harry, you post disparaging comments about all candidates from the right on a daily basis. It seems to be a crusade for you in support of your "party". Some of your observations and comments I agree with. As I stated, I am not opposed to a responsible, qualified and honest person from the Democratic Party running for POTUS. Depending on the person I might even vote for him or her. However, I share the same distrust and dislike for Hillary as you appear to have against anyone with an "R" after their name. I reserve the same right you exercise to spread and hopefully influence people to really research Hillary's lack of qualifications, history of deceit and self serving ambition. I rarely feel as strongly about politicians but she takes the cake. I had a sense of accomplishment yesterday in a discussion I had with a very liberal friend who visited my home. He's a life long Democrat and was a mindless supporter of Hillary, caught up in the liberal media hype about her. Following our discussion ... which was non-emotional, factual and backed with facts, he left with an entirely different mindset about her. Good. One down. Several million to go. BTW, I am not alone in this. There is a growing number of people on the left that are starting to question if she should really be the presumptive candidate for the Democratic nomination. No candidates are more arrogant than Cruz, Rand, Walker and Carson. Rubio doesn't seem arrogant, perhaps because he isn't too bright. -- Sent from my iPhone 6+ Well, you addressed arrogance. What about Hillary's lack of qualifications, history of deceit and self serving ambition? |
Hillary's campaign strategy
On 4/15/2015 10:07 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/15/2015 8:40 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/15/2015 8:01 AM, wrote: On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 6:44:51 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote: Hillary apparently has adopted a new campaign strategy. Don't talk to the media and if you must, ignore their questions. Kristen Walker (NBC News) caught up with Hillary in Iowa as Hillary exited a building. Here's the basics of their exchange: Walker: "Madam Secretary, you lost Iowa in 2008. How do you win this time? What is your strategy?" Hillary: (with that false, phony tone of voice) "H-i-i-i-i. Nice to see you. I'm having a great time. Can't look forward hmmm anymore than I am." That's it. That's her answer to a respected NBC White House correspondent. What an arrogant woman with a sense of entitlement Hillary is. Hope she continues this style ... and that of constantly repeating the words of (and sounding just like) Elizabeth Warren. She' going to very quickly turn off much of the mindless support she has as people actually start to listen to what she says ... and doesn't say. http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/hillary-clinton-tries-keep-low-profile-iowa-n341356 You mean the Iowa stop where journalists outnumbered student, and all but those few handpicked student were locked down in their classrooms? Where no normal folks from Iowa were allowed to get anywhere close? Where she said that she wanted to fix the dysfunctional government by getting rid of the unaccountable money, while she is reportedly set to raise a record 1.5 to 2 Billion in campaign money, a large portion from the secretive Democratic Alliance? She's a piece of work, that's for sure. I saw something similar in the toilet this morning before I flushed. Been watching MSNBC off and on this morning. Seems there are now revelations that her use of private emails was raised back in 2012. She refused to respond to House Committee questions about it and resigned 7 weeks later. She also is using Mrs. Beasly's (Elizabeth Warren) words and positions regarding major corporation CEO salaries as being unfair to the working class yet Hillary is quietly accepting campaign contributions from several of the very CEOs that she is bitching about. For the record, I am not necessarily against a qualified, honest Democrat running for POTUS. I just feel that an effort should be made to expose the "front runner" that the left loves to love as being the dishonest, manipulating, cagey and self centered and unqualified person she is. She is running with a sense of entitlement with an arrogance that is beyond belief. Ahh. The wrecked.boats right wing chapter of "I hate Hillary" with daily posts is in session. 😀 You betcha. Harry, you post disparaging comments about all candidates from the right on a daily basis. It seems to be a crusade for you in support of your "party". Some of your observations and comments I agree with. As I stated, I am not opposed to a responsible, qualified and honest person from the Democratic Party running for POTUS. Depending on the person I might even vote for him or her. However, I share the same distrust and dislike for Hillary as you appear to have against anyone with an "R" after their name. I reserve the same right you exercise to spread and hopefully influence people to really research Hillary's lack of qualifications, history of deceit and self serving ambition. I rarely feel as strongly about politicians but she takes the cake. I had a sense of accomplishment yesterday in a discussion I had with a very liberal friend who visited my home. He's a life long Democrat and was a mindless supporter of Hillary, caught up in the liberal media hype about her. Following our discussion ... which was non-emotional, factual and backed with facts, he left with an entirely different mindset about her. Good. One down. Several million to go. BTW, I am not alone in this. There is a growing number of people on the left that are starting to question if she should really be the presumptive candidate for the Democratic nomination. No candidates are more arrogant than Cruz, Rand, Walker and Carson. Rubio doesn't seem arrogant, perhaps because he isn't too bright. Say something nice about Mrs. anklepants if you can. I'm sick of all this nagativity. -- Respectfully submitted by Justan Laugh of the day from Krause "I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here. I've been "born again" as a nice guy." |
Hillary's campaign strategy
On 4/15/2015 10:07 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/15/2015 8:40 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/15/2015 8:01 AM, wrote: On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 6:44:51 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote: Hillary apparently has adopted a new campaign strategy. Don't talk to the media and if you must, ignore their questions. Kristen Walker (NBC News) caught up with Hillary in Iowa as Hillary exited a building. Here's the basics of their exchange: Walker: "Madam Secretary, you lost Iowa in 2008. How do you win this time? What is your strategy?" Hillary: (with that false, phony tone of voice) "H-i-i-i-i. Nice to see you. I'm having a great time. Can't look forward hmmm anymore than I am." That's it. That's her answer to a respected NBC White House correspondent. What an arrogant woman with a sense of entitlement Hillary is. Hope she continues this style ... and that of constantly repeating the words of (and sounding just like) Elizabeth Warren. She' going to very quickly turn off much of the mindless support she has as people actually start to listen to what she says ... and doesn't say. http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/hillary-clinton-tries-keep-low-profile-iowa-n341356 You mean the Iowa stop where journalists outnumbered student, and all but those few handpicked student were locked down in their classrooms? Where no normal folks from Iowa were allowed to get anywhere close? Where she said that she wanted to fix the dysfunctional government by getting rid of the unaccountable money, while she is reportedly set to raise a record 1.5 to 2 Billion in campaign money, a large portion from the secretive Democratic Alliance? She's a piece of work, that's for sure. I saw something similar in the toilet this morning before I flushed. Been watching MSNBC off and on this morning. Seems there are now revelations that her use of private emails was raised back in 2012. She refused to respond to House Committee questions about it and resigned 7 weeks later. She also is using Mrs. Beasly's (Elizabeth Warren) words and positions regarding major corporation CEO salaries as being unfair to the working class yet Hillary is quietly accepting campaign contributions from several of the very CEOs that she is bitching about. For the record, I am not necessarily against a qualified, honest Democrat running for POTUS. I just feel that an effort should be made to expose the "front runner" that the left loves to love as being the dishonest, manipulating, cagey and self centered and unqualified person she is. She is running with a sense of entitlement with an arrogance that is beyond belief. Ahh. The wrecked.boats right wing chapter of "I hate Hillary" with daily posts is in session. 