You better not show anything good about Hillary on TV or else...!@!!



http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/republican-partty-warns-nbc-cnn-scrap-planned-hillary-programs-article-1.1417978

WASHINGTON — The Republican Party put CNN and NBC on notice Monday: Cancel planned programs on Hillary Clinton or you won’t sponsor any GOP primary debates in the 2016 presidential race.

Party chief Reince Priebus called the programs “political ads masked as unbiased entertainment.”

Republican National Committee chief Reince Priebus has called the programs “political ads masked as unbiased entertainment.”

CNN Films last month announced plans for a feature-length documentary examining Clinton’s professional and personal life.

CNN plans a feature-length documentary examining Clinton’s life, while NBC announced a miniseries, “Hillary.”

And NBC announced a four-hour miniseries, “Hillary,” following her her life and career from 1998 to the present.

Both projects were commissioned as Clinton weighs running for President in 2016.
CNN on Monday urged the GOP to “reserve judgment” about the documentary. NBC Entertainment declined to comment, but NBC News said that it is “completely independent of NBC Entertainment and has no involvement in this project.”

Gayness.
Attachments:

Damn liberal media and their documentaries. LIES! All LIES!

YOU LIE!

Possibly Hillary starring role for
Attachments:

Why would anyone watch this pandering crap?

You can't blame them for taking pre-emptive measures, they may potentially never see the White House again. Just waiting for the House Republicans to hit that final nail in the coffin on the immigration bill and that's that. That won't change things either I don't think. I really want them to turn on each other though. It's a commin. The most outspoken up and coming politicians with presidential prospects vs the rest of the dumb white corrupt trash that makes up the gerrymandered Republican representatives.

Oh the joy the future holds.

Hillary Clinton will be our next president. Hillary Clinton would make Chris Christie look like an amateur. She would stomp his ass in debate as if he was a kid. She is going to take his Jersey Shore attitude against defenseless citizens in town halls and shove it up his big fat ass like she did the Republican Congress during the Benghazi hearings.

Oh the joy the future holds...

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hillary Clinton will be our next president.

Yup, I'd say that is pretty much a given at this point unless there is major crisis like Russia invading the US mainland.

Hillary we be the woman US president. You know every woman is going to secretly vote for her.

She's been in the White House before, Senate experience and US foreign policy experience.

I really can't wait to see the look on some of your faces when Hillary doesn't even win the primaries. lol

tWmNh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I really can't wait to see the look on some of
> your faces when Hillary doesn't even win the
> primaries. lol

Yeah, because I will be very very very surprised if she doesn't win.

I want to see the look on republicans faces when they actually realize they have fucked themselves and the GOP royally for future years to come.

After 8 years of Obama, I don't think Hillary will be the automatic win that many people seem to think she is. She doesn't poll well outside of the traditionally Democratic regions of the Northeast and the West Coast.

_____________
We are all Eesh.

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> After 8 years of Obama, I don't think Hillary will
> be the automatic win that many people seem to
> think she is. She doesn't poll well outside of the
> traditionally Democratic regions of the Northeast
> and the West Coast.

Well, lets face it the only hope I saw for the republican party in 2016 was Christie but the GOP has now made him damaged goods and nobody in the GOP wants Christie around. There's no other candidate in the GOP with enough experience, even Christie lacks foreign policy experience.

Unless I'm overlooking some great mystery GOP candidate for 2016?

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> After 8 years of Obama, I don't think Hillary will
> be the automatic win that many people seem to
> think she is. She doesn't poll well outside of the
> traditionally Democratic regions of the Northeast
> and the West Coast.


Shhh... They're drinking their own toilet water. Let 'em think that it's a lock. You know, just like it was last time. lol

My dingy wife was one of Hillary's big supporters who worked her ass off for nothing. Tried to tell her the old white lady didn't stand a chance against the young wonder negro but she was convinced too. All it will take is for a younger Progressive (which Hillary isn't) Hispanic candidate to emerge from the pack and the old retread white lady is done again.

I suppose that's why the RNC Chairman is threatening news organizations of denying them primary debates if they run positive specials on Hillary Clintons career? I don't know, seems like your side is pretty fuckin concerned if you ask me.

