/dev/null Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 I hope she runs and it turns into a kitten fight. Hillary vs Warren with the winner taking on Susana Martinez. Oh man, Susana Martinez would give the lefties a conniption
IDBillzFan Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 Hope she runs. She is the kook of kooks. She'll run, and then you're going to see seen an actual war on women as Hillary beats the estrogen out of her.
Nanker Posted June 23, 2014 Author Posted June 23, 2014 That headline's priceless. "Obama announces plan to save honey bees." No...Obama announces plan to create an inter-agency task force to write a position paper that makes recommendations for the causes of diminishing honey bees. "Building on this budget initiative, President Obama today issued a Presidential Memorandum on Creating a Federal Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators that takes a number of important steps to tackle the problem of pollinator declines... " At last! An Obama Doctrine!
Keukasmallies Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 Face it, we've all been stung enough by POTUS....
B-Man Posted July 1, 2014 Posted July 1, 2014 Bad news: Hillary deeply disturbed that Supreme Court upheld statute signed into law by her husband Valerie Jarrett Won’t Rule Out Run for Office. And won’t endorse Hillary. Women full of binders. “Despite Hillary Clinton’s disappointing book sales, and a gaffe-prone publicity tour, she remains the prohibitive favorite for the Democratic nomination.” Roll Call: Why Is the Media Ignoring Hillary Clinton? .
KD in CA Posted July 1, 2014 Posted July 1, 2014 That headline's priceless. "Obama announces plan to save honey bees." No...Obama announces plan to create an inter-agency task force to write a position paper that makes recommendations for the causes of diminishing honey bees. Or had this situation occurred eight years ago, "Six years on, Bush finally takes small step on honey bee crisis"
Nanker Posted July 2, 2014 Author Posted July 2, 2014 The country quickly remembered their Clinton fatigue once she stepped back into the political arena. She should walk on her piano legs back to the Chappaqua bungalow she and her filandering husband bought for a mere $1.7million when Bill was still in the WhiteHouse (so maybe they really WERE flat broke when they left, which makes her stealing the WH china all the more acceptable... but of course!) and let the rest of the nation forget about her/them. Innarestin' side note: They said they bought it for $1.7 million in 1999. Zillow has the sale price as $5.9 million. Did they put a second on it right away? Nice way to grab some cash and an interest deduction although at 400% of the evaluation - what bank would do such a thing even for a person-of-the-people, and advocate for the "little guy", you know - just "common folk" like the Clintons?
IDBillzFan Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 NEW YORK TIMES: How Hillary Is Like John McCain. I'm not sure who that offends more: Hillary or McCain.
Security Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 I am not sure Dems want her now, she could not beat Obama, and it was hers for the taking. She is so unlikable,such a liar. Listen to her on this Hobby Lobby stuff, saying that Hobby Lobby is not allowing employees contraception as a blanket statement, so dishonest. Not to mention the story about her defending a child rapist and happy about it too.
B-Man Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 Hillary Clinton’s Pernicious Nonsense by Jonah Goldberg I saw this clip on Special Report last night and my jaw dropped. Hillary Clinton said the Hobby Lobby decision is part of ”a disturbing trend that you see in a lot of societies that are very unstable, antidemocratic, and frankly prone to extremism.” What trend is that? She blathered an explanation: “women and women’s bodies are used as the defining and unifying issue” to bring men together. These men “behave in ways that are disadvantageous to women but which prop up them because of their religion, their sect, their tribe, whatever.” Now, as far as I can tell, there are only two ways to interpret Clinton’s remarks. She’s either being sincere or she’s making this nonsense up because she thinks it will help her politically. In other words, she either honestly believes that the Supreme Court made this decision based upon some fevered theorizing about “women’s bodies” in an effort to prop up male Christians or Hillary Clinton is slanderously comparing the United States to some teetering third world theocracy. I am honestly not sure which explanation is more damning. I like Walter Isaacson, but it’s a black mark on his intellectual integrity that he sat there and listened to that unmitigated b.s. with a straight face. In fact, something like this should have been his response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3JzbWVDzac
Security Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 The liberals and liberal media just say it all is not a big deal. Honesty is not a big deal. They try and use logic, it is phony logic. Hillary can say. "Hobby Lobby disallows women contraceptives." Is this statement true or false? It is both true and false in reality, Hobby Lobby does in fact disallow SOME contraceptives, and it is false in that is allows MOST contraceptives. It is generally accepted that people who speak in half truths, who leave words out, who leave pieces out, are out to deceive people. How can this simply be ignored again? "Hobby Lobby disallows women SOME contraceptives." --> how do we not demand honesty?