😀 You betcha. Harry, you post disparaging comments about all candidates from the right on a daily basis. It seems to be a crusade for you in support of your "party". Some of your observations and comments I agree with. As I stated, I am not opposed to a responsible, qualified and honest person from the Democratic Party running for POTUS. Depending on the person I might even vote for him or her. However, I share the same distrust and dislike for Hillary as you appear to have against anyone with an "R" after their name. I reserve the same right you exercise to spread and hopefully influence people to really research Hillary's lack of qualifications, history of deceit and self serving ambition. I rarely feel as strongly about politicians but she takes the cake. I had a sense of accomplishment yesterday in a discussion I had with a very liberal friend who visited my home. He's a life long Democrat and was a mindless supporter of Hillary, caught up in the liberal media hype about her. Following our discussion ... which was non-emotional, factual and backed with facts, he left with an entirely different mindset about her. Good. One down. Several million to go. BTW, I am not alone in this. There is a growing number of people on the left that are starting to question if she should really be the presumptive candidate for the Democratic nomination. No candidates are more arrogant than Cruz, Rand, Walker and Carson. Rubio doesn't seem arrogant, perhaps because he isn't too bright. I think you need to re-calibrate your definition of arrogance. Cruz doesn't strike me as being arrogant as much as he strikes me as being self admiring. Rand can become testy with the press but at least he's not afraid of talking to them. I haven't watched much of Walker or Carson to have an opinion. None of them are likely to be the GOP nominee anyway, so, to quote your wonder woman Hillary, "at this point what difference does it make"? Rubio gave an impressive announcement speech. I'd have to hear a lot more about him and what his positions are on complex domestic and international issues. So far Jeb Bush seems the most likely GOP candidate if he can get the support of the Tea Party group. I'd welcome the opportunity to listen to and consider potentials from the Democratic Party if they will come forward. Hillary pretty much put a wet towel on anyone's considerations by delaying her announcement for as long as she did ... after promising to announce her decision much earlier. Just another lie and another inch of nose growth. |
Hillary's campaign strategy
On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 10:49:17 AM UTC-4, Justan Olphart wrote:
On 4/15/2015 10:07 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/15/2015 8:40 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/15/2015 8:01 AM, wrote: On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 6:44:51 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote: Hillary apparently has adopted a new campaign strategy. Don't talk to the media and if you must, ignore their questions. Kristen Walker (NBC News) caught up with Hillary in Iowa as Hillary exited a building. Here's the basics of their exchange: Walker: "Madam Secretary, you lost Iowa in 2008. How do you win this time? What is your strategy?" Hillary: (with that false, phony tone of voice) "H-i-i-i-i. Nice to see you. I'm having a great time. Can't look forward hmmm anymore than I am." That's it. That's her answer to a respected NBC White House correspondent. What an arrogant woman with a sense of entitlement Hillary is. Hope she continues this style ... and that of constantly repeating the words of (and sounding just like) Elizabeth Warren. She' going to very quickly turn off much of the mindless support she has as people actually start to listen to what she says ... and doesn't say. http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/hillary-clinton-tries-keep-low-profile-iowa-n341356 You mean the Iowa stop where journalists outnumbered student, and all but those few handpicked student were locked down in their classrooms? Where no normal folks from Iowa were allowed to get anywhere close? Where she said that she wanted to fix the dysfunctional government by getting rid of the unaccountable money, while she is reportedly set to raise a record 1.5 to 2 Billion in campaign money, a large portion from the secretive Democratic Alliance? She's a piece of work, that's for sure. I saw something similar in the toilet this morning before I flushed. Been watching MSNBC off and on this morning. Seems there are now revelations that her use of private emails was raised back in 2012. She refused to respond to House Committee questions about it and resigned 7 weeks later. She also is using Mrs. Beasly's (Elizabeth Warren) words and positions regarding major corporation CEO salaries as being unfair to the working class yet Hillary is quietly accepting campaign contributions from several of the very CEOs that she is bitching about. For the record, I am not necessarily against a qualified, honest Democrat running for POTUS. I just feel that an effort should be made to expose the "front runner" that the left loves to love as being the dishonest, manipulating, cagey and self centered and unqualified person she is. She is running with a sense of entitlement with an arrogance that is beyond belief. Ahh. The wrecked.boats right wing chapter of "I hate Hillary" with daily posts is in session. 😀 You betcha. Harry, you post disparaging comments about all candidates from the right on a daily basis. It seems to be a crusade for you in support of your "party". Some of your observations and comments I agree with. As I stated, I am not opposed to a responsible, qualified and honest person from the Democratic Party running for POTUS. Depending on the person I might even vote for him or her. However, I share the same distrust and dislike for Hillary as you appear to have against anyone with an "R" after their name. I reserve the same right you exercise to spread and hopefully influence people to really research Hillary's lack of qualifications, history of deceit and self serving ambition. I rarely feel as strongly about politicians but she takes the cake. I had a sense of accomplishment yesterday in a discussion I had with a very liberal friend who visited my home. He's a life long Democrat and was a mindless supporter of Hillary, caught up in the liberal media hype about her. Following our discussion ... which was non-emotional, factual and backed with facts, he left with an entirely different mindset about her. Good. One down. Several million to go. BTW, I am not alone in this. There is a growing number of people on the left that are starting to question if she should really be the presumptive candidate for the Democratic nomination. No candidates are more arrogant than Cruz, Rand, Walker and Carson. Rubio doesn't seem arrogant, perhaps because he isn't too bright. Say something nice about Mrs. anklepants if you can. I'm sick of all this nagativity. Heh, heh. I don't know about NAGativity, but Hillary, the HAGativity runs deep and wide in that one. Large pores, deep wrinkles, and an evil witch's grimace, dontcha know? :) http://www.blurrent.com/article/28-unbelievable-items-that-will-make-you-hate-hillary-clinton-s-death-stare- |
Hillary's campaign strategy
On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 06:44:51 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
Hillary apparently has adopted a new campaign strategy. Don't talk to the media and if you must, ignore their questions. Kristen Walker (NBC News) caught up with Hillary in Iowa as Hillary exited a building. Here's the basics of their exchange: Walker: "Madam Secretary, you lost Iowa in 2008. How do you win this time? What is your strategy?" Hillary: (with that false, phony tone of voice) "H-i-i-i-i. Nice to see you. I'm having a great time. Can't look forward hmmm anymore than I am." That's it. That's her answer to a respected NBC White House correspondent. What an arrogant woman with a sense of entitlement Hillary is. Hope she continues this style ... and that of constantly repeating the words of (and sounding just like) Elizabeth Warren. She' going to very quickly turn off much of the mindless support she has as people actually start to listen to what she says ... and doesn't say. http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/hillary-clinton-tries-keep-low-profile-iowa-n341356 Her mindless support will vote for her because they're...mindless. -- Guns don't cause problems. Gun owner behavior causes problems. |
Hillary's campaign strategy
On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 4:45:55 PM UTC-4, John H. wrote:
Her mindless support will vote for her because they're...mindless. Like you, huh? |
Hillary's campaign strategy
On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 3:44:51 AM UTC-7, Mr. Luddite wrote:
Hillary apparently has adopted a new campaign strategy. Don't talk to the media and if you must, ignore their questions. Kristen Walker (NBC News) caught up with Hillary in Iowa as Hillary exited a building. Here's the basics of their exchange: Walker: "Madam Secretary, you lost Iowa in 2008. How do you win this time? What is your strategy?" Hillary: (with that false, phony tone of voice) "H-i-i-i-i. Nice to see you. I'm having a great time. Can't look forward hmmm anymore than I am." That's it. That's her answer to a respected NBC White House correspondent. |
Hillary's campaign strategy
Tom, I think your responses were well put with some reasonable thought.
|
Until and if she eventually gets a democrat primary opponent she really does not have to say much. Once the general election cycle begins she will have to start speaking to the press. For now she can hide.