Knowing how stupid the fuckin Republicans are, they'll probably nominate Michelle Bachmann or Condelezza Rice or some shit.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I suppose that's why the RNC Chairman is
> threatening news organizations of denying them
> primary debates if they run positive specials on
> Hillary Clintons career? I don't know, seems like
> your side is pretty fuckin concerned if you ask
> me.
>
> Knowing how stupid the fuckin Republicans are,
> they'll probably nominate Michelle Bachmann or
> Condelezza Rice or some shit.


Being the fucked up retard that you are, you miss the point, even when you state it in your own post, that "news organizations" are going to "run positive specials" on a candidate for president. Even a brain dead faggot like you can't think this is a good thing.


 
Attachments:

bKHXJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Being the fucked up retard that you are, you miss
> the point, even when you state it in your own
> post, that "news organizations" are going to "run
> positive specials" on a candidate for president.
> Even a brain dead faggot like you can't think this
> is a good thing.
>
>
>  

He's a lost cause. Gerry thinks TPM, Think Progress, and Media Matters are "news organizations."

bKHXJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I suppose that's why the RNC Chairman is
> > threatening news organizations of denying them
> > primary debates if they run positive specials
> on
> > Hillary Clintons career? I don't know, seems
> like
> > your side is pretty fuckin concerned if you ask
> > me.
> >
> > Knowing how stupid the fuckin Republicans are,
> > they'll probably nominate Michelle Bachmann or
> > Condelezza Rice or some shit.
>
>
> Being the fucked up retard that you are, you miss
> the point, even when you state it in your own
> post, that "news organizations" are going to "run
> positive specials" on a candidate for president.
> Even a brain dead faggot like you can't think this
> is a good thing.
>
>

I'm lost on this post?

News organizations often run positive bio/documentaries on famous people. Why should Hillary be an exception?

Westerns Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, lets face it the only hope I saw for the
> republican party in 2016 was Christie but the GOP
> has now made him damaged goods and nobody in the
> GOP wants Christie around. There's no other
> candidate in the GOP with enough experience, even
> Christie lacks foreign policy experience.
>
> Unless I'm overlooking some great mystery GOP
> candidate for 2016?

No, you're not. At least, not that I can think of. However, look at all the ill will that people had towards Republicans in 2008. Even if McCain had picked Lieberman, like we know he wanted to, he would've had a very tough time against Obama. He would've lost regardless of who he picked.

I would like to see Lindsey Graham run, but I don't think he's interested.

_____________
We are all Eesh.

xLtYK Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Shhh... They're drinking their own toilet water.
> Let 'em think that it's a lock. You know, just
> like it was last time. lol
>
> My dingy wife was one of Hillary's big supporters
> who worked her ass off for nothing. Tried to tell
> her the old white lady didn't stand a chance
> against the young wonder negro but she was
> convinced too. All it will take is for a younger
> Progressive (which Hillary isn't) Hispanic
> candidate to emerge from the pack and the old
> retread white lady is done again.

Everybody thought Hillary would be the candidate in 2008, with the exception of people working with Obama. Even if she wins the nomination, there's no guarantee that she'll win the presidency. Honestly, I think O'Malley stands a better chance of winning the nomination. Unlike her, he's not damaged goods, and he seems to have a pretty good concept of how to appeal to the primary voters.

_____________
We are all Eesh.

Freedom Of Press Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm lost on this post?
>
> News organizations often run positive
> bio/documentaries on famous people. Why should
> Hillary be an exception?


Uh huh. I don't recall a 4-part, prime-time, mini-series that they did on say Condalisa Rice. lol

Get real. It's part of the PR campaign. They can do whatever they want but don't try to pretend that it's not what it is.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hillary Clinton will be our next president.

That's what the dems said in 2008. She didn't even make it to be the Democratic nominee.

Hillary is a LOCK for 2016.

We need to look forward and help Chelsea with her career in public service.