B-Man Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 (edited) . Hillary can say. "Hobby Lobby disallows women contraceptives." Is this statement true or false? It is both true and false in reality, Hobby Lobby does in fact disallow SOME contraceptives, and it is false in that is allows MOST contraceptives. It is generally accepted that people who speak in half truths, who leave words out, who leave pieces out, are out to deceive people. How can this simply be ignored again? "Hobby Lobby disallows women SOME contraceptives." --> how do we not demand honesty? I see your point about half-truths, but I respectfully disagree with this example. Hobby Lobby does NOT "disallow women SOME contraceptives" they simply do not have to pay for them. Their female employees can buy any contraception they want. . . Edited July 2, 2014 by B-Man
Security Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 I see your point about half-truths, but I respectfully disagree with this example. Hobby Lobby does NOT "disallow women SOME contraceptives" they simply do not have to pay for them. Their female employees can buy any contraception they want. . . Yes, your correction is correct, they just won't pay for those 4. My example needs cleaning up a bit, but the dishonesty that allowed to continue is just crazy.
IDBillzFan Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 Yes, your correction is correct, they just won't pay for those 4. My example needs cleaning up a bit, but the dishonesty that allowed to continue is just crazy. The intellectual dishonesty you see is why Barack Obama is remarkably less popular than GW Bush. I've written here before that Obama is the quintessential crappy employee who's at every company that ever employed you. He walks the line between imply and infer, and when challenged by what was inferred, he quickly says "No, that's not what I meant. You simply didn't understand what I was saying," and technically he may even be right. But there's a reason people like him fail as leaders...because they're too busy re-explaining what they said for the sake of being not wrong, that they have no sense of how to lead. As with the quintessential bad employee, the world is now collectively tired of listening to his ego-drenched explanations, even if he IS right. People want to have confidence in their leaders. No one has confidence in Obama because he simply has no idea what it means to lead.
Doc Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 I am not sure Dems want her now, she could not beat Obama, and it was hers for the taking. She is so unlikable,such a liar. Listen to her on this Hobby Lobby stuff, saying that Hobby Lobby is not allowing employees contraception as a blanket statement, so dishonest. Not to mention the story about her defending a child rapist and happy about it too. The liberals and liberal media just say it all is not a big deal. Honesty is not a big deal. They try and use logic, it is phony logic. Hillary can say. "Hobby Lobby disallows women contraceptives." Is this statement true or false? It is both true and false in reality, Hobby Lobby does in fact disallow SOME contraceptives, and it is false in that is allows MOST contraceptives. It is generally accepted that people who speak in half truths, who leave words out, who leave pieces out, are out to deceive people. How can this simply be ignored again? "Hobby Lobby disallows women SOME contraceptives." --> how do we not demand honesty? Those who don't suckle at the liberal teat do demand honesty. The problem is that the majority of the mainstream media does suckle at the liberal teat and thus won't demand honesty, and not only that, will in fact perpetuate the dishonesty.
DC Tom Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 No one has confidence in Obama because he simply has no idea what it means to lead. Different topic, but related nonetheless: there's a reason Russian combat forces are in Iraq right now...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 Different topic, but related nonetheless: there's a reason Russian combat forces are in Iraq right now... I'd like to know more about this...
3rdnlng Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 Can you imagine her being taken seriously in a few years?
Recommended Posts