"We came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt," Clinton told ABC News. "We had no money when we got there, and we struggled to, you know, piece together the resources for mortgages, for houses, for Chelsea's education. You know, it was not easy."Well, that's just asking for it.
Original:
82 comments:
As tough as things might have gotten, still it comforts me to know that H.C. never had calluses on the palms of her hands.
Of course, they were broke.
They never made an honest dollar in their lives.
However, as many have noted, Willie and the Hildabeast "only have rich friends", and they've been sponging off them forever.
You've outdone yourself Chip. lol.
Word to the wise: attack the policies and positions, not the person.
That is funny
Meade said...
Word to the wise: attack the policies and positions, not the person
That's rich, coming from you.
Of course the Democrats never attacked McCain or Romney personally…
Allen S, the sociopath does not have a sense of shame.
Meade said...
Word to the wise: attack the policies and positions, not the person.
As far as I can tell, HRC has done next to nothing to distinguish herself from the present POTUS and for this reason there is no reason to separate her from Obama. Thus, his policies are her policies, until she shows otherwise.
So far, nearly all disagreement with POTUS has come from the right and NOTHING from the monolithic Democratic Party. Hopefully, this will change. And mockery is a powerful weapon in its own right.
In attacking Hillary, you are leaving out the context of her dress. In that first photo, take a close look at those around Hillary.
This one is funny too.
Remember how powerful a weapon in its own right this one was?
Or this one?
the whole point of Hillary! is to help her rich connected friends get richer, so the Clintons can continue to sponge.
quid pro quo.
Is there some reason you are preaching at us, Meade?
You must really think we are influential and important.
oh - and I think you should perhaps consider what Haz has kindly asked you to do.
Piss off.
If Hillary was wearing a grass skirt and everyone around her was wearing a grass skirt, she'd still be laughed at.
If Hillary focuses on the economy, tax reform, and national security...
while her opponents get distracted by personality, dresses, takers-not-makers, birth control, abortion, same sex marriage, racial politics...
she will be president in 2017.
That's wonderful news Meade. We had no idea?
Now piss off.
chickelit said...
Meade: Is it fair to say that HRC has done or said little or nothing to distinguish herself from the present POTUS? If not, name a few important differences please: Jobs, economy, defense, etc.
I agree that focus on Hillary is a distraction from the midterms, and the midterms may profoundly shape people's attitudes towards 2016.
As far as I can tell, HRC has done next to nothing to distinguish herself from the present POTUS and for this reason there is no reason to separate her from Obama.
I heard her on NPR just this morning setting out her achievements as Secretary of State.
Not to worry.
She'll be running against Bush43.
"focus on Hillary is a distraction from the midterms, and the midterms may profoundly shape people's attitudes towards 2016."
Good advice. In that regard, I'm suspicious that Hillary focusers are, in fact, false flag wavers.
Paranoid trolling. That's fresh.
"false flag wavers"
albeit, blind and unintentional.
"You must really think we are influential and important."
Believe it or not, I do.
and you should too, April Apple.
Why don't you answer my primary question, Meade? I'll repeat it for you:
Is it fair to say that HRC has done or said little or nothing to distinguish herself from the present POTUS? If not, name a few important differences please: Jobs, economy, defense, etc.
Meade said...Yes
That's a bit vague, Meade, with plenty of plausible deniability, but I take it to mean that you agree with my 9:46. In which case, HRC is politically indistinguishable from BHO. Since Obama is not running in 2014, neither is HRC.
Meade said...Yes
That's a bit vague, Meade, with plenty of plausible deniability, but I take it to mean that you agree with my 9:46. In which case, you agree that HRC is politically indistinguishable from BHO at this point.
Since Obama is not running in 2014, neither is HRC.
You asked me to answer your "primary question", chickelit. I answered it "yes", and now you accuse me of being vague and using plausible deniability.
How is that fair?
Well Meade, I'm concerned because the other day you expressed your political support for HRC. I'm trying figure what basis you had for that is all. I think you represent more than yourself here.
I'm trying to determine whether you are a "false flagger."
Oh, OH Let me go next!!! I've got the game. It's Drop a Letter!!! Like the Dead Skunk in the middle of the Road. I one it, you two-ed it, I three'd it, you foured it...until the poor shmuck who gets to eight is partaking of dead skunk!
Now piss off.
You piss of.
No, You piss o
You Piss
Until all that's left is "YOU"!
The one Lem was talking about when he said if YOU don't keep it civil he'll shut down the discussion, until YOU learn how to behave.
Curtains for EVERYONE!!
Nice dress, Hillary. LOve the context! Was special underwear required?
MamaM,
You are funny.
Thanks for pointing out my typo. I wouldn't have seen it otherwise.
Well Meade, I'm concerned because the other day you expressed your political support for HRC. I'm trying figure what basis you had for that is all. I think you represent more than yourself here.
I said I'll probably vote for her unless someone better comes along.
My basis was/is I haven't seen anyone better yet.
I think you are overthinking it, chickelit.
