Hillary's Campaign Kickoff

[TakeYouToTasker]

So where have I ever "gone along" with the pack? So in your tiny, oh I'm sorry, your vast mind, if one does not speak against a group you're part of it?

If you think what the group is doing is objectionable, and you don't say something, yes.

 

Where I'm from they call they cowardice.

Edited April 24, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker

[Chef Jim]

If you think what the group is doing is objectionable, and you don't say something, yes.

 

Where I'm from they call they cowardice.

Ok let's all post the things that "the group" is doing that we find objectionable. You start. Edited April 24, 2015 by Chef Jim

[TakeYouToTasker]

Ok let's all post the things that "the group" is doing that we find injectionable. You start.

I don't have to, because I call it out as I see it, as in this thread; and I do so consistently. I've done so to you in another recent thread. You didn't like it there either.

[Chef Jim]

I don't have to, because I call it out as I see it, as in this thread; and I do so consistently. I've done so to you in another recent thread. You didn't like it there either.

Oh so you pick and choose. That's pretty sad from a man with your "brain" power. So seeing you've targeted me as a misogymist I assume you have evidence.

Edited April 24, 2015 by Chef Jim

[OCinBuffalo]

It's hardly on me as far as putting those you mention in office. I never said the race card = the constitution card. I simply said that both of those cries are over-used.

The difference is that the race card...is a card. It's a canard to be exact. It's no different than "social justice" or whatever other manufactured nonsense. At best, it is political speech.

 

The Constitution is law.

 

Violating the law, and enforcement when it is violated, IS an every time thing. Otherwise what is the point?

 

So, no, one is over-used, cliched rhetoric. The other is the rules of the game.

 

This is like saying "run and stop the run" == 5 yard penalty for offsides. You can hear both many times in one game. The former is due to a clown announcer, without the latter, there is no game.

 

We are right for chiding the announcer for over using that phrase. We are stupid for complaining about the referee merely doing his job.

So now Hillary's rollout has devo!ved into a discussion about who's wife can or can't beat up who.

Seriously, how many more times do I have to say "This is PPP, you unmitigated moron!"?

Edited April 24, 2015 by OCinBuffalo

[4merper4mer]

I don't think there's much of a difference.

If it's acceptable, then it's acceptable in front of and towards your wife.

There is a vast difference in mocking a public fugure and mocking a random person. Mocking public figures has always been accepted in America and it doesn't matter whether you like it or not. You are way off on this like you are on many topics such as stealing copyrighted material. Your commie Eco 102 prof has too much influence on you. Think for yourself.

[meazza]

[Rob's House]

Only to the man not honest enough with the women in his life to show them who he really is.

I doubt anyone in this thread would consider Hillary a "woman in his life."

[TakeYouToTasker]

Oh so you pick and choose. That's pretty sad from a man with your "brain" power. So seeing you've targeted me as a misogymist I assume you have evidence.

Your reading comprehension is poor.

I doubt anyone in this thread would consider Hillary a "woman in his life."

How did you come to that as my intended point?

 

I was stating that any man honest with his wife would tell her that he believes it's proper to mock a woman's body as part of a political conversation, because that's how he feels women should be judged, if that is the case.

[Chef Jim]

Your reading comprehension is poor.

 

No you accused me of being a misogynist because I've not spoken up against people you believe to be misogynists? Is that the only evidence you have?

[Dante]

http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/02/the-u-s-constitution-actually-bans-hillarys-foreign-government-payola/

 

"Between 2009 and 2012, the Clinton Foundation raised over $500 million dollars according to a review of IRS documents by The Federalist (2012,2011, 2010, 2009, 2008). A measly 15 percent of that, or $75 million, went towards programmatic grants. More than $25 million went to fund travel expenses. Nearly $110 million went toward employee salaries and benefits. And a whopping $290 million during that period — nearly 60 percent of all money raised — was classified merely as “other expenses.” "

 

This lovely women should be trying to stay out of jail not running for prez. Fuggin common criminal. Same for her car salesman like hubby. Any one of us schmucks pull this crap and we have the IRS swat team hauling us out of our house.