|
Hillary's campaign strategy
RGrew176 wrote:
Until and if she eventually gets a democrat primary opponent she really does not have to say much. Once the general election cycle begins she will have to start speaking to the press. For now she can hide. Where's Biden in this? That would be a debate to watch! |
Hillary's campaign strategy
Someone wrote:
RGrew176 wrote: Until and if she eventually gets a democrat primary opponent she really does not have to say much. Once the general election cycle begins she will have to start speaking to the press. For now she can hide. Where's Biden in this? That would be a debate to watch! http://www.bidenforpresident.com/ "This domain is reserved with TierraNet. Website coming soon." I doubt it. |
Hillary's campaign strategy
On 4/21/15 7:53 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/21/2015 7:39 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: Well, it's her campaign, after all. True but it's her's to lose. As a former newspaper man don't you think a responsible journalist is entitled to a straight answer from a candidate so the public can be informed? Thus far Hillary has demonstrated more of a queen's "entitlement" attitude to the throne. Screw what anyone else is questioning. Oh, I dunno...two of the GOP frontrunners got into doo-doo last week by snarking at reporters who asked them fairly softballish questions...Rafel Cruz and Randal Paul. |
Hillary's campaign strategy
|
Hillary's campaign strategy
|
Hillary's campaign strategy
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 4/21/15 7:53 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 4/21/2015 7:39 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: Well, it's her campaign, after all. True but it's her's to lose. As a former newspaper man don't you think a responsible journalist is entitled to a straight answer from a candidate so the public can be informed? Thus far Hillary has demonstrated more of a queen's "entitlement" attitude to the throne. Screw what anyone else is questioning. Oh, I dunno...two of the GOP frontrunners got into doo-doo last week by snarking at reporters who asked them fairly softballish questions...Rafel Cruz and Randal Paul. Like the one who asked a candidate to Rap for her? |
Hillary's campaign strategy
On 4/21/2015 9:01 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says... Mrs. Clinton is unilaterally deciding which questions she will answer and which ones she will not. So what? Why should she answer "Did you stop beating your husband" type questions? She is telling her opponents to pound sand. Just like I told you she would do. If your "feelings" are hurt - good for you. Don't know if there is anything to the book by Peter Schweizer entitled "Clinton Cash" that will be released next month or not It reportedly ties her activities as Sec. of State to lucrative speaking engagement contracts for hubby Bill. We'll have to wait and see what the detailed evidence is. Why wait? Wild and unsupported accusations should be good enough. Meanwhile, Mrs. C. has brushed it off as a "Republican "distraction" from the issues of her campaign. She didn't confirm or deny the book's allegations. She simply refused to answer the journalist's question (again) and answered what *she* wanted to answer. IOW "pound sand." And, of course, there's no email evidence of any secret "deals". Her server files have been sanitized. Master criminals such as HRC don't use email to commit their dastardly deeds. You have to get them on tape. Again, I don't know if the allegations made in Schweizer's book are true or not or if they can be proved. But, if they can, Hillary is toast. She may be toast anyway. People are increasingly becoming suspicious and uncomfortable with her evasiveness in telling the truth. So if it proved she did dastardly deeds she is toast. And if it's NOT proved she did dastardly deeds she is toast. Isn't that something like tying weights to a suspected witch, tossing her in a pond, and if she floats back up she's a witch? Worked well enough in Salem, and you're just down the road after all. Over the top, ridiculous comments (as usual). All I am saying is the public has a right to hear answers to questions asked of anyone who wants to be trusted with the office of POTUS. Those questions may be uncomfortable from time to time. So far Hillary has demonstrated an attitude of entitlement to the nomination and office. She's a proven liar. When caught in one of her lies she basically gives the public the royal finger. If you want to support and elect someone like that as your next POTUS have at it. Obviously you are "Ready for Hillary". |
Hillary's campaign strategy
On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 1:05:50 AM UTC-7, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/21/2015 9:01 PM, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... Mrs. Clinton is unilaterally deciding which questions she will answer and which ones she will not. So what? Why should she answer "Did you stop beating your husband" type questions? She is telling her opponents to pound sand. Just like I told you she would do. If your "feelings" are hurt - good for you. Don't know if there is anything to the book by Peter Schweizer entitled "Clinton Cash" that will be released next month or not It reportedly ties her activities as Sec. of State to lucrative speaking engagement contracts for hubby Bill. We'll have to wait and see what the detailed evidence is. Why wait? Wild and unsupported accusations should be good enough. Meanwhile, Mrs. C. has brushed it off as a "Republican "distraction" from the issues of her campaign. She didn't confirm or deny the book's allegations. She simply refused to answer the journalist's question (again) and answered what *she* wanted to answer. IOW "pound sand." And, of course, there's no email evidence of any secret "deals". Her server files have been sanitized. Master criminals such as HRC don't use email to commit their dastardly deeds. You have to get them on tape. Again, I don't know if the allegations made in Schweizer's book are true or not or if they can be proved. But, if they can, Hillary is toast. She may be toast anyway. People are increasingly becoming suspicious and uncomfortable with her evasiveness in telling the truth. So if it proved she did dastardly deeds she is toast. And if it's NOT proved she did dastardly deeds she is toast. Isn't that something like tying weights to a suspected witch, tossing her in a pond, and if she floats back up she's a witch? Worked well enough in Salem, and you're just down the road after all. Over the top, ridiculous comments (as usual). All I am saying is the public has a right to hear answers to questions asked of anyone who wants to be trusted with the office of POTUS. Those questions may be uncomfortable from time to time. So far Hillary has demonstrated an attitude of entitlement to the nomination and office. She's a proven liar. When caught in one of her lies she basically gives the public the royal finger. If you want to support and elect someone like that as your next POTUS have at it. Obviously you are "Ready for Hillary". I will never forget her enemies' list, and the subsequent "Filegate", the disappearance of the FBI files of all her enemies. After a long search the FBI finally discovered them in Hillary's bedroom. But there are so many of her misdeeds. Fortunately, in this day and age there is a record of all of them. Besides, Hillary needs to take ownership and give a true apology for her valor stealing attempts she made with her lies of "I ran from snipers in Bosnia, now that's what happened". The cover up lie "I misspoke" is hurting her badly. |
Hillary's campaign strategy
On 4/22/2015 5:53 AM, Tom Nofinger wrote:
On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 1:05:50 AM UTC-7, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 4/21/2015 9:01 PM, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... Mrs. Clinton is unilaterally deciding which questions she will answer and which ones she will not. So what? Why should she answer "Did you stop beating your husband" type questions? She is telling her opponents to pound sand. Just like I told you she would do. If your "feelings" are hurt - good for you. Don't know if there is anything to the book by Peter Schweizer entitled "Clinton Cash" that will be released next month or not It reportedly ties her activities as Sec. of State to lucrative speaking engagement contracts for hubby Bill. We'll have to wait and see what the detailed evidence is. Why wait? Wild and unsupported accusations should be good enough. Meanwhile, Mrs. C. has brushed it off as a "Republican "distraction" from the issues of her campaign. She didn't confirm or deny the book's allegations. She simply refused to answer the journalist's question (again) and answered what *she* wanted to answer. IOW "pound sand." And, of course, there's no email evidence of any secret "deals". Her server files have been sanitized. Master criminals such as HRC don't use email to commit their dastardly deeds. You have to get them on tape. Again, I don't know if the allegations made in Schweizer's book are true or not or if they can be proved. But, if they can, Hillary is toast. She may be toast anyway. People are increasingly becoming suspicious and uncomfortable with her evasiveness in telling the truth. So if it proved she did dastardly deeds she is toast. And if it's NOT proved she did dastardly deeds she is toast. Isn't that something like tying weights to a suspected witch, tossing her in a pond, and if she floats back up she's a witch? Worked well enough in Salem, and you're just down the road after all. Over the top, ridiculous comments (as usual). All I am saying is the public has a right to hear answers to questions asked of anyone who wants to be trusted with the office of POTUS. Those questions may be uncomfortable from time to time. So far Hillary has demonstrated an attitude of entitlement to the nomination and office. She's a proven liar. When caught in one of her lies she basically gives the public the royal finger. If you want to support and elect someone like that as your next POTUS have at it. Obviously you are "Ready for Hillary". I will never forget her enemies' list, and the subsequent "Filegate", the disappearance of the FBI files of all her enemies. After a long search the FBI finally discovered them in Hillary's bedroom. But there are so many of her misdeeds. Fortunately, in this day and age there is a record of all of them. Besides, Hillary needs to take ownership and give a true apology for her valor stealing attempts she made with her lies of "I ran from snipers in Bosnia, now that's what happened". The cover up lie "I misspoke" is hurting her badly. If asked ... and assuming she would answer ... it would probably be: "At this point, what difference does it make?" (and then a silent "pound sand") |