Hillary the person, aside from policies and positions, IS an issue. Her person is an issue for the same reason Ronald Reagan's was: Age.
Other than partisan disputes or elderliness, I think Hillary, the resumé, is uniquely qualified to be President. Few people in American history have had her depth of experience. A 19th century politician, for example, who had been a successful 2-term Senator, as well as Secretary of State, would have been a shoo-in, especially if those offices were the culmination of a long political life.
I'm not here to argue Hilary's politics or honesty. Any candidate has those in play. But her age and physical condition do not inspire confidence. Ronald Reagan's didn't either. I think the ideal President should be in his or her 50's—old enough to have some wisdom, but young enough to be vigorous.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said the same thing about the age of 75, when he was asked how old, in human terms, he conceived God the Father to be. Holmes was asked that when he was in his 80's and still going strong on the Supreme Court.
But Justice Holmes was a sport of Nature.The Biblical threescore and ten may not hold for total lifespans any more, but it still applies, in my opinion, to fitness for any business but to watch the world go by. Hillary will be 69 when elected. Prudent people do not expect their best performance at the most difficult job of their lives at the age, say, of 74.
My hope is that 2014 midterms will reenergize that branch of Government having the lowest of low public approval. The Executive branch has clearly overstepped its powers. It's an uphill climb, with a dim future. And it may be hoping against Hope, but it's a real possibility.
My concern about H.C.'s age is we don't want the President of the United States getting hot flashes.
It's a great game!
You are funny
You are funn
You are fun
You are fu
Right on back to YOU!
Whose the You?
Is it a General Ustedes or a special Tú who's been making trouble of one kind and another and is about to be sent to his room without supper.
I'm guessing it's someone who's old enough to know better. That covers a lot of ground. Perhaps someone Lem once admired and respected who's recently been acting like an ass. Someone who's been draping themselves in out of context, ugly, ill-fitting and unbecoming material.
Don't get me started on lip reading.
This "We were broke and could barely afford to pay for our million dollar mansions and put our child through one of the most prestigious private schools" mantra isn't going to play will with those folks that are having to choose between a gallon of $4.50 gasoline OR buying milk at $5.20 a gallon. The sympathy level for poor Bill and Hill who can barely eke out a living on an annual income of more than most people will see in their entire lifetimes.....gonna be pretty small.
Tiny tiny violins.
I think the idea is H.C. may be differently situated but she can still feel your pain. That's bogus to my ears but it certainly worked for Bill Clinton.
Someone commenting, here, said Romney was the kind of candidate who reminds working class people of the guy who shows up from corporate and lays everybody off.
That would never have occured to me and I thought it rather perceptive.
That photo of Bush and Putin is really funny. All they need are some wizard hats and wands. Maybe some Tinkerbell type fairies flying around their heads.
It reminds me of this epic chat thread .
Ok....here's the deal
Meade comes into a thread and immediately all ability to have an intelligent discussion gets side-railed into juvenile name calling. MammaM is spot on in her gentle ridicule of the technique. The idea is to keep this blog or commenters from having productive back and forth debate. I suggest that people just ignore the squirrel running across the living room floor.
That being said. attack the policies and positions, not the person. While this is good advice and should be the official strategy.....there is no way you can stop the internet from making fun of someone. Humor is the best way to take down tyrants.
TTBurnett said...
I think the answer, Mama, is to stick to thoughtful, scrupulously fair comments. If someone wishes to engage in small-minded rhetorical quibbles, let them. There is no reason to bother with such unworthy people.
June 10, 2014 at 10:47 AM
This.
Hillary claims Benghazi is more of a reason for her to run for President, any fault goes to security professionals, not her.
So there.
"So there."
Exactly. I want her to run and to be held accountable by the voters for her decisions at SoS. Not by Trey Gowdy, although he too has a job to do, not by Congress, although it too has a job to do. I want her decisions, non decision, actions and non actions to be held accountable by the American voters — we the people.
I see that damned cardinal, and I just stop reading. I know the rest of the thread is most likely trashed beyond repair.
Eric the Fruit Bat said...
As far as I can tell, HRC has done next to nothing to distinguish herself from the present POTUS and for this reason there is no reason to separate her from Obama.
I heard her on NPR just this morning setting out her achievements as Secretary of State.
Not to worry.
She'll be running against Bush43.
Too late. The Choom Gang is making Dubya look like the Good Old Days
TILT!
I'm in for a c note to get lawnboy laid. Then maybe he'll leave us alone.
There are some w/o the social skills to leave where there not wanted. You can tell that has been part of this antisocial idiots life from childhood to old age. Friendless and joyless, both of 'em.
I for one am always grateful for strategic political advice from supporters of candidates I oppose.
It's so damn generous.
Or is that disingenuous?
I think HRC is very well qualified to be prez. And she looks adorbs in that get-up.
I think HRC is very well qualified to be prez.
Got any specific reasons for this belief?
Icepick said...
I see that damned cardinal, and I just stop reading. I know the rest of the thread is most likely trashed beyond repair.
June 10, 2014 at 11:42 AM
"There are some w/o the social skills to leave where there not wanted."
