keepthefaith Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 Look I wouldnt vote for her at all, on the 2 most important issues ....economy and foreign policy, she fails misersably. And yes the repubes are very much complicit, propping up one out of touch candidate after the other. I really think she's so bad she'll be the first one term president since bush sr, things will be a mess by the end of her 4 years So who do you like as a Dem alternative to H.R. Clinton?
Deranged Rhino Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 So who do you like as a Dem alternative to H.R. Clinton? Stalin.
Koko78 Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 Stalin. Stalin might look more lively and life-like on the campaign trail than Hillary.
B-Man Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 THINGS HILLARY ISN’T ASKED ABOUT: ‘Clintons turned the State Department into a racket to line their own pockets.’ Bill and Hillary Clinton are coming under fire today after State Department documents showed that officials rubber-stamped the former president’s expansive and sometimes high-priced overseas speaking engagements while his wife was in charge of foreign policy with many of those nations. “These documents are a bombshell and show how the Clintons turned the State Department into a racket to line their own pockets,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. Judicial Watch and the Washington Examiner teamed to seek and publish those documents today. “How the Obama State Department waived hundreds of ethical conflicts that allowed the Clintons and their businesses to accept money from foreign entities and corporations seeking influence boggles the mind,” said Fitton, adding, “That former President Clinton trotted the globe collecting huge speaking fees while his wife presided over U.S. foreign policy is an outrage." The Examiner reported that the former president gave 215 speeches and earned $48 million while Hillary Clinton was at State. (5 Years) The joint investigation also found Foggy Bottom didn’t object to a single proposed speech. The duo’s income has become an issue in her burgeoning presidential campaign. They have a net worth of an estimated $80 million, with much of their bank account built on speech fees collected by Bill Clinton from venues around the world.
FireChan Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 Stalin. If he can get his 5 year plan done in 4 years, I'm all for it.
IDBillzFan Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 So who do you like as a Dem alternative to H.R. Clinton? Whoever promises to kill the most Jews, I'm sure.
IDBillzFan Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 THINGS HILLARY ISN’T ASKED ABOUT: ‘Clintons turned the State Department into a racket to line their own pockets.’ Yikes. What a mess. I'm starting to think the Dems better work on a Plan B. All their eggs are in the Hillary basket, and if that basket breaks, they're left with Fauxcahontas, Wendy Davis, Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders. It's like finding out you have Gary Marangi and Billy Joe Hobert backing up Trent Edwards.
B-Man Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 HILLARY’S 2016 STRATEGY REVEALED: Vote For Me: I’m A Woman. Actually, a woman of a certain age. She’ll get a lot of support from other media women of her generation , but I wonder if younger women will identify with her. She’s gotten where she is via marriage, after all, which is kind of old-fashioned. And, as the much-younger Ashe Schow notes: “Democrats have a huge problem with white male voters. If that group feels threatened by Clinton’s women focus and returns unusually large Republican margins, that will help the GOP nominee. If white male Democrats don’t think they’d be adequately represented by Clinton, they could stay home, while white male Republicans could be galvanized into voting against her.” .
truth on hold Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 So who do you like as a Dem alternative to H.R. Clinton? Jim Webb, at least he's a skeptic of military intervention...unlike that tool Hillary
B-Man Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 MOLLY BALL: Does Hillary Clinton Have Anything To Say? “Everywhere Hillary Clinton goes, a thousand cameras follow. Then she opens her mouth, and nothing happens.” Why do you think her campaign revolves around having a vagina? SO WHY DID HILLARY, AND SUSAN RICE, AND EVERYBODY ELSE, KEEP LYING ABOUT A VIDEO AND GET THE FILMMAKER THROWN IN JAIL? Hillary Clinton’s Top Aides Knew from First Minutes that Benghazi Was a Terrorist Attack, E-mails Disclose. From the very first moments of the terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her top aides were advised that the compound was under a terrorist attack. In fact, less than two hours into the attack, they were told that the al-Qaeda affiliate in Libya, Ansar al-Sharia, had claimed responsibility. These revelations and others are disclosed by a trove of e-mails and other documents pried from the State Department by Judicial Watch in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. The FOIA litigation focuses on Mrs. Clinton’s involvement in the government actions before, during, and after the Benghazi attack, in which Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, was murdered by terrorists. Also killed in the attack were State Department information management officer Sean Smith, and two former Navy SEALs, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, who were contract security employees and who had fought heroically, saving numerous American lives. At least ten other Americans were wounded, some quite seriously. {snip} Despite this evidence that her top staffers were informed from the start that a terrorist attack was underway and that an al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorist group had claimed credit for it, Secretary Clinton issued an official statement claiming the assault may have been in “response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.” This was a reference to an obscure anti-Islamic video trailer for a film called Innocence of Muslims. Secretary Clinton’s statement took pains to add that “the United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others” — further intimating that the video was the cause of the attack. I have previously recounted that this official Clinton statement was issued shortly after 10 p.m. — minutes after President Obama and Secretary Clinton spoke briefly on the telephone about events in Benghazi, according to Clinton’s congressional testimony. The White House initially denied that Obama had spoken with Clinton or other top cabinet officials that night. The president’s version of events changed after Secretary Clinton’s testimony. As I’ve also previously detailed, Gregory Hicks, Ambassador Stevens’ deputy who was in Tripoli at the time of the Benghazi attacks, was the main State Department official in Libya briefing his superiors that night. He testified before Congress that he briefed Secretary Clinton and her top aides at 8 p.m. He further testified that the video was a “non-event” in Benghazi. More at the link: .