Hillary's campaign strategy
On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 04:05:48 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 4/21/2015 9:01 PM, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... Mrs. Clinton is unilaterally deciding which questions she will answer and which ones she will not. So what? Why should she answer "Did you stop beating your husband" type questions? She is telling her opponents to pound sand. Just like I told you she would do. If your "feelings" are hurt - good for you. Don't know if there is anything to the book by Peter Schweizer entitled "Clinton Cash" that will be released next month or not It reportedly ties her activities as Sec. of State to lucrative speaking engagement contracts for hubby Bill. We'll have to wait and see what the detailed evidence is. Why wait? Wild and unsupported accusations should be good enough. Meanwhile, Mrs. C. has brushed it off as a "Republican "distraction" from the issues of her campaign. She didn't confirm or deny the book's allegations. She simply refused to answer the journalist's question (again) and answered what *she* wanted to answer. IOW "pound sand." And, of course, there's no email evidence of any secret "deals". Her server files have been sanitized. Master criminals such as HRC don't use email to commit their dastardly deeds. You have to get them on tape. Again, I don't know if the allegations made in Schweizer's book are true or not or if they can be proved. But, if they can, Hillary is toast. She may be toast anyway. People are increasingly becoming suspicious and uncomfortable with her evasiveness in telling the truth. So if it proved she did dastardly deeds she is toast. And if it's NOT proved she did dastardly deeds she is toast. Isn't that something like tying weights to a suspected witch, tossing her in a pond, and if she floats back up she's a witch? Worked well enough in Salem, and you're just down the road after all. Over the top, ridiculous comments (as usual). All I am saying is the public has a right to hear answers to questions asked of anyone who wants to be trusted with the office of POTUS. Those questions may be uncomfortable from time to time. So far Hillary has demonstrated an attitude of entitlement to the nomination and office. She's a proven liar. When caught in one of her lies she basically gives the public the royal finger. If you want to support and elect someone like that as your next POTUS have at it. Obviously you are "Ready for Hillary". By God, At Last! Finally an honest man speaking logic! Yes Sir, "Mr. Luddite", writing from and demanding the TRUTH! Apparently "irony" is no longer a word in American English. -- and a good day to you Sir, the Mighty Ant |
Hillary's campaign strategy
On 4/22/15 4:05 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/21/2015 9:01 PM, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... Mrs. Clinton is unilaterally deciding which questions she will answer and which ones she will not. So what? Why should she answer "Did you stop beating your husband" type questions? She is telling her opponents to pound sand. Just like I told you she would do. If your "feelings" are hurt - good for you. Don't know if there is anything to the book by Peter Schweizer entitled "Clinton Cash" that will be released next month or not It reportedly ties her activities as Sec. of State to lucrative speaking engagement contracts for hubby Bill. We'll have to wait and see what the detailed evidence is. Why wait? Wild and unsupported accusations should be good enough. Meanwhile, Mrs. C. has brushed it off as a "Republican "distraction" from the issues of her campaign. She didn't confirm or deny the book's allegations. She simply refused to answer the journalist's question (again) and answered what *she* wanted to answer. IOW "pound sand." And, of course, there's no email evidence of any secret "deals". Her server files have been sanitized. Master criminals such as HRC don't use email to commit their dastardly deeds. You have to get them on tape. Again, I don't know if the allegations made in Schweizer's book are true or not or if they can be proved. But, if they can, Hillary is toast. She may be toast anyway. People are increasingly becoming suspicious and uncomfortable with her evasiveness in telling the truth. So if it proved she did dastardly deeds she is toast. And if it's NOT proved she did dastardly deeds she is toast. Isn't that something like tying weights to a suspected witch, tossing her in a pond, and if she floats back up she's a witch? Worked well enough in Salem, and you're just down the road after all. Over the top, ridiculous comments (as usual). All I am saying is the public has a right to hear answers to questions asked of anyone who wants to be trusted with the office of POTUS. Those questions may be uncomfortable from time to time. So far Hillary has demonstrated an attitude of entitlement to the nomination and office. She's a proven liar. When caught in one of her lies she basically gives the public the royal finger. If you want to support and elect someone like that as your next POTUS have at it. Obviously you are "Ready for Hillary". I'm surprised you're not chanting "Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi." My feeling is this: whichever Democrat keeps the Republicans out of the White House is fine with me. I don't have an "ideal" Democratic candidate, beyond hoping that the candidate wins. The consequences of having *any* of the frontrunner GOPers in the White House are too horrific to contemplate. |
Hillary's campaign strategy
On 4/22/15 6:44 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/22/2015 5:53 AM, Tom Nofinger wrote: On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 1:05:50 AM UTC-7, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 4/21/2015 9:01 PM, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... Mrs. Clinton is unilaterally deciding which questions she will answer and which ones she will not. So what? Why should she answer "Did you stop beating your husband" type questions? She is telling her opponents to pound sand. Just like I told you she would do. If your "feelings" are hurt - good for you. Don't know if there is anything to the book by Peter Schweizer entitled "Clinton Cash" that will be released next month or not It reportedly ties her activities as Sec. of State to lucrative speaking engagement contracts for hubby Bill. We'll have to wait and see what the detailed evidence is. Why wait? Wild and unsupported accusations should be good enough. Meanwhile, Mrs. C. has brushed it off as a "Republican "distraction" from the issues of her campaign. She didn't confirm or deny the book's allegations. She simply refused to answer the journalist's question (again) and answered what *she* wanted to answer. IOW "pound sand." And, of course, there's no email evidence of any secret "deals". Her server files have been sanitized. Master criminals such as HRC don't use email to commit their dastardly deeds. You have to get them on tape. Again, I don't know if the allegations made in Schweizer's book are true or not or if they can be proved. But, if they can, Hillary is toast. She may be toast anyway. People are increasingly becoming suspicious and uncomfortable with her evasiveness in telling the truth. So if it proved she did dastardly deeds she is toast. And if it's NOT proved she did dastardly deeds she is toast. Isn't that something like tying weights to a suspected witch, tossing her in a pond, and if she floats back up she's a witch? Worked well enough in Salem, and you're just down the road after all. Over the top, ridiculous comments (as usual). All I am saying is the public has a right to hear answers to questions asked of anyone who wants to be trusted with the office of POTUS. Those questions may be uncomfortable from time to time. So far Hillary has demonstrated an attitude of entitlement to the nomination and office. She's a proven liar. When caught in one of her lies she basically gives the public the royal finger. If you want to support and elect someone like that as your next POTUS have at it. Obviously you are "Ready for Hillary". I will never forget her enemies' list, and the subsequent "Filegate", the disappearance of the FBI files of all her enemies. After a long search the FBI finally discovered them in Hillary's bedroom. But there are so many of her misdeeds. Fortunately, in this day and age there is a record of all of them. Besides, Hillary needs to take ownership and give a true apology for her valor stealing attempts she made with her lies of "I ran from snipers in Bosnia, now that's what happened". The cover up lie "I misspoke" is hurting her badly. If asked ... and assuming she would answer ... it would probably be: "At this point, what difference does it make?" (and then a silent "pound sand") These polls don't mean a lot, but they do mean something: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...lls/president/ Hillary mops the floor with *any* of the frontrunner GOPers. |
Hillary's campaign strategy
