- This topic has 434 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I’d do Sarah long before Hillary. Bet ya Bill thinks the same…now.
I have never prospered as much as I did under the hubby.
And if capitalism is anyones goal in here…I don’t get your slants.
More Bill…Bring him back, and I might give a sh#t about politics.
I find it interesting that comparisons of equivalency are being made between a private citizen and one that holds one of top positions of power in our government.
CD, I’d take Bill and Hillary 1000x over this current incompetent nincompoop. If I have to ever listen to his sing-song gobbledygook of blaming the minority for all his failures for another second I might just implode.
I’m for more of the domestic policies enacted during the part of Bill’s “the era of big government is over” administration.
I think it’s important to note that his first 2 years were a little rough and that he retroactively raised taxes when he entered office.
It wasn’t until after ’94 that it started to pick up. That’s where his talents truly kicked in. His greatest politician of our lifetime reputation is well earned. He saw the change and was able to pivot, embracing many of the policies he had previously stridently opposed (with welfare reform and balanced budget legislation being the most notable).
In some ways Newt Gingrich (as a PR foil and policy wonk) and Reagan (peace dividend and tech boom per R&D push in 80’s) were Clinton’s greatest assests, in addition to his charisma, savy, and political astuteness, wisdom, and acumen.
Exactly how government is supposed to work, in a meandering, roundabout way.
Sarah Palin > Hillary Clinton
…stuff….
I can’t reconcile that with what I’ve seen when she speaks publicly. She must be way better in private than she is on camera.
Which, while I’m thinking about it, the “waterboarding is how we baptize terrorists” comment was abysmally stupid. It completely ignores the history of animosity between Christianity and Islam, and it also implies Christianity is the de facto state religion. I find both to be unhelpful in today’s political climate and religious tensions.
Speaking of “being a man”, I’m not sure if Obama is more girly than Palin, or if Palin is more manly than Obama.
I get that you don’t like Obama, that’s fine, I’m not crazy about him either (shocking I know), but do we really have to resort to attacking his real or imagined manliness? It’s that kind of thing that’s always the first resort when people want to dehumanize another person, and I think we should be better than that (also shocking, I know).
I’m not saying Palin is a rocket scientist, but she’s savy and certainly intelligent. I’d say much more so than much of the press that mocks and denigrates her. But that’s not saying much.
No one would come off looking good once the attack dogs were sent out in masses. With the same treatment, the “57 states” and “corpsmen” comments of Obama don’t have an inconsequential effect.
The waterboarding comment… thus my Ann Coulter-light provocateur comparison. Palin the private citizen is different than Palin the elected official. I’m not a huge fan of the former, but I understand it. It’s her current gig. Comments like that get attention and press coverage. A political version of Madonna in her day, or Mylie Cyrus more recently. I give her props for turning a negative that destroyed her political career into a positive, a million dollar industry that is Sarah Palin.
As for the “man” comment, I was playing off previous comments. Besides, referencing a somewhat lacking ‘manliness’ is a compliment to a big part of his base. Im not joking.
As for the “man” comment, I was playing off previous comments. Besides, referencing a somewhat lacking ‘manliness’ is a compliment to a big part of his base. Im not joking.
What’s that based on? I don’t see that at all. And, I was probably a little oversensitive about your previous comment because of SR44s previous antics.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>tjfoose1 wrote:</div>
As for the “man” comment, I was playing off previous comments. Besides, referencing a somewhat lacking ‘manliness’ is a compliment to a big part of his base. Im not joking.What’s that based on? I don’t see that at all. And, I was probably a little oversensitive about your previous comment because of SR44s previous antics.
No te gusto.
How does one say “SSDD” in illegal immigrant-ese?
“Más de la misma mierda de siempre.”
maybe?
FOOSE wrote a week ago:
For the record, the “high crimes and misdemeanors” ofthe current President long ago exceeded Nixon’s. That’s according to respected and renowned liberal George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, not me.
“Obama Is Really The President Richard Nixon Always Wanted To Be”
“Obama… has succeeded to a degree that would have made Richard Nixon blush.”
“The danger is quite severe. The problem with what the president is doing is that he’s not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. He’s becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid.”
This from someone who voted for him twice and still supports his policies. It is his methods and tactics to which he objects.
Not a week later I see this guy providing testimony to Congress in the lawsuit against the POTUS. YET NOT ONE MAINSTREAM MEDIA OUTLETS HAS PICKED THIS UP. Huff Post quotes him extensively until this week???? Amazing. I guess he should be prepared for a tax audit too.
I know. Searching google news for articles mentioning Jonathan Turley in the last week returns seven pages of results including NBC, CBS, Newsweek, CNN, and Fox. But the MEEEEEEDIIAAAAAAA won’t report it. Whatever.
Sure they reported this (NBC News):
“At some point this body has to take a stand and try to realign these branches,” said George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley. “If it doesn’t I think this system is going to change in a very significant, and in my view, dangerous way.”I am talking about the more in-depth fact that he is a supporter of the POTUS but yet even he sees and thinks the overreach is dangerous. Fox News does not count.
Food for thought too:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-patent-office-goes-out-of-bounds-in-redskins-trademark-case/2014/06/20/e0001ee8-f7bd-11e3-8aa9-dad2ec039789_story.html“The problem is that the Redskins case is just the latest example of a federal agency going beyond its brief to inappropriately insert itself in social or political debates.”
Why are righties so damned anal retentive?
You boys need to pull up a stool at the Apolitical Blues Lounge. I’ll buy.
^already there… Mr. Dog…
The answer to your “Why” question is relatively simple… and covers about 90% of the landscape from any perspective. What else would you expect from “simple” people?
Fact #1… All Politicians are SOBs…
Fact #2… We like “our SOB” a whole lot better than we like “your SOB”.
Fact #3… I GOTT the next round.
#NCSU-North Carolina's #1 FOOTBALL school!What’s more offensive, that State Department spox Jen Psaki was a member of the William and Mary TRIBE swim team, or that a complete idiot is the State Dept spox?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