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> xLtYK Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Shhh... They're drinking their own toilet water.
>
> > Let 'em think that it's a lock. You know, just
> > like it was last time. lol
> >
> > My dingy wife was one of Hillary's big
> supporters
> > who worked her ass off for nothing. Tried to
> tell
> > her the old white lady didn't stand a chance
> > against the young wonder negro but she was
> > convinced too. All it will take is for a
> younger
> > Progressive (which Hillary isn't) Hispanic
> > candidate to emerge from the pack and the old
> > retread white lady is done again.
>
> Everybody thought Hillary would be the candidate
> in 2008, with the exception of people working with
> Obama. Even if she wins the nomination, there's no
> guarantee that she'll win the presidency.
> Honestly, I think O'Malley stands a better chance
> of winning the nomination. Unlike her, he's not
> damaged goods, and he seems to have a pretty good
> concept of how to appeal to the primary voters.

O'Malley? Who? I know Barack Obama and Chris Cristie, Rand Paul or Paul Ryan are no Barack Obama.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/06/2013 08:18PM by Gerrymanderer2.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> O'Malley? Who? I know Barack Obama and Chris
> Cristie, Rand Paul or Paul Ryan are no Barack
> Obama.


Wrong party chief, hes the democratic governor of MD. Thanks though for showing how uninformed you are

BC BC BC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hillary is a LOCK for 2016.

She was a "LOCK" for 2008 too, remember?

_____________
We are all Eesh.

Hillary CLinton vs Jeb Bush 2016.

CLINTON vs BUSH 2.0 THIS TIME IT'S PERSONAL.

Coming to a country near you.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> O'Malley? Who? I know Barack Obama and Chris
> Cristie, Rand Paul or Paul Ryan are no Barack
> Obama.

Martin O'Malley, Democratic governor of the State of Maryland. Believe me, if Antonio Villaraigosa (Democratic Mayor of LA) runs, then Hillary is toast.

_____________
We are all Eesh.

I'm just gonna put this out there now...

Weiner 2016.

That is all.

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > O'Malley? Who? I know Barack Obama and Chris
> > Cristie, Rand Paul or Paul Ryan are no Barack
> > Obama.
>
> Martin O'Malley, Democratic governor of the State
> of Maryland. Believe me, if Antonio Villaraigosa
> (Democratic Mayor of LA) runs, then Hillary is
> toast.

Shes toast either way. Just like she started the birther movement against Obama in the 08 primary if she runs Bengazi will become a huge issue when her opponents make it one.

If she ends up winning the nomination then the Dems are just kicking the can on that election until better candidates are ready.

In 2008, nobody thought Barack Obama would win the nomination. He did, and subsequently won 2 terms as president. Everyone thought Hillary would be the nominee.

Fast-forward 8 years, to 2016. Everyone thinks that Hillary Rodham Clinton will be the next Democratic nominee for President. Several young, dynamic Democrats have announced interest in running. History has a funny way of repeating itself.

_____________
We are all Eesh.

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In 2008, nobody thought Barack Obama would win the
> nomination. He did, and subsequently won 2 terms
> as president. Everyone thought Hillary would be
> the nominee.
>
> Fast-forward 8 years, to 2016. Everyone thinks
> that Hillary Rodham Clinton will be the next
> Democratic nominee for President. Several young,
> dynamic Democrats have announced interest in
> running. History has a funny way of repeating
> itself.

She was also in a much better position to win it at that time, her stock was at an all time high in 08 or maybe even if she wanted to challenge in 12 though she probably would have lost.

Outside of hardcore democratic circles who will vote for whoever he stock has taken a major fall and the luster is gone. In a lot of ways the fact her names being mentioned so much either has to be to motivate someone better to try or just because they literally cant think of anyone else who may run. Biden would be Mondale all over again if he tried.

The Benghazi hearing fiasco did more damage to republican credibility than to Hillary.

Hillary has the win in 2016 in the bag. Republicans have been too bitter and accomplished nothing over the last 6 years. The American public is 60% against republicans now.

I don't think republicans will be able to rebrand the GOP by the 2016 elections. The GOP's ideas are far to outdated now.