On 4/22/2015 7:08 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 4/22/15 4:05 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 4/21/2015 9:01 PM, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... Mrs. Clinton is unilaterally deciding which questions she will answer and which ones she will not. So what? Why should she answer "Did you stop beating your husband" type questions? She is telling her opponents to pound sand. Just like I told you she would do. If your "feelings" are hurt - good for you. Don't know if there is anything to the book by Peter Schweizer entitled "Clinton Cash" that will be released next month or not It reportedly ties her activities as Sec. of State to lucrative speaking engagement contracts for hubby Bill. We'll have to wait and see what the detailed evidence is. Why wait? Wild and unsupported accusations should be good enough. Meanwhile, Mrs. C. has brushed it off as a "Republican "distraction" from the issues of her campaign. She didn't confirm or deny the book's allegations. She simply refused to answer the journalist's question (again) and answered what *she* wanted to answer. IOW "pound sand." And, of course, there's no email evidence of any secret "deals". Her server files have been sanitized. Master criminals such as HRC don't use email to commit their dastardly deeds. You have to get them on tape. Again, I don't know if the allegations made in Schweizer's book are true or not or if they can be proved. But, if they can, Hillary is toast. She may be toast anyway. People are increasingly becoming suspicious and uncomfortable with her evasiveness in telling the truth. So if it proved she did dastardly deeds she is toast. And if it's NOT proved she did dastardly deeds she is toast. Isn't that something like tying weights to a suspected witch, tossing her in a pond, and if she floats back up she's a witch? Worked well enough in Salem, and you're just down the road after all. Over the top, ridiculous comments (as usual). All I am saying is the public has a right to hear answers to questions asked of anyone who wants to be trusted with the office of POTUS. Those questions may be uncomfortable from time to time. So far Hillary has demonstrated an attitude of entitlement to the nomination and office. She's a proven liar. When caught in one of her lies she basically gives the public the royal finger. If you want to support and elect someone like that as your next POTUS have at it. Obviously you are "Ready for Hillary". I'm surprised you're not chanting "Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi." My feeling is this: whichever Democrat keeps the Republicans out of the White House is fine with me. I don't have an "ideal" Democratic candidate, beyond hoping that the candidate wins. The consequences of having *any* of the frontrunner GOPers in the White House are too horrific to contemplate. I am not "anti-Hillary" because she's a Democrat. I am anti-Hillary because she's Hillary. I can't for the life of me understand why some people see her as presidential caliber. Too many skeletons in her huge closet that she won't talk about ... and if she happens to say something it's either an outright lie or very suspect. May I suggest that you throw your support behind someone like Jim Webb to run? He has the integrity and smarts for the job. |
Hillary's campaign strategy
On 4/22/15 7:19 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/22/2015 7:08 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 4/22/15 4:05 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 4/21/2015 9:01 PM, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... Mrs. Clinton is unilaterally deciding which questions she will answer and which ones she will not. So what? Why should she answer "Did you stop beating your husband" type questions? She is telling her opponents to pound sand. Just like I told you she would do. If your "feelings" are hurt - good for you. Don't know if there is anything to the book by Peter Schweizer entitled "Clinton Cash" that will be released next month or not It reportedly ties her activities as Sec. of State to lucrative speaking engagement contracts for hubby Bill. We'll have to wait and see what the detailed evidence is. Why wait? Wild and unsupported accusations should be good enough. Meanwhile, Mrs. C. has brushed it off as a "Republican "distraction" from the issues of her campaign. She didn't confirm or deny the book's allegations. She simply refused to answer the journalist's question (again) and answered what *she* wanted to answer. IOW "pound sand." And, of course, there's no email evidence of any secret "deals". Her server files have been sanitized. Master criminals such as HRC don't use email to commit their dastardly deeds. You have to get them on tape. Again, I don't know if the allegations made in Schweizer's book are true or not or if they can be proved. But, if they can, Hillary is toast. She may be toast anyway. People are increasingly becoming suspicious and uncomfortable with her evasiveness in telling the truth. So if it proved she did dastardly deeds she is toast. And if it's NOT proved she did dastardly deeds she is toast. Isn't that something like tying weights to a suspected witch, tossing her in a pond, and if she floats back up she's a witch? Worked well enough in Salem, and you're just down the road after all. Over the top, ridiculous comments (as usual). All I am saying is the public has a right to hear answers to questions asked of anyone who wants to be trusted with the office of POTUS. Those questions may be uncomfortable from time to time. So far Hillary has demonstrated an attitude of entitlement to the nomination and office. She's a proven liar. When caught in one of her lies she basically gives the public the royal finger. If you want to support and elect someone like that as your next POTUS have at it. Obviously you are "Ready for Hillary". I'm surprised you're not chanting "Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi." My feeling is this: whichever Democrat keeps the Republicans out of the White House is fine with me. I don't have an "ideal" Democratic candidate, beyond hoping that the candidate wins. The consequences of having *any* of the frontrunner GOPers in the White House are too horrific to contemplate. I am not "anti-Hillary" because she's a Democrat. I am anti-Hillary because she's Hillary. I can't for the life of me understand why some people see her as presidential caliber. Too many skeletons in her huge closet that she won't talk about ... and if she happens to say something it's either an outright lie or very suspect. May I suggest that you throw your support behind someone like Jim Webb to run? He has the integrity and smarts for the job. I'm familiar with Webb. Aside from the geographic proximity problem, he'd be a first-class Veep candidate for Hillary. |
Hillary's campaign strategy
On 4/22/2015 7:19 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/22/2015 7:08 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 4/22/15 4:05 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 4/21/2015 9:01 PM, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... Mrs. Clinton is unilaterally deciding which questions she will answer and which ones she will not. So what? Why should she answer "Did you stop beating your husband" type questions? She is telling her opponents to pound sand. Just like I told you she would do. If your "feelings" are hurt - good for you. Don't know if there is anything to the book by Peter Schweizer entitled "Clinton Cash" that will be released next month or not It reportedly ties her activities as Sec. of State to lucrative speaking engagement contracts for hubby Bill. We'll have to wait and see what the detailed evidence is. Why wait? Wild and unsupported accusations should be good enough. Meanwhile, Mrs. C. has brushed it off as a "Republican "distraction" from the issues of her campaign. She didn't confirm or deny the book's allegations. She simply refused to answer the journalist's question (again) and answered what *she* wanted to answer. IOW "pound sand." And, of course, there's no email evidence of any secret "deals". Her server files have been sanitized. Master criminals such as HRC don't use email to commit their dastardly deeds. You have to get them on tape. Again, I don't know if the allegations made in Schweizer's book are true or not or if they can be proved. But, if they can, Hillary is toast. She may be toast anyway. People are increasingly becoming suspicious and uncomfortable with her evasiveness in telling the truth. So if it proved she did dastardly deeds she is toast. And if it's NOT proved she did dastardly deeds she is toast. Isn't that something like tying weights to a suspected witch, tossing her in a pond, and if she floats back up she's a witch? Worked well enough in Salem, and you're just down the road after all. Over the top, ridiculous comments (as usual). All I am saying is the public has a right to hear answers to questions asked of anyone who wants to be trusted with the office of POTUS. Those questions may be uncomfortable from time to time. So far Hillary has demonstrated an attitude of entitlement to the nomination and office. She's a proven liar. When caught in one of her lies she basically gives the public the royal finger. If you want to support and elect someone like that as your next POTUS have at it. Obviously you are "Ready for Hillary". I'm surprised you're not chanting "Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi." My feeling is this: whichever Democrat keeps the Republicans out of the White House is fine with me. I don't have an "ideal" Democratic candidate, beyond hoping that the candidate wins. The consequences of having *any* of the frontrunner GOPers in the White House are too horrific to contemplate. I am not "anti-Hillary" because she's a Democrat. I am anti-Hillary because she's Hillary. I can't for the life of me understand why some people see her as presidential caliber. Too many skeletons in her huge closet that she won't talk about ... and if she happens to say something it's either an outright lie or very suspect. May I suggest that you throw your support behind someone like Jim Webb to run? He has the integrity and smarts for the job. Harry says he will vote for the democratic candidate no matter what. He isn't capable of rational discussion about politics. You are wasting your breath. -- Respectfully submitted by Justan Laugh of the day from Krause "I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here. I've been "born again" as a nice guy." |
Hillary's campaign strategy
On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 09:44:58 -0400, Justan Olphart wrote:
