MR

Good morning! : P Interesting article, and not surprising at all... Exactly what I envisioned...

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Hill ... 67428.html

Some former Clinton administration members like George Stephanopolous and Dee Dee Myers have spoken publicly about what an explosive temper she has and how poorly she often treats people.

conversationpc wrote:Some former Clinton administration members like George Stephanopolous and Dee Dee Myers have spoken publicly about what an explosive temper she has and how poorly she often treats people.

Yeah, same about Bill... temper, at least... They are a very interesting breed of people.

Fact Finder wrote:The L.A. Times also chimes in this morning...


http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-chait26jan26,0,7890763.column

It's a real chink that's showing up in their teflon armor for sure...

You also have to be clueless if you don't see how phony they are. If you REALLY look at them and listen to them in interviews..they are both phony and full of it and are complete cons. They are both evil and fake people.

piecesofeight wrote:You also have to be clueless if you don't see how phony they are. If you REALLY look at them and listen to them in interviews..they are both phony and full of it and are complete cons. They are both evil and fake people.

They are absolute phonies. I would likely disagree with every policy Barack Obama has, but I could live with him being President because I respect him and he comes off as a very decent and honest person. The Clintons are just dirty and phony and I'm really tired of Bill's temper tantrums.

Barb wrote:

piecesofeight wrote:You also have to be clueless if you don't see how phony they are. If you REALLY look at them and listen to them in interviews..they are both phony and full of it and are complete cons. They are both evil and fake people.

They are absolute phonies. I would likely disagree with every policy Barack Obama has, but I could live with him being President because I respect him and he comes off as a very decent and honest person. The Clintons are just dirty and phony and I'm really tired of Bill's temper tantrums.

I agree with both of you... Would rather have someone genuine that I respect, even if I disagree with them, than power-hungry phonies... I'm glad even people on their own side are taking note of this. I think the Clintons have come such a long way in part because they live in a nasty part of the political world where you gather as much dirt on everyone as possible, so people are afraid to challenge you. That type of methodology keeps a lot of corrupt people afloat for far longer than seems logical.

Yeah, it's a whole lot better having somebody who stole at least one election and quite possibly two, lied about a war, lied about and covered up the outing of a CIA operative, lied and covered up the underhanded dealings of his buddy the AG, lied and covered up being AWOL from the military, hid his envolvement with Enron and his complicity in their stranglehold on the power supply in CA, ignored a hurricane that was about to wipe out the gulf coast and most of the city of New Orleans, put his buddy the VP's company in a position to make out like the crook he is by gouging Pentagon funds, gave his administration the power to snoop into all of our lives at will, is complicit in some very underhanded dealing regarding illegal immigrants, ignored the working people of this country while padding the pockets of the ones that kept the stock market looking good.

I'd really prefer someone who could do a decent, honest job of running the country than someone I'd like to have dinner with, not that I would want to have dinner with Bush. Seeing and hearing him on TV is enough to turn my stomach.

But I'd sort of figured a lot of people must be voting for reasons other than actual ability to do the job or in the last he election wouldn't have been close enough for him to slip in by fudging the votes in Ohio.

ohsherrie wrote:Yeah, it's a whole lot better having somebody who stole at least one election and quite possibly two, lied about a war, lied about and covered up the outing of a CIA operative, lied and covered up the underhanded dealings of his buddy the AG, lied and covered up being AWOL from the military, hid his envolvement with Enron and his complicity in their stranglehold on the power supply in CA, ignored a hurricane that was about to wipe out the gulf coast and most of the city of New Orleans, put his buddy the VP's company in a position to make out like the crook he is by gouging Pentagon funds, gave his administration the power to snoop into all of our lives at will, is complicit in some very underhanded dealing regarding illegal immigrants, ignored the working people of this country while padding the pockets of the ones that kept the stock market looking good.

I'd really prefer someone who could do a decent, honest job of running the country than someone I'd like to have dinner with, not that I would want to have dinner with Bush. Seeing and hearing him on TV is enough to turn my stomach.

But I'd sort of figured a lot of people must be voting for reasons other than actual ability to do the job or in the last he election wouldn't have been close enough for him to slip in by fudging the votes in Ohio.