Grump Old Man! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Benghazi hearing fiasco did more damage to
> republican credibility than to Hillary.
>
> Hillary has the win in 2016 in the bag.
> Republicans have been too bitter and accomplished
> nothing over the last 6 years. The American
> public is 60% against republicans now.
>
> I don't think republicans will be able to rebrand
> the GOP by the 2016 elections. The GOP's ideas
> are far to outdated now.


lol. You're delusional. Go look at any of the polling that asks re Benghazi. The split for Dem/libs versus Rep/conservatives is obvious, but the more telling is how independents break out. Let us know the results. Hint: You won't like it. The fact is that, despite the attempts to make it "not a story" the only people who DON'T think that it is are Dems (and some of them aren't convinced). The split is more like 65-35 in the opposite direction than you portray it. At least as far as that is concerned anyway.

As usual, dopes like you make the typical mistake of believing your own bullshit. But don't let that stop you. Drink that Kool Aid up.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You can't blame them for taking pre-emptive
> measures, they may potentially never see the White
> House again.

The first time I heard this kind of crap was when Nixon resigned. It didn't happen.

Va. Ave. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You can't blame them for taking pre-emptive
> > measures, they may potentially never see the
> White
> > House again.
>
> The first time I heard this kind of crap was when
> Nixon resigned. It didn't happen.


Right. And the Dems after Carter also. If you think that the Repubs look lost now, you should have seen the Dems then. To a lesser extent after Dukakis and Kerry too.

Liberal Logic 26 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> She was also in a much better position to win it
> at that time, her stock was at an all time high in
> 08 or maybe even if she wanted to challenge in 12
> though she probably would have lost.
>
> Outside of hardcore democratic circles who will
> vote for whoever he stock has taken a major fall
> and the luster is gone. In a lot of ways the fact
> her names being mentioned so much either has to be
> to motivate someone better to try or just because
> they literally cant think of anyone else who may
> run. Biden would be Mondale all over again if he
> tried.

I don't think Biden would be Mondale; he's not facing someone like Reagan. I have no idea who the GOP will choose. However, I agree with you on Hillary. She's very polarizing- you hate her or you love her.

People screamed and yelled that Obama had no qualifications. They were right. What qualifications does Hillary have?

First Lady is not a qualification.

_____________
We are all Eesh.

Grump Old Man! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Benghazi hearing fiasco did more damage to
> republican credibility than to Hillary.
>
> Hillary has the win in 2016 in the bag.
> Republicans have been too bitter and accomplished
> nothing over the last 6 years. The American
> public is 60% against republicans now.
>
> I don't think republicans will be able to rebrand
> the GOP by the 2016 elections. The GOP's ideas
> are far to outdated now.

8 years of Obama. 8 years of no economic growth. 8 years of Democratic rule with an incompetent president. How many people will support a Democratic candidate in 2016?

The American people have a very short memory with politics. It's "what did the last guy in office do, and what party was he from?" They'll know that he did virtually nothing and was a Democrat. That alone may be enough to prevent a Democratic win.

_____________
We are all Eesh.

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I don't think Biden would be Mondale; he's not
> facing someone like Reagan. I have no idea who the
> GOP will choose. However, I agree with you on
> Hillary. She's very polarizing- you hate her or
> you love her.
>
> People screamed and yelled that Obama had no
> qualifications. They were right. What
> qualifications does Hillary have?
>
> First Lady is not a qualification.


Well, for one thing, her reset with the Rooskies has been a stellar success. And our standing in the ME under her diplomatic leadership is great too. And her stint in the Senate, using it to launch her presidential bid in 2008 by doing nothing for 6 years was pure genius. Standing by her rapist husband was just icing on the cake.

The problem is they picked an attractive in shape woman to play her. Hillary is neither. Kind of like on Americas Most Wanted. The actors playing the crooks look clean and attractive. When you see the actual mug shots they are closer to primate than human.

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Grump Old Man! Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The Benghazi hearing fiasco did more damage to
> > republican credibility than to Hillary.
> >
> > Hillary has the win in 2016 in the bag.
> > Republicans have been too bitter and
> accomplished
> > nothing over the last 6 years. The American
> > public is 60% against republicans now.
> >
> > I don't think republicans will be able to
> rebrand
> > the GOP by the 2016 elections. The GOP's ideas
> > are far to outdated now.
>
> 8 years of Obama. 8 years of no economic growth. 8
> years of Democratic rule with an incompetent
> president. How many people will support a
> Democratic candidate in 2016?
>
> The American people have a very short memory with
> politics. It's "what did the last guy in office
> do, and what party was he from?" They'll know that
> he did virtually nothing and was a Democrat. That
> alone may be enough to prevent a Democratic win.