On 4/22/2015 7:19 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 4/22/2015 7:08 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 4/22/15 4:05 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 4/21/2015 9:01 PM, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... Mrs. Clinton is unilaterally deciding which questions she will answer and which ones she will not. So what? Why should she answer "Did you stop beating your husband" type questions? She is telling her opponents to pound sand. Just like I told you she would do. If your "feelings" are hurt - good for you. Don't know if there is anything to the book by Peter Schweizer entitled "Clinton Cash" that will be released next month or not It reportedly ties her activities as Sec. of State to lucrative speaking engagement contracts for hubby Bill. We'll have to wait and see what the detailed evidence is. Why wait? Wild and unsupported accusations should be good enough. Meanwhile, Mrs. C. has brushed it off as a "Republican "distraction" from the issues of her campaign. She didn't confirm or deny the book's allegations. She simply refused to answer the journalist's question (again) and answered what *she* wanted to answer. IOW "pound sand." And, of course, there's no email evidence of any secret "deals". Her server files have been sanitized. Master criminals such as HRC don't use email to commit their dastardly deeds. You have to get them on tape. Again, I don't know if the allegations made in Schweizer's book are true or not or if they can be proved. But, if they can, Hillary is toast. She may be toast anyway. People are increasingly becoming suspicious and uncomfortable with her evasiveness in telling the truth. So if it proved she did dastardly deeds she is toast. And if it's NOT proved she did dastardly deeds she is toast. Isn't that something like tying weights to a suspected witch, tossing her in a pond, and if she floats back up she's a witch? Worked well enough in Salem, and you're just down the road after all. Over the top, ridiculous comments (as usual). All I am saying is the public has a right to hear answers to questions asked of anyone who wants to be trusted with the office of POTUS. Those questions may be uncomfortable from time to time. So far Hillary has demonstrated an attitude of entitlement to the nomination and office. She's a proven liar. When caught in one of her lies she basically gives the public the royal finger. If you want to support and elect someone like that as your next POTUS have at it. Obviously you are "Ready for Hillary". I'm surprised you're not chanting "Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi." My feeling is this: whichever Democrat keeps the Republicans out of the White House is fine with me. I don't have an "ideal" Democratic candidate, beyond hoping that the candidate wins. The consequences of having *any* of the frontrunner GOPers in the White House are too horrific to contemplate. I am not "anti-Hillary" because she's a Democrat. I am anti-Hillary because she's Hillary. I can't for the life of me understand why some people see her as presidential caliber. Too many skeletons in her huge closet that she won't talk about ... and if she happens to say something it's either an outright lie or very suspect. May I suggest that you throw your support behind someone like Jim Webb to run? He has the integrity and smarts for the job. Harry says he will vote for the democratic candidate no matter what. He isn't capable of rational discussion about politics. You are wasting your breath. Well said. -- Guns don't cause problems. Gun owner behavior causes problems. |
Hillary's campaign strategy
On 4/22/2015 9:44 AM, Justan Olphart wrote:
On 4/22/2015 7:19 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 4/22/2015 7:08 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 4/22/15 4:05 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 4/21/2015 9:01 PM, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... Mrs. Clinton is unilaterally deciding which questions she will answer and which ones she will not. So what? Why should she answer "Did you stop beating your husband" type questions? She is telling her opponents to pound sand. Just like I told you she would do. If your "feelings" are hurt - good for you. Don't know if there is anything to the book by Peter Schweizer entitled "Clinton Cash" that will be released next month or not It reportedly ties her activities as Sec. of State to lucrative speaking engagement contracts for hubby Bill. We'll have to wait and see what the detailed evidence is. Why wait? Wild and unsupported accusations should be good enough. Meanwhile, Mrs. C. has brushed it off as a "Republican "distraction" from the issues of her campaign. She didn't confirm or deny the book's allegations. She simply refused to answer the journalist's question (again) and answered what *she* wanted to answer. IOW "pound sand." And, of course, there's no email evidence of any secret "deals". Her server files have been sanitized. Master criminals such as HRC don't use email to commit their dastardly deeds. You have to get them on tape. Again, I don't know if the allegations made in Schweizer's book are true or not or if they can be proved. But, if they can, Hillary is toast. She may be toast anyway. People are increasingly becoming suspicious and uncomfortable with her evasiveness in telling the truth. So if it proved she did dastardly deeds she is toast. And if it's NOT proved she did dastardly deeds she is toast. Isn't that something like tying weights to a suspected witch, tossing her in a pond, and if she floats back up she's a witch? Worked well enough in Salem, and you're just down the road after all. Over the top, ridiculous comments (as usual). All I am saying is the public has a right to hear answers to questions asked of anyone who wants to be trusted with the office of POTUS. Those questions may be uncomfortable from time to time. So far Hillary has demonstrated an attitude of entitlement to the nomination and office. She's a proven liar. When caught in one of her lies she basically gives the public the royal finger. If you want to support and elect someone like that as your next POTUS have at it. Obviously you are "Ready for Hillary". I'm surprised you're not chanting "Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi." My feeling is this: whichever Democrat keeps the Republicans out of the White House is fine with me. I don't have an "ideal" Democratic candidate, beyond hoping that the candidate wins. The consequences of having *any* of the frontrunner GOPers in the White House are too horrific to contemplate. I am not "anti-Hillary" because she's a Democrat. I am anti-Hillary because she's Hillary. I can't for the life of me understand why some people see her as presidential caliber. Too many skeletons in her huge closet that she won't talk about ... and if she happens to say something it's either an outright lie or very suspect. May I suggest that you throw your support behind someone like Jim Webb to run? He has the integrity and smarts for the job. Harry says he will vote for the democratic candidate no matter what. He isn't capable of rational discussion about politics. You are wasting your breath. Jim Webb *is* a Democrat ... or he was the last time he held office. |
Hillary's campaign strategy
On 4/22/2015 11:47 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/22/2015 9:44 AM, Justan Olphart wrote: On 4/22/2015 7:19 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 4/22/2015 7:08 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 4/22/15 4:05 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 4/21/2015 9:01 PM, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... Mrs. Clinton is unilaterally deciding which questions she will answer and which ones she will not. So what? Why should she answer "Did you stop beating your husband" type questions? She is telling her opponents to pound sand. Just like I told you she would do. If your "feelings" are hurt - good for you. Don't know if there is anything to the book by Peter Schweizer entitled "Clinton Cash" that will be released next month or not It reportedly ties her activities as Sec. of State to lucrative speaking engagement contracts for hubby Bill. We'll have to wait and see what the detailed evidence is. Why wait? Wild and unsupported accusations should be good enough. Meanwhile, Mrs. C. has brushed it off as a "Republican "distraction" from the issues of her campaign. She didn't confirm or deny the book's allegations. She simply refused to answer the journalist's question (again) and answered what *she* wanted to answer. IOW "pound sand." And, of course, there's no email evidence of any secret "deals". Her server files have been sanitized. Master criminals such as HRC don't use email to commit their dastardly deeds. You have to get them on tape. Again, I don't know if the allegations made in Schweizer's book are true or not or if they can be proved. But, if they can, Hillary is toast. She may be toast anyway. People are increasingly becoming suspicious and uncomfortable with her evasiveness in telling the truth. So if it proved she did dastardly deeds she is toast. And if it's NOT proved she did dastardly deeds she is toast. Isn't that something like tying weights to a suspected witch, tossing her in a pond, and if she floats back up she's a witch? Worked well enough in Salem, and you're just down the road after all. Over the top, ridiculous comments (as usual). All I am saying is the public has a right to hear answers to questions asked of anyone who wants to be trusted with the office of POTUS. Those questions may be uncomfortable from time to time. So far Hillary has demonstrated an attitude of entitlement to the nomination and office. She's a proven liar. When caught in one of her lies she basically gives the public the royal finger. If you want to support and elect someone like that as your next POTUS have at it. Obviously you are "Ready for Hillary". I'm surprised you're not chanting "Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi." My feeling is this: whichever Democrat keeps the Republicans out of the White House is fine with me. I don't have an "ideal" Democratic candidate, beyond hoping that the candidate wins. The consequences of having *any* of the frontrunner GOPers in the White House are too horrific to contemplate. I am not "anti-Hillary" because she's a Democrat. I am anti-Hillary because she's Hillary. I can't for the life of me understand why some people see her as presidential caliber. Too many skeletons in her huge closet that she won't talk about ... and if she happens to say something it's either an outright lie or very suspect. May I suggest that you throw your support behind someone like Jim Webb to run? He has the integrity and smarts for the job. Harry says he will vote for the democratic candidate no matter what. He isn't capable of rational discussion about politics. You are wasting your breath. Jim Webb *is* a Democrat ... or he was the last time he held office. What I meant was, Harry will vote for whomever the democratic party trots out before the public. It currently looks like Madam Clinton unless new polls suggest she's a loser. -- Respectfully submitted by Justan Laugh of the day from Krause "I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here. I've been "born again" as a nice guy." |