@Mama m: typo clean up on aisle 3.
She knows govt. inside and out. She knows how to count votes, etc., knows which arms to twist, etc. She got that rube from Arkansas voted in. She's a team player. She's not a quitter. She's a neoliberal, and that's the direction the world is heading as a matter of social evolution.
Hillary is the talentless spouse of a somewhat accomplished person. She got respect and was listened to because of the affection and regard many held for her spouse but in her own right she has no real accomplishments. The longer you are exposed to her lack of intellect and talent and her vacuous yet bitchy demeanor the less you respect her and the people who support her.
Now she has her admirers and sycophants and enablers. Who will show up and hector and argue and demand that you listen to her. They even threaten people like they just did when she got slapped around a little by Times. She can not stand up to scrutiny.
She can not stand on her own record since she is really dependent on her spouses coattails. On her own she is nothing.
When she spouts off nonsense the best thing to do is scroll on by.
She knows govt. inside and out.
Except, perhaps, for the inner workings of the State Dept.
She knows how to count votes, etc., knows which arms to twist, etc.
Hillarycare!
She got that rube from Arkansas voted in.
Karl Rove's more qualified on this basis.
She's a team player. She's not a quitter.
Derek Jeter's more qualified on this basis.
She's a neoliberal, and that's the direction the world is heading as a matter of social evolution.
If the laws of history determine outcomes, why does it matter who we elect?
Derek Jeter would make a superb President.
In fact more athletes should run for office.
We know how they perform under pressure. Their life stories are know to us. They are "fully vetted."
Especially the ones who get their meds from veterinarians.
You can say "Well they don't know about foreign policy or the economy or this or that?"
Like Obama knew anything about any of that.
Hey, American Leaguers travel to Canada regularly.
Phil MIckelson knows more about the US tax code than Tim Geithner.
My candidate is Dustin Pedroia.
He'll stand up for the little guy.
Chip, your responses are a bit hit and miss.
Things are complicated in this crazy world of ours. We don't need squirrely junior senators half-heartedly trying to effect change within a milieu they are ill-equipped to navigate. A Republican senate would keep her in check.
Things are complicated in this crazy world of ours.
Well, then. I guess it's gotta be Hillary. She's got a clear-eyed view of this crazy, inevitably neoliberal, world of ours.
Your reasons for supporting HRC aren't "hit and miss," they're just misses.
Did someone release the weasel?
"Derek Jeter would make a superb President."
I would pick Jeter over most candidates, that is for sure. And I am not even a Yankees fan (I am going to hell for that, apparently).
I don't think there's a deep reservoir of love for Hillary out there. Not even among Dems -- remember how quickly, and unceremoniously, they dumped her for Obama in 2008?
HRC would not be a good president, but she would be better than what we have now.
Chip, I didn't say it had to be her or that I support her. I said she's qualified.
Your link is not working.
I don't think there's a deep reservoir of love for Hillary out there. Not even among Dems -- remember how quickly, and unceremoniously, they dumped her for Obama in 2008?
That's not what happened. It was a long, drawn out nomination process, probably the longest since 1968. Hillary actually got more votes in the nomination process, but because she ignored the caucus states early on, Obama's superior organization won a huge margin of delegates in those states. Running for office is the only skill Obama and his minions have, but they're pretty good at that.
If the Democratic Party nomination process had been strictly on a vote basis, Obama would still be a Senator.
I think the idea is H.C. may be differently situated but she can still feel your pain. That's bogus to my ears but it certainly worked for Bill Clinton.
Yes, but Bill Clinton came from crappy circumstances. When he said it, back then, it seemed believable because of his biography.
Hillary, OTOH, is bitching about how hard it is to be a US Senator in a couple of mansions while her ex-President hubby rakes in millions both above and under the table.
It just doesn't play as well.
ken in sc said...
HRC would not be a good president, but she would be better than what we have now.
You sure about that?
The only real difference is that she's hidden behind her sex, rather than her color.
That and she's more psychopath than sociopath.
Ed IIRC psychopath is interchangeable with sociopath.
Psychopathic and sociopathic might have some overlap but they are not equivalent. Sociopathic behavior is characterized by asocial or antisocial acts — rule breaking.
Psychopathic describes the suffering from a chronic mental disorder characterized by abnormal or violent behavior.
Ed is right though: Hillary is more psychopathic — abnormal and violent. Whatever it takes to win, rule, and dominate.
Barack is more of a sociopathic (rule-breaking) pussy cat.
Icepick--You're right, Hillary got more votes in 2008. I should have said it was the liberal pundits who dumped her early on in favor of Obama. I think I'm right about that, but maybe not.
I think I'm right about that, but maybe not.
I seem to recall that it was up in the air for a while, but then the pundits completely caved in and followed Obama. Even allegedly conservative pundits did that, often for reasons as stupid as liking the crease of Obama's pants. (How I wish I was joking with that last comment.)
But note that EVEN WITHIN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, the will of the majority means nothing.
For whatever reason I missed this.
And yes... it's perfect. :)
Post a Comment