Billary will have 100% cover from the MSM, just as the Great Divider has. Studies have shown that is worth 12 points in elections. So she has that built in advantage and will be hard candidate to beat. She's has sooooo much smelly baggage however (ala Terry "The Shyster" McAuliffe) that she is definitely beatable if the Republicans put up a decent candidate for a change (think Rand Paul, not another RINO like fatass Chrisie).

Harvey Dentenstein Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Billary will have 100% cover from the MSM, just as
> the Great Divider has. Studies have shown that is
> worth 12 points in elections. So she has that
> built in advantage and will be hard candidate to
> beat. She's has sooooo much smelly baggage
> however (ala Terry "The Shyster" McAuliffe) that
> she is definitely beatable if the Republicans put
> up a decent candidate for a change (think Rand
> Paul, not another RINO like fatass Chrisie).

I don't believe Hillary will win the nomination. I think it's far more likely for Martin O'Malley or Antonio Villaraigosa to win the nomination. They appeal to a much larger base than she does, as well as coming with less baggage than Hillary. Villaraigosa has more baggage than O'Malley, but he would appeal to the Latino community in a huge way.

I don't believe that the media would be as kind to Hillary as it has been to Obama.

_____________
We are all Eesh.

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> 8 years of Obama. 8 years of no economic growth. 8
> years of Democratic rule with an incompetent
> president. How many people will support a
> Democratic candidate in 2016?
>
> The American people have a very short memory with
> politics. It's "what did the last guy in office
> do, and what party was he from?" They'll know that
> he did virtually nothing and was a Democrat. That
> alone may be enough to prevent a Democratic win.

Just keep believing Obama hasn't made any improvements and Bush was far better for the US...

That Bush never happened, nor did the mortgage crisis, banks closing, a recession and almost depression, US auto industry going under, US airlines going under, TARP, DOW at 5,800, $5 gasoline, Afghanistan, 13 Embassy bombings, Katrina FEMA response, the search for WMDs in Iraq, record debt level, 9/11 etc...

I'm not "blaming Bush" just pointing out facts that happened when he was president.

808 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, for one thing, her reset with the Rooskies
> has been a stellar success. And our standing in
> the ME under her diplomatic leadership is great
> too. And her stint in the Senate, using it to
> launch her presidential bid in 2008 by doing
> nothing for 6 years was pure genius. Standing by
> her rapist husband was just icing on the cake.

She seems to have been stymied by Obama on several occasions, but still, she was Secretary of State. Therefore, she was responsible for our foreign policy, whether she likes it or not.

Huffington Post is generally a biased, poor source. This is a good article, however.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-hanft/the-curious-myth-of-hilla_b_87613.html

_____________
We are all Eesh.

RomneyCare! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just keep believing Obama hasn't made any
> improvements and Bush was far better for the
> US...
>
> That Bush never happened, nor did the mortgage
> crisis, banks closing, a recession and almost
> depression, US auto industry going under, US
> airlines going under, TARP, DOW at 5,800, $5
> gasoline, Afghanistan, 13 Embassy bombings,
> Katrina FEMA response, the search for WMDs in
> Iraq, record debt level, 9/11 etc...
>
> I'm not "blaming Bush" just pointing out facts
> that happened when he was president.

I never said Bush was any better for the US. I think Bush was largely responsible for the 2008 financial crisis because of deregulation and the concept of "too big to fail."

Dodd-Frank had little to do with Obama. Obamacare has good sections in it, but the individual mandate is rapidly becoming a train wreck.

If I had my way, Bill Richardson would've been the president, and Al Gore would've won in 2000.