Hillary's campaign strategy
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 4/22/2015 9:44 AM, Justan Olphart wrote: On 4/22/2015 7:19 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 4/22/2015 7:08 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 4/22/15 4:05 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 4/21/2015 9:01 PM, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... Mrs. Clinton is unilaterally deciding which questions she will answer and which ones she will not. So what? Why should she answer "Did you stop beating your husband" type questions? She is telling her opponents to pound sand. Just like I told you she would do. If your "feelings" are hurt - good for you. Don't know if there is anything to the book by Peter Schweizer entitled "Clinton Cash" that will be released next month or not It reportedly ties her activities as Sec. of State to lucrative speaking engagement contracts for hubby Bill. We'll have to wait and see what the detailed evidence is. Why wait? Wild and unsupported accusations should be good enough. Meanwhile, Mrs. C. has brushed it off as a "Republican "distraction" from the issues of her campaign. She didn't confirm or deny the book's allegations. She simply refused to answer the journalist's question (again) and answered what *she* wanted to answer. IOW "pound sand." And, of course, there's no email evidence of any secret "deals". Her server files have been sanitized. Master criminals such as HRC don't use email to commit their dastardly deeds. You have to get them on tape. Again, I don't know if the allegations made in Schweizer's book are true or not or if they can be proved. But, if they can, Hillary is toast. She may be toast anyway. People are increasingly becoming suspicious and uncomfortable with her evasiveness in telling the truth. So if it proved she did dastardly deeds she is toast. And if it's NOT proved she did dastardly deeds she is toast. Isn't that something like tying weights to a suspected witch, tossing her in a pond, and if she floats back up she's a witch? Worked well enough in Salem, and you're just down the road after all. Over the top, ridiculous comments (as usual). All I am saying is the public has a right to hear answers to questions asked of anyone who wants to be trusted with the office of POTUS. Those questions may be uncomfortable from time to time. So far Hillary has demonstrated an attitude of entitlement to the nomination and office. She's a proven liar. When caught in one of her lies she basically gives the public the royal finger. If you want to support and elect someone like that as your next POTUS have at it. Obviously you are "Ready for Hillary". I'm surprised you're not chanting "Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi." My feeling is this: whichever Democrat keeps the Republicans out of the White House is fine with me. I don't have an "ideal" Democratic candidate, beyond hoping that the candidate wins. The consequences of having *any* of the frontrunner GOPers in the White House are too horrific to contemplate. I am not "anti-Hillary" because she's a Democrat. I am anti-Hillary because she's Hillary. I can't for the life of me understand why some people see her as presidential caliber. Too many skeletons in her huge closet that she won't talk about ... and if she happens to say something it's either an outright lie or very suspect. May I suggest that you throw your support behind someone like Jim Webb to run? He has the integrity and smarts for the job. Harry says he will vote for the democratic candidate no matter what. He isn't capable of rational discussion about politics. You are wasting your breath. Jim Webb *is* a Democrat ... or he was the last time he held office. Ignorance is FlaJim's only intellectual asset. -- Sent from my iPhone 6+ |
Hillary's campaign strategy
On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 11:47:19 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: Harry says he will vote for the democratic candidate no matter what. He isn't capable of rational discussion about politics. You are wasting your breath. Jim Webb *is* a Democrat ... or he was the last time he held office. === I don't know much about him but I'm guessing that he has too much integrity. |
Hillary's campaign strategy
On 4/22/15 11:26 AM, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 09:44:58 -0400, Justan Olphart wrote: On 4/22/2015 7:19 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 4/22/2015 7:08 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 4/22/15 4:05 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 4/21/2015 9:01 PM, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... Mrs. Clinton is unilaterally deciding which questions she will answer and which ones she will not. So what? Why should she answer "Did you stop beating your husband" type questions? She is telling her opponents to pound sand. Just like I told you she would do. If your "feelings" are hurt - good for you. Don't know if there is anything to the book by Peter Schweizer entitled "Clinton Cash" that will be released next month or not It reportedly ties her activities as Sec. of State to lucrative speaking engagement contracts for hubby Bill. We'll have to wait and see what the detailed evidence is. Why wait? Wild and unsupported accusations should be good enough. Meanwhile, Mrs. C. has brushed it off as a "Republican "distraction" from the issues of her campaign. She didn't confirm or deny the book's allegations. She simply refused to answer the journalist's question (again) and answered what *she* wanted to answer. IOW "pound sand." And, of course, there's no email evidence of any secret "deals". Her server files have been sanitized. Master criminals such as HRC don't use email to commit their dastardly deeds. You have to get them on tape. Again, I don't know if the allegations made in Schweizer's book are true or not or if they can be proved. But, if they can, Hillary is toast. She may be toast anyway. People are increasingly becoming suspicious and uncomfortable with her evasiveness in telling the truth. So if it proved she did dastardly deeds she is toast. And if it's NOT proved she did dastardly deeds she is toast. Isn't that something like tying weights to a suspected witch, tossing her in a pond, and if she floats back up she's a witch? Worked well enough in Salem, and you're just down the road after all. Over the top, ridiculous comments (as usual). All I am saying is the public has a right to hear answers to questions asked of anyone who wants to be trusted with the office of POTUS. Those questions may be uncomfortable from time to time. So far Hillary has demonstrated an attitude of entitlement to the nomination and office. She's a proven liar. When caught in one of her lies she basically gives the public the royal finger. If you want to support and elect someone like that as your next POTUS have at it. Obviously you are "Ready for Hillary". I'm surprised you're not chanting "Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi." My feeling is this: whichever Democrat keeps the Republicans out of the White House is fine with me. I don't have an "ideal" Democratic candidate, beyond hoping that the candidate wins. The consequences of having *any* of the frontrunner GOPers in the White House are too horrific to contemplate. I am not "anti-Hillary" because she's a Democrat. I am anti-Hillary because she's Hillary. I can't for the life of me understand why some people see her as presidential caliber. Too many skeletons in her huge closet that she won't talk about ... and if she happens to say something it's either an outright lie or very suspect. May I suggest that you throw your support behind someone like Jim Webb to run? He has the integrity and smarts for the job. Harry says he will vote for the democratic candidate no matter what. He isn't capable of rational discussion about politics. You are wasting your breath. Well said. Indeed, I don't vote for candidates who are opposed to gay marriage; who are enemies of blacks, latinos, and other racial and ethnic minorities; who want more tax cuts for the very wealthy at the expense of middle and lower income wage earners; who are anti-abortion; who believe in Creationism but not evolution; who are opposed to the ACA, Medicare and Medicaid; who deny mankind is a major contributor to negative climate change; who think capital is worth more than labor; who oppose sensible handgun control, and who want to get rid of environmental protections and safeguards over prescriptions, food, worker safety, clean water, et cetera. Unfortunately, *all* Republican presidential candidates seem to want these days are that which are anti-societal. |
Hillary's campaign strategy