It must be awful to be so consumed with hatred. Like I said, Hillary and Bill make my skin crawl, but I'm certainly not going to be foaming at the mouth with hatred if she wins.

Thing is Barb, Sherrie left out a lot of stuff.

Bush is possible the worst person in the world. Sorry if the Clinton's make your skin crawl. They are better for the country. I am disgusted by the way they are running this campaign. I am pissed at Bill for being the attack dog he is, but that's how elections are won. Had Kerry manned up, W would be long gone.

I do think this leaves a crack open for the GOP though. I can see much dissension in the Dem Party that the GOP can steal another one. Possibly, but not likely.

Sherrie, you need to give up darlin. You are just wasting your keyboards life.

ohsherrie wrote:Yeah, it's a whole lot better having somebody who stole at least one election and quite possibly two, lied about a war, lied about and covered up the outing of a CIA operative, lied and covered up the underhanded dealings of his buddy the AG, lied and covered up being AWOL from the military, hid his envolvement with Enron and his complicity in their stranglehold on the power supply in CA, ignored a hurricane that was about to wipe out the gulf coast and most of the city of New Orleans, put his buddy the VP's company in a position to make out like the crook he is by gouging Pentagon funds, gave his administration the power to snoop into all of our lives at will, is complicit in some very underhanded dealing regarding illegal immigrants, ignored the working people of this country while padding the pockets of the ones that kept the stock market looking good.

{yawn}...

conversationpc wrote:

ohsherrie wrote:Yeah, it's a whole lot better having somebody who stole at least one election and quite possibly two, lied about a war, lied about and covered up the outing of a CIA operative, lied and covered up the underhanded dealings of his buddy the AG, lied and covered up being AWOL from the military, hid his envolvement with Enron and his complicity in their stranglehold on the power supply in CA, ignored a hurricane that was about to wipe out the gulf coast and most of the city of New Orleans, put his buddy the VP's company in a position to make out like the crook he is by gouging Pentagon funds, gave his administration the power to snoop into all of our lives at will, is complicit in some very underhanded dealing regarding illegal immigrants, ignored the working people of this country while padding the pockets of the ones that kept the stock market looking good.

{yawn}...

Funny! Why go through all the trouble of stealing elections but have a VP who from the time he was asked made it clear he had ZERO interest in running for president after the 2 "stolen" elections? Doesn't exactly make sense.

RedWingFan wrote: Funny! Why go through all the trouble of stealing elections but have a VP who from the time he was asked made it clear he had ZERO interest in running for president after the 2 "stolen" elections? Doesn't exactly make sense.

Not only that but they are so stupid that they somehow schemed to fix two elections, somehow stay out of jail even though they lie every minute of the day, and planned a grand conspiracy like 9/11. Yeah, they are really dumb.

Fact Finder wrote:CNN is saying Obama trounced Hillary and Edwards in todays SC primary.

Not surprising. I have never thought Hillary could win - she is too damned unlikeable. Good for Obama though!

Barb wrote:

Fact Finder wrote:CNN is saying Obama trounced Hillary and Edwards in todays SC primary.

Not surprising. I have never thought Hillary could win - she is too damned unlikeable. Good for Obama though!

ohsherrie wrote:Yeah, it's a whole lot better having somebody who stole at least one election and quite possibly two, lied about a war, lied about and covered up the outing of a CIA operative, lied and covered up the underhanded dealings of his buddy the AG, lied and covered up being AWOL from the military, hid his envolvement with Enron and his complicity in their stranglehold on the power supply in CA, ignored a hurricane that was about to wipe out the gulf coast and most of the city of New Orleans, put his buddy the VP's company in a position to make out like the crook he is by gouging Pentagon funds, gave his administration the power to snoop into all of our lives at will, is complicit in some very underhanded dealing regarding illegal immigrants, ignored the working people of this country while padding the pockets of the ones that kept the stock market looking good.

I'd really prefer someone who could do a decent, honest job of running the country than someone I'd like to have dinner with, not that I would want to have dinner with Bush. Seeing and hearing him on TV is enough to turn my stomach.