_____________
We are all Eesh.

Harvey Dentenstein Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Grump Old Man! Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > The Benghazi hearing fiasco did more damage
> to
> > > republican credibility than to Hillary.
> > >
> > > Hillary has the win in 2016 in the bag.
> > > Republicans have been too bitter and
> > accomplished
> > > nothing over the last 6 years. The American
> > > public is 60% against republicans now.
> > >
> > > I don't think republicans will be able to
> > rebrand
> > > the GOP by the 2016 elections. The GOP's
> ideas
> > > are far to outdated now.
> >
> > 8 years of Obama. 8 years of no economic growth.
> 8
> > years of Democratic rule with an incompetent
> > president. How many people will support a
> > Democratic candidate in 2016?
> >
> > The American people have a very short memory
> with
> > politics. It's "what did the last guy in office
> > do, and what party was he from?" They'll know
> that
> > he did virtually nothing and was a Democrat.
> That
> > alone may be enough to prevent a Democratic
> win.
>
>
> Billary will have 100% cover from the MSM, just as
> the Great Divider has. Studies have shown that is
> worth 12 points in elections. So she has that
> built in advantage and will be hard candidate to
> beat. She's has sooooo much smelly baggage
> however (ala Terry "The Shyster" McAuliffe) that
> she is definitely beatable if the Republicans put
> up a decent candidate for a change (think Rand
> Paul, not another RINO like fatass Chrisie).

Rand Paul is way to far off base for the conservative republican bible thumpers to get any votes.

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't think Biden would be Mondale; he's not
> facing someone like Reagan. I have no idea who the
> GOP will choose. However, I agree with you on
> Hillary. She's very polarizing- you hate her or
> you love her.
>
> People screamed and yelled that Obama had no
> qualifications. They were right. What
> qualifications does Hillary have?
>
> First Lady is not a qualification.

Biden may not be facing a Reagan, but hes also much more incompetent than Mondale.

As far as Hilliary she is the poster child of people that were going to vote democratic anyway will love her, everyone else will probably be indifferent at best.

Sadly she does have more qualifications than Obama did. Thats really a low bar to get over though, you dont even have to jump to clear that one. Other than that shes most famous for marrying Clinton. Her time as Secretary of State was unremarkable at best, and really more of a failure not even counting Bengazi. There were no major accomplishments, or really even significant ones, and the ones that were touted as such have been a complete disaster.

Then theres also the fact that currently the progressive Obama camp is in control of the party, shes not who they would want and they may still hold resentment about 08. Theyve been proven to be a very vindictive bunch and it doesnt seem likely they would actively back her for the nomination unless shes really the only choice.

It will be eye opening for the progressives on here what general election voting looks like when the first time black vote doesnt reappear without Obama on the ticket. A Corey Booker type could possibly get some of that to stay, but he wouldnt have an interest running as her VP. Even then though part of it seems to have been disenfranchised by the fact they didnt get all the free stuff they though, even in 2012 the numbers were down from 08.

Lockie Wrote:
-
>
> Rand Paul is way to far off base for the
> conservative republican bible thumpers to get any
> votes.


Paul will win over the college vote. Hillary is yesterday's news. Rand Paul wants to defund the war on drugs, decriminalize personal use of weed, pull America's military back and close foreign bases, defund any spying on American's without a warrant, reign in monetizing the debt and cut spending in all areas of the budget including entitlements and defense - mostly through getting rid of the baselining scam that allows the budgets to go up 4 - 6% every year and still be called cutting. Paul's not perfect, but he's one hell of a lot better than Romney, Bush, McLoser, Obama or Billary. Every one of the afore mentioned are in the pockets of Wall Street and global corporatists. Paul isn't. That's enough for me. And he's good enough on the "bible thumper" issues (abortion, gay marriage, etc) to get most of them to the polls. And Paul will win over the blue collar redneck democrat vote that won't vote for a woman. I like his chances.

When she showed up after months of a Republican Congressional pursuit for a hearing. And 95 percent of the Republicans simply shit themselves at the prospect of being put back in their irrelevant places by the towering Hillary Clinton and the other 5 percent managed to make mumbling fools of themselves as they cowered before her.

That was the moment I realized that there was nothing to keep her becoming the next President of the United States. All she really needs is the nomination which she may even get uncontested. There will be no Republican competition for the presidency.