On 4/22/2015 2:23 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 4/22/15 11:26 AM, John H. wrote: On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 09:44:58 -0400, Justan Olphart wrote: On 4/22/2015 7:19 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 4/22/2015 7:08 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 4/22/15 4:05 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 4/21/2015 9:01 PM, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... Mrs. Clinton is unilaterally deciding which questions she will answer and which ones she will not. So what? Why should she answer "Did you stop beating your husband" type questions? She is telling her opponents to pound sand. Just like I told you she would do. If your "feelings" are hurt - good for you. Don't know if there is anything to the book by Peter Schweizer entitled "Clinton Cash" that will be released next month or not It reportedly ties her activities as Sec. of State to lucrative speaking engagement contracts for hubby Bill. We'll have to wait and see what the detailed evidence is. Why wait? Wild and unsupported accusations should be good enough. Meanwhile, Mrs. C. has brushed it off as a "Republican "distraction" from the issues of her campaign. She didn't confirm or deny the book's allegations. She simply refused to answer the journalist's question (again) and answered what *she* wanted to answer. IOW "pound sand." And, of course, there's no email evidence of any secret "deals". Her server files have been sanitized. Master criminals such as HRC don't use email to commit their dastardly deeds. You have to get them on tape. Again, I don't know if the allegations made in Schweizer's book are true or not or if they can be proved. But, if they can, Hillary is toast. She may be toast anyway. People are increasingly becoming suspicious and uncomfortable with her evasiveness in telling the truth. So if it proved she did dastardly deeds she is toast. And if it's NOT proved she did dastardly deeds she is toast. Isn't that something like tying weights to a suspected witch, tossing her in a pond, and if she floats back up she's a witch? Worked well enough in Salem, and you're just down the road after all. Over the top, ridiculous comments (as usual). All I am saying is the public has a right to hear answers to questions asked of anyone who wants to be trusted with the office of POTUS. Those questions may be uncomfortable from time to time. So far Hillary has demonstrated an attitude of entitlement to the nomination and office. She's a proven liar. When caught in one of her lies she basically gives the public the royal finger. If you want to support and elect someone like that as your next POTUS have at it. Obviously you are "Ready for Hillary". I'm surprised you're not chanting "Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi." My feeling is this: whichever Democrat keeps the Republicans out of the White House is fine with me. I don't have an "ideal" Democratic candidate, beyond hoping that the candidate wins. The consequences of having *any* of the frontrunner GOPers in the White House are too horrific to contemplate. I am not "anti-Hillary" because she's a Democrat. I am anti-Hillary because she's Hillary. I can't for the life of me understand why some people see her as presidential caliber. Too many skeletons in her huge closet that she won't talk about ... and if she happens to say something it's either an outright lie or very suspect. May I suggest that you throw your support behind someone like Jim Webb to run? He has the integrity and smarts for the job. Harry says he will vote for the democratic candidate no matter what. He isn't capable of rational discussion about politics. You are wasting your breath. Well said. Indeed, I don't vote for candidates who are opposed to gay marriage; who are enemies of blacks, latinos, and other racial and ethnic minorities; who want more tax cuts for the very wealthy at the expense of middle and lower income wage earners; who are anti-abortion; who believe in Creationism but not evolution; who are opposed to the ACA, Medicare and Medicaid; who deny mankind is a major contributor to negative climate change; who think capital is worth more than labor; who oppose sensible handgun control, and who want to get rid of environmental protections and safeguards over prescriptions, food, worker safety, clean water, et cetera. Unfortunately, *all* Republican presidential candidates seem to want these days are that which are anti-societal. That's a pretty broad brush and highly partisan bunch of meaningless words when you try to imply that *all* Republican candidates fall into your list of qualifying criteria. For example, some have expressed their *personal* views on subjects while qualifying that their personal views do not and should not be reflected in a democratic legislative process. In everything there must be a balance. The pendulum has swung to it's liberal extreme and it's time now for some correction. |
Hillary's campaign strategy
On 4/22/15 3:08 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/22/2015 2:23 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 4/22/15 11:26 AM, John H. wrote: On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 09:44:58 -0400, Justan Olphart wrote: On 4/22/2015 7:19 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 4/22/2015 7:08 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 4/22/15 4:05 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 4/21/2015 9:01 PM, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... Mrs. Clinton is unilaterally deciding which questions she will answer and which ones she will not. So what? Why should she answer "Did you stop beating your husband" type questions? She is telling her opponents to pound sand. Just like I told you she would do. If your "feelings" are hurt - good for you. Don't know if there is anything to the book by Peter Schweizer entitled "Clinton Cash" that will be released next month or not It reportedly ties her activities as Sec. of State to lucrative speaking engagement contracts for hubby Bill. We'll have to wait and see what the detailed evidence is. Why wait? Wild and unsupported accusations should be good enough. Meanwhile, Mrs. C. has brushed it off as a "Republican "distraction" from the issues of her campaign. She didn't confirm or deny the book's allegations. She simply refused to answer the journalist's question (again) and answered what *she* wanted to answer. IOW "pound sand." And, of course, there's no email evidence of any secret "deals". Her server files have been sanitized. Master criminals such as HRC don't use email to commit their dastardly deeds. You have to get them on tape. Again, I don't know if the allegations made in Schweizer's book are true or not or if they can be proved. But, if they can, Hillary is toast. She may be toast anyway. People are increasingly becoming suspicious and uncomfortable with her evasiveness in telling the truth. So if it proved she did dastardly deeds she is toast. And if it's NOT proved she did dastardly deeds she is toast. Isn't that something like tying weights to a suspected witch, tossing her in a pond, and if she floats back up she's a witch? Worked well enough in Salem, and you're just down the road after all. Over the top, ridiculous comments (as usual). All I am saying is the public has a right to hear answers to questions asked of anyone who wants to be trusted with the office of POTUS. Those questions may be uncomfortable from time to time. So far Hillary has demonstrated an attitude of entitlement to the nomination and office. She's a proven liar. When caught in one of her lies she basically gives the public the royal finger. If you want to support and elect someone like that as your next POTUS have at it. Obviously you are "Ready for Hillary". I'm surprised you're not chanting "Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi." My feeling is this: whichever Democrat keeps the Republicans out of the White House is fine with me. I don't have an "ideal" Democratic candidate, beyond hoping that the candidate wins. The consequences of having *any* of the frontrunner GOPers in the White House are too horrific to contemplate. I am not "anti-Hillary" because she's a Democrat. I am anti-Hillary because she's Hillary. I can't for the life of me understand why some people see her as presidential caliber. Too many skeletons in her huge closet that she won't talk about ... and if she happens to say something it's either an outright lie or very suspect. May I suggest that you throw your support behind someone like Jim Webb to run? He has the integrity and smarts for the job. Harry says he will vote for the democratic candidate no matter what. He isn't capable of rational discussion about politics. You are wasting your breath. Well said. Indeed, I don't vote for candidates who are opposed to gay marriage; who are enemies of blacks, latinos, and other racial and ethnic minorities; who want more tax cuts for the very wealthy at the expense of middle and lower income wage earners; who are anti-abortion; who believe in Creationism but not evolution; who are opposed to the ACA, Medicare and Medicaid; who deny mankind is a major contributor to negative climate change; who think capital is worth more than labor; who oppose sensible handgun control, and who want to get rid of environmental protections and safeguards over prescriptions, food, worker safety, clean water, et cetera. Unfortunately, *all* Republican presidential candidates seem to want these days are that which are anti-societal. That's a pretty broad brush and highly partisan bunch of meaningless words when you try to imply that *all* Republican candidates fall into your list of qualifying criteria. For example, some have expressed their *personal* views on subjects while qualifying that their personal views do not and should not be reflected in a democratic legislative process. In everything there must be a balance. The pendulum has swung to it's liberal extreme and it's time now for some correction. No, it isn't a broad brush at all. Virtually all the GOPers fall into all the "categories" I mentioned. Some may fall out of one or two, but for the most part, the list aptly describes them. Randal Paul, for example, claims he is for decriminalizing pot. Good for him. But, more important, he is against the ACA, women's rights, gay rights, safety rules. **** Randal. Rafael Cruz is a bomb thrower. **** him. Bush is a neocon retred. **** Bush. Christie is a short-tempered asshole and probably close to being a felon. **** him. Walker is a Koched-up bomber. **** him. Bolton is crazy. **** him. Got anyone good? Oh, and I don't see that the pendulum has swung to a liberal extreme. In most but not all of what is important, this country is moving backwards, and the righties want to take away what little progress has been made. |
Hillary's campaign strategy
|
Hillary's campaign strategy
On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 3:33:04 PM UTC-4, Keyser Söze wrote:
No, it isn't a broad brush at all. Virtually all the GOPers fall into all the "categories" I mentioned. Some may fall out of one or two, but for the most part, the list aptly describes them. Randal Paul, for example, claims he is for decriminalizing pot. Good for him. But, more important, he is against the ACA, women's rights, gay rights, safety rules. **** Randal. Rafael Cruz is a bomb thrower. **** him. Bush is a neocon retred. **** Bush. Christie is a short-tempered asshole and probably close to being a felon. **** him. Walker is a Koched-up bomber. **** him. Bolton is crazy. **** him. Ahh, the slammy in him surfaces. His "vacation" in rehab didn't set well, eh? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:42 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com