But I'd sort of figured a lot of people must be voting for reasons other than actual ability to do the job or in the last he election wouldn't have been close enough for him to slip in by fudging the votes in Ohio.

Ahhh you got the fresh talking points fax from Clinton HQ did ya?

NONE of these accusations have been proved. NOT ONE. You have NO sources to back this up that aren't tainted or biased. You need to either back up what you are saying with real PROOF or stop debating politics, you are starting to look not only uninformed, but almost a cook with the conspiracy theories you espouse. Not even Dean goes off the deep end like you rant here does.

RossValoryRocks wrote:Ahhh you got the fresh talking points fax from Clinton HQ did ya?

NONE of these accusations have been proved. NOT ONE. You have NO sources to back this up that aren't tainted or biased. You need to either back up what you are saying with real PROOF or stop debating politics, you are starting to look not only uninformed, but almost a cook with the conspiracy theories you espouse. Not even Dean goes off the deep end like you rant here does.

Don't bother, Stu. BDS has already set in for too long.

conversationpc wrote:

RossValoryRocks wrote:Ahhh you got the fresh talking points fax from Clinton HQ did ya?

NONE of these accusations have been proved. NOT ONE. You have NO sources to back this up that aren't tainted or biased. You need to either back up what you are saying with real PROOF or stop debating politics, you are starting to look not only uninformed, but almost a cook with the conspiracy theories you espouse. Not even Dean goes off the deep end like you rant here does.

Don't bother, Stu. BDS has already set in for too long.

Yeah, Dinesh D'Souza has a great article about it. It's very reasonable but requires rational thinking. Nutbags afflicted with BDS still won't get it.

Actually Bush Didn't Lie
By Dinesh D'Souza
Monday, January 28, 2008

Two leftist organizations have released a study that claims that the Bush administration lied about Iraq. Somehow I think we've heard that one before. Well, the two groups--the Center for Public Integrity and the Fund for Independence in Journalism--managed to secure major media attention by making the claim that the Bush administration released 935 false statements. Clearly no one was in the mood to read all 935, so the leftist groups boiled them down to 532. We hear that on 532 occasions the Bush administration claimed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. So the claim is not that Bush told 532 lies, but that he told the same lie 532 times.

But consider this: If Bush actually knew that Iraq didn't possess weapons of mass destruction, and yet repeatedly told the American people that Iraq had them, didn't Bush expect that following the Iraq invasion his deception would be found out? When I raise this point with liberals on campus, they typically say, "Well, we're not saying that Bush knew for sure that there were no such weapons. We are saying that his administration stacked the data." But this is another way of saying that Bush actually believed that there were those weapons, and he mobilized whatever evidence he could muster to make his case. This may reflect prejudice against Saddam Hussein's motives or even imprudent decision making but it is hardly proof of lying.

Consider a similar decision made by President Roosevelt. In the period leading up to World War II, a group of refugee German scientists warned Albert Einstein that the Germans were building an atomic bomb. The project was headed by that country's greatest scientist, Werner Heisenberg. Acutely aware of the dangers of Hitler getting such a weapon, Einstein took this information in the fall of 1939 to President Roosevelt, who commissioned the Manhattan Project. America built the bomb, and later dropped two of them on Japan.

Many years later, Americans discovered that the Germans were nowhere close to building an atomic bomb. Their project was on the wrong track, and it seems to have stalled in its infancy. Some historians believe Heisenberg was trying to thwart the project from the inside. Be that as it may, in retrospect we now know that the intelligence that led to the Manhattan Project was wrong. But no one goes around saying, "Einstein lied" or "FDR lied." They didn't lie. They used the information they had to make a tough decision in a very dangerous situation.

The same is true of Bush. As a statesman, he had to act in the moving current of events. He didn't have the luxury of hindsight. To those leftist pundits who say, "Knowing what we know now, President Bush, why did you do what you did then?" Bush's answer is, "Obviously I didn't know what we know now." Acting against the somber backdrop of 9/11, Bush made a hard call based on an assessment of the intelligence provided to him.