She'll win in a fucking landslide like no recent generation has experienced. One thing I am very good at is political predictions. I predicted an Obama presidency before the Democratic debates even began. The only factor that may change that eventual outcome is a serious health condition or a massive scandal.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When she showed up after months of a Republican
> Congressional pursuit for a hearing. And 95
> percent of the Republicans simply shit themselves
> at the prospect of being put back in their
> irrelevant places by the towering Hillary Clinton
> and the other 5 percent managed to make mumbling
> fools of themselves as they cowered before her.
>
> That was the moment I realized that there was
> nothing to keep her becoming the next President of
> the United States. All she really needs is the
> nomination which she may even get uncontested.
> There will be no Republican competition for the
> presidency.
>
> She'll win in a fucking landslide like no recent
> generation has experienced. One thing I am very
> good at is political predictions. I predicted an
> Obama presidency before the Democratic debates
> even began. The only factor that may change that
> eventual outcome is a serious health condition or
> a massive scandal.


Hey faggot, this is what will keep the bitch from being president.

 
Attachments:

Harvey Dentenstein Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Billary will have 100% cover from the MSM, just as
> the Great Divider has. Studies have shown that is
> worth 12 points in elections. So she has that
> built in advantage and will be hard candidate to
> beat. She's has sooooo much smelly baggage
> however (ala Terry "The Shyster" McAuliffe) that
> she is definitely beatable if the Republicans put
> up a decent candidate for a change (think Rand
> Paul, not another RINO like fatass Chrisie).

You assume the media will report all the shady dealings she has been involved in and of course they will not. Even Hillary complained during the primary the media was ignoring Obamas history and softballing him questions. Now she will be ok with it when she gets the same treatment.

On the other hand Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Harvey Dentenstein Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Billary will have 100% cover from the MSM, just
> as
> > the Great Divider has. Studies have shown that
> is
> > worth 12 points in elections. So she has that
> > built in advantage and will be hard candidate
> to
> > beat. She's has sooooo much smelly baggage
> > however (ala Terry "The Shyster" McAuliffe)
> that
> > she is definitely beatable if the Republicans
> put
> > up a decent candidate for a change (think Rand
> > Paul, not another RINO like fatass Chrisie).
>
> You assume the media will report all the shady
> dealings she has been involved in and of course
> they will not. Even Hillary complained during the
> primary the media was ignoring Obamas history and
> softballing him questions. Now she will be ok
> with it when she gets the same treatment.


No, I was saying the MSM will provide cover for Billary, just like they did for Obama. That is what the UCLA study author found to be worth up to 12 points in every national election for the democrats. If the IRS scandal or Bengahzi had happened under a republican, it would be leading the nightly news for months and above the fold on every major newspaper at least 2 or 3 times a week. The WH press briefings would be wall to wall questions about them.

Bengahzi makes Iran-Contra look like a game of hopscotch. Less than 20% of Americans now get their news mainly from the nightly news programs or newspapers. Let's hope that gets down to 10% by 2016. The death of the MSM is one of the key step that will eventually save this once-great country.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When she showed up after months of a Republican
> Congressional pursuit for a hearing. And 95
> percent of the Republicans simply shit themselves
> at the prospect of being put back in their
> irrelevant places by the towering Hillary Clinton
> and the other 5 percent managed to make mumbling
> fools of themselves as they cowered before her.
>


You mean after she stalled as long as she possibly could to try to get it out of the news and be out of office and then screwed herself with the "what difference does it make" line which will continue to haunt her? Especially after more of the full story around Benghazi comes out. Which it likely will before the election and will be used to hammer her by her primary opponents.

Although I'm sure that they'll do all that they can to try to avoid it as they have to date, Woe is she if they bring one of the guys involved to trial around that same time. Hard to call it a "phony scandal" when you're prosecuting somebody and all of the ugly details of the how and why come out making it brutally obvious how bullshit of a move it was for her to be making commercials apologizing for some irrelevant video and telling family members that they're going to make sure the guy who made it is punished, how she'd reduced the security status in Libya for political reasons to make it appear there was more progress toward moving it away from the extremists than is the case, etc., etc.

Plus all of the other baggage and high negatives that she brings as mentioned above. She may well have a chance to win but it's not going to be nearly as easy as some of you dummies seem to believe.

On the other hand Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> You assume the media will report all the shady
> dealings she has been involved in and of course
> they will not. Even Hillary complained during the
> primary the media was ignoring Obamas history and
> softballing him questions. Now she will be ok
> with it when she gets the same treatment.