Edited April 24, 2015 by Dante

[keepthefaith]

http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/02/the-u-s-constitution-actually-bans-hillarys-foreign-government-payola/

 

"Between 2009 and 2012, the Clinton Foundation raised over $500 million dollars according to a review of IRS documents by The Federalist (2012,2011, 2010, 2009, 2008). A measly 15 percent of that, or $75 million, went towards programmatic grants. More than $25 million went to fund travel expenses. Nearly $110 million went toward employee salaries and benefits. And a whopping $290 million during that period — nearly 60 percent of all money raised — was classified merely as “other expenses.” "

 

This lovely women should be trying to stay out of jail not running for prez. Fuggin common criminal. Same for her car salesman like hubby. Any one of us schmucks pull this crap and we have the IRS swat team hauling us out of our house.

For sure. This should be headline political news. What are the chances that the major news outlets run this story as a headline?

[Chef Jim]

For sure. This should be headline political news. What are the chances that the major news outlets run this story as a headline?

 

No the headline on CNN.com right now mentions a bombshell.

 

Oh wait it's Bombshell Find at Yellowstone.

[Magox]

Polls this far out are mere snapshots in time and are virtually meaningless this far out.

 

However, there is value in the internals.

 

A majority of US voters — 54 percent — say Hillary Clinton is not honest or trustworthy according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday.

Only 38 percent said they trust the Democratic frontrunner.

 

 

The Fox polling also shows her seriously underwater in that department. It's hard to imagine her going up against a quality candidate with those sort of mistrust with the public and winning.

[Chef Jim]

 

No the headline on CNN.com right now mentions a bombshell.

 

Oh wait it's Bombshell Find at Yellowstone.

 

Wait CNN.com does mention it.

 

Clinton Cash Author: Bush Next.

 

[Rob's House]

How did you come to that as my intended point?

 

I was stating that any man honest with his wife would tell her that he believes it's proper to mock a woman's body as part of a political conversation, because that's how he feels women should be judged, if that is the case.

You said that if you met 3rd you'd openly criticize his wife's physical appearance in her presence as if that were analogous to him calling Hill-dog "Cankles" on this board. When I pointed out the clear distinction between comments she will never hear and ones made to her face you brought up being honest about who you are with the women in your life. What exactly was your point. Edited April 24, 2015 by Rob's House

[truth on hold]

Polls this far out are mere snapshots in time and are virtually meaningless this far out.

 

However, there is value in the internals.

 

 

The Fox polling also shows her seriously underwater in that department. It's hard to imagine her going up against a quality candidate with those sort of mistrust with the public and winning.

What "quality candidate" will the repubes possibly have? Rand Paul is the only one with a chance to offer a distinction on foreign policy....and one that is far more inline with public opinion .....but what are the chances he makes it out of the big money mine field going up against the likes of god-fearing, warmongering types like Graham and rubio who preach to the party's main special interest backers? As bad as hillary is she will make mincemeat of them, just like Obama did against McCain and then even as an unpopular incumbent against Romney. Elections are relative and you can yap about hillarys negatives all you want, but without the right opponent to exploit them it doesn't matter Edited April 24, 2015 by JTSP

[IDBillzFan]

What "quality candidate" will the repubes possibly have? Rand Paul is the only one with a chance to offer a distinction on foreign policy....and one that is far more inline with public opinion .....but what are the chances he makes it out of the big money mine field going up against the likes of god-fearing, warmongering types like Graham and rubio who preach to the party's main special interest backers? As bad as hillary is she will make mincemeat of them, just like Obama did against McCain and then even as an unpopular incumbent against Romney. Elections are relative and you can yap about hillarys negatives all you, but without the right opponent to exploit them it doesn't matter

 

Funny. I figured you for a Bernie Sanders kinda guy.

[truth on hold]

 

Funny. I figured you for a Bernie Sanders kinda guy.

Even Sanders would stand a decent chance against your Graham or rubio types

 

- wins on foreign policy

- wins on social policy

- loses on economic policy, but not terribly and results have shown the penduluum has swung more liberal

[IDBillzFan]

Even Sanders would stand a decent chance against your Graham or rubio types

 

- wins on foreign policy

- wins on social policy

- loses on economic policy, but not terribly and results have shown the penduluum has swung more liberal

 

Please, the only people who take someone like Graham seriously are his wife and John McCain. He'll never make it past Iowa.

 

Walker and Rubio will have no problem portraying Hillary as the out-of-touch, plastic, fake, money-grubbing 1%'er that she is.

 

But you keep playing your fiddle about how the only one with a perfect plan is whomever thinks like you do, in which case you're screwed because no more candidates will appear promising to wipe all the Jews off the earth.