Dante Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 Yikes. What a mess. I'm starting to think the Dems better work on a Plan B. All their eggs are in the Hillary basket, and if that basket breaks, they're left with Fauxcahontas, Wendy Davis, Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders. It's like finding out you have Gary Marangi and Billy Joe Hobert backing up Trent Edwards. The very sad thing is that she is a woman and that is enough for a dumbed down misguided, uniformed public. Same strategy that worked for Barry will work for her. People knew absolutely nothing of substance about him and they didn't care. He was half black and thats all that mattered. Universities, media will kick it into high gear to get her elected so she can continue the world government Agenda 21 blueprint. Stalin might look more lively and life-like on the campaign trail than Hillary. omg in that pant suit she looks like a little troll. Or that old lady from Poltergeist.
IDBillzFan Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 Someone better get Faucahontas on line 1. Hillary Clinton's Obsession With Money Will Hurt Her. In the most explosive development, The Washington Post reported Wednesday night that the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation broke an agreement it made with the White House by taking a $500,000 contribution from the Algerian government while Clinton was secretary of state. The agreement was designed to prevent foreign governments from indirectly currying favor with Clinton with the State Department. A Democratic operative told Business Insider the story creates "a line of attack that should keep Hillaryland up at night." "Accepting foreign donations is a huge conflict of interest and their decision to reverse the ban is mind boggling," said the Democrat.
Dante Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 Someone better get Faucahontas on line 1. Hillary Clinton's Obsession With Money Will Hurt Her. Here is why pant suit girl could get elected no matter what her past is. People really need to wake up. Including liberals. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/joseph-rossell/2015/02/27/debate-over-dress-color-gets-3x-more-network-attention-net
Nanker Posted February 28, 2015 Author Posted February 28, 2015 (edited) I don't think anyone posted this charming little piece by the Right-Wing wack-job Maureen Dowd of the NY Times OpEd area. You can tell she's a Tea Party nut case because she says things like: "The Rottweilers will be unleashed. Once the Clintons had a War Room. Now they have a Slime Room." "Hillary hasn’t announced a 2016 campaign yet. She’s busy polling more than 200 policy experts on how to show that she really cares about the poor while courting the banks. Yet her shadow campaign is already in a déjà-vu-all-over-again shark fight over control of the candidate and her money. It’s the same old story: The killer organization that, even with all its ruthless hired guns, can’t quite shoot straight. Squabbling competing factions helped Hillary squander a quarter-of-a-billion dollars in 2008." "Money-grubbing is always the ugly place with the Clintons, who have devoured $2.1 billion in contributions since 1992 to their political campaigns, family foundation and philanthropies, according to The Old (Good) New Republic." "But, for now, what Republicans say about government is true of the Clintons: They really do believe that your money belongs to them. Someday, they should give their tin cup to the Smithsonian. It’s one of the wonders of the world." Edited February 28, 2015 by Nanker
IDBillzFan Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 Funny stuff here. An artist who painted a portrait of former President Bill Clinton says there’s more to the piece than one might see at first blush. Pennsylvania artist Nelson Shanks told the Philadelphia Daily News that he included a shadow of a blue dress in the 2006 portrait that hangs in the National Portrait Gallery. It’s an apparent reference to the Monica Lewinsky scandal, with Shanks adding that the 42nd president is “probably the most famous liar of all time.”
B-Man Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 Hillary Clinton, Prepared for Failure There isn’t very much that’s interesting about the Hillary Rodham Clinton e-mail revelation—that she never had a government account, that she used a private e-mail service for official communication, that she thereby exposed the national diplomatic mission to malevolent intelligence operations and cybercriminals, etc. Of course she did. She’s a Clinton, and the Clintons are in it for themselves. What is interesting is the Washington Post’s report that she apparently used an account that she established the day the Senate began confirmation hearings for her appointment as secretary of state. She’s a Clinton, and Clintons cannot be faulted for failing to think in advance. Theories are proliferating about why she would do that—what did/does she have to hide? Here’s my theory: She was preparing for failure. Mrs. Clinton knows – she must know, at some level – that she has been grossly unprepared for every position she has held in public life other than that of first lady. She was a New York senator who knew the parts of the state more than 40 miles from a park-view room at the Plaza about as well as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. knows Muleshoe, Texas. She was a presidential candidate whose only recommendations were ovaries and a surname beloved – but not quite enough — by Democratic primary voters. And then she became a secretary of state appointed to the position mainly to appease the bruised feelings of Clintonites and to keep her from making mischief in case of a first-term Obama administration meltdown. But she was a grossly incompetent secretary of state who knew that she was going to run for president again, and thus she took positive steps in advance to put in place protocols that would help her to mask her inadequacy. It is difficult even for her admirers to make a credible argument that her time in that office was anything other than disastrous. She knows this. The news media and the Democrats know this, too. Mrs. Clinton’s career in public office has been nothing more than a tribute to her husband, a fact that you would think would rankle the feminists who are so enthused about the former first lady’s presidential ambitions. Maybe it’s time to take off the presidential kneepads and admit what everybody knows: She isn’t very good at this sort of thing, and promoting her to her next level of incompetence is an invitation to disaster.Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner .
Magox Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 She's a much weaker candidate than I had originally thought.
keepthefaith Posted March 5, 2015 Posted March 5, 2015 She's a much weaker candidate than I had originally thought. Agree, I doubt she can make it up a flight of stairs.
B-Man Posted March 5, 2015 Posted March 5, 2015 “Hillary Clinton is supposed to be a strong, tough woman, yet for some reason she has to be hidden away and only come out for safe speeches where she won’t get questions from the press.”
Recommended Posts