He may have acted in haste, and he may have acted in error. But even this is not so clear. Do you recall recent reports from the CIA that Iran stopped working on its nuclear program in 2003? The reports were interpreted as a reversal for the Bush administration, because Bush has allegedly been trying to raise public concerns about Iran’s nuclear program. But many people forgot to ask why Iran’s mullahs decided to suspend their nuclear program in 2003. That happens to be the time that America invaded Iraq. So it’s quite possible that the Iranian mullahs were deterred from their nuclear ambitions because of the fear that the U.S. military might call on them next.

Whatever you think of this analysis, there is no evidence that Bush made his decision about the Iraq war in bad faith. Therefore the claim that Bush lied is itself a lie.

What's going to be funny is when all of Sherrie's points are proved correct. Then all the neo-con's will say, "Well, I didn't know!" Well, yeah you did, you've been told by more than just Sherrie, but you just choose to turn a blind eye and deaf ear. She didn't dream this shit up.

Somebody shave Bush's head, you might find three sixes up there.

Rick wrote:Somebody shave Bush's head, you might find three sixes up there.

na.. he just works for him..

Rick wrote:What's going to be funny is when all of Sherrie's points are proved correct. Then all the neo-con's will say, "Well, I didn't know!" Well, yeah you did, you've been told by more than just Sherrie, but you just choose to turn a blind eye and deaf ear. She didn't dream this shit up.

Somebody shave Bush's head, you might find three sixes up there.

Did you even read the column?

RedWingFan wrote:[Yeah, Dinesh D'Souza has a great article about it. It's very reasonable but requires rational thinking. Nutbags afflicted with BDS still won't get it.

Here...I'll pretend I'm a liberal and answer this for them.

[lib thought process]

1. You're a cut & paste Republican (Shouldn't it really be "copy" & paste???) who can't think for himself.
2. Bush is a liar. Anyone who has half a brain would know that. (Where's a liberal when you need one?)
3. World War II was a totally different situation. That was a popular war and we couldn't take the chance that Germany would take over all of Europe and develope an atomic bomb in the process.
4. The bipartisan 9/11 Commission said that Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda or 9/11.
5. Bush and his cronies just wanted and excuse to line the pockets of the fatcats at Halliburton.
6. Bush wanted to get back at Saddam on behalf of daddy.
7. Bush is a warmonger and wants to take us to war with the entire Middle East and next on the list is Iran.

[/lib thought process]

Rick wrote:What's going to be funny is when all of Sherrie's points are proved correct. Then all the neo-con's will say, "Well, I didn't know!" Well, yeah you did, you've been told by more than just Sherrie, but you just choose to turn a blind eye and deaf ear. She didn't dream this shit up.

Somebody shave Bush's head, you might find three sixes up there.

The thing is Rick, even when they've been proven wrong these people won't see it. If they don't see reality now, there's no reason whatsoever to think they ever will. Even if they really did see it in that part of their mind that isn't preprogramed, they wouldn't admit it. They'd be pathetic if they weren't so frightening.

ohsherrie wrote:The thing is Rick, even when they've been proven wrong these people won't see it. If they don't see reality now, there's no reason whatsoever to think they ever will. Even if they really did see it in that part of their mind that isn't preprogramed, they wouldn't admit it. They'd be pathetic if they weren't so frightening.

What's pathetic is your continued attempts at making all conservatives out to be brain dead zombies, yet you're the one who believes just about every far-fetched conspiracy theory thrown out by the left simply because of your hatred for all things Bush. Makes you wonder who's the one that's actually been preprogrammed. Time for a CPU upgrade.

Ran across this again... TOO FUNNY!!! A kid heckles John Kerry at an appearance and they tazer him! Don't miss the Clinton "B.J." reference... Best video of 2007!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqAVvlyVbag

I hope they tasered that dickhead all the way to the police station and then kept tasering him until it was time to see the judge.

Rick wrote:I hope they tasered that dickhead all the way to the police station and then kept tasering him until it was time to see the judge.

To hear that coming out of your mouth is just.... shocking...

Rip Rokken wrote:

Rick wrote:I hope they tasered that dickhead all the way to the police station and then kept tasering him until it was time to see the judge.

To hear that coming out of your mouth is just.... shocking...

I have no sympathy for people like that.

Rick wrote::lol: I have no sympathy for people like that.

He was a jackass for sure, but it sure made for great viral video!