They're not going to do that even now. Both of the documentaries by NBC and CNN "just happen" not to include the years around Whitewater, Rose, her failure at the "co-President" thing and pushing HillaryCare then getting slapped down and having to retreat back to being First Lady, Lewinsky, etc., etc.

Harvey Dentenstein Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Paul will win over the college vote. Hillary is
> yesterday's news. Rand Paul wants to defund the
> war on drugs, decriminalize personal use of weed,
> pull America's military back and close foreign
> bases, defund any spying on American's without a
> warrant, reign in monetizing the debt and cut
> spending in all areas of the budget including
> entitlements and defense - mostly through getting
> rid of the baselining scam that allows the budgets
> to go up 4 - 6% every year and still be called
> cutting. Paul's not perfect, but he's one hell of
> a lot better than Romney, Bush, McLoser, Obama or
> Billary. Every one of the afore mentioned are in
> the pockets of Wall Street and global
> corporatists. Paul isn't. That's enough for me.
> And he's good enough on the "bible thumper" issues
> (abortion, gay marriage, etc) to get most of them
> to the polls. And Paul will win over the blue
> collar redneck democrat vote that won't vote for a
> woman. I like his chances.

Most people 18-25 don't vote, and those who do don't tend to vote in primaries. Rand Paul doesn't appeal to the conservative base, which is what's necessary for the Republican candidate. People can argue about the war on drugs all they want, but it's working in Mexico, albeit at great cost.

The problem is really not fighting a war on it, the problem is American addicts. That includes marijuana, regardless of how addictive/non-addictive it is.

_____________
We are all Eesh.

If republicans are stupid enough to bet the farm on stopping Hillary by new Benghazi hearings then Hillary doesn't even need to campaign to win.

That's where you dumbass Republicans went wrong. You beat the dead end dead horse into oblivion when it comes to Benghazi. It is literally probably the most investigated attack incident per lives lost ever in the history of this country. Hearing after hearing, appearances and transcripts. Talking points and other bullshit even. It's all been done.

Now, if you weren't rabid mouth watering shit faces, you could of saved some of that bullshit that wouldn't eventually matter anyway to ramp up the media around the election. There's nothing left. You're going to scream Benghazi like Mitt Romney did terrorism during the presidential debate and people are going to say you're idiots and vote the other way.

You got nothing, she's got a record and is proclaiming historical significance for the country.

If a black man with a Muslim name did it to you for two terms? What do you think a white woman who's time has more than come is going to do to you? She's going to wipe the fucking floor with you.

Liberal Logic 26 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Biden may not be facing a Reagan, but hes also
> much more incompetent than Mondale.

How so? Biden's main issue is not knowing when to shut up. Outside of that, he's better than Mondale. At least he knows how to campaign.

> As far as Hilliary she is the poster child of
> people that were going to vote democratic anyway
> will love her, everyone else will probably be
> indifferent at best.

That's pretty much true. There's somewhat of a split, however. People really don't want to see Bill Clinton back in the White House. I don't blame them at all. I don't want Bill back in the White House.

> Sadly she does have more qualifications than Obama
> did. Thats really a low bar to get over though,
> you dont even have to jump to clear that one.
> Other than that shes most famous for marrying
> Clinton. Her time as Secretary of State was
> unremarkable at best, and really more of a failure
> not even counting Bengazi. There were no major
> accomplishments, or really even significant ones,
> and the ones that were touted as such have been a
> complete disaster.
>
> Then theres also the fact that currently the
> progressive Obama camp is in control of the party,
> shes not who they would want and they may still
> hold resentment about 08. Theyve been proven to
> be a very vindictive bunch and it doesnt seem
> likely they would actively back her for the
> nomination unless shes really the only choice.

Jimmy Carter (who looks like Obama's upside right now) had more qualification. He was governor of Georgia. Yeah, I agree with that. The Obama camp seems to be pretty lukewarm on her, for good reason. She ran a horrible smear campaign against him during the 2008 primaries. It's very tough to divorce her from that campaign, which is something the Republicans will be able to attack relentlessly during the election, if she wins the nomination (which she won't).

Her claim to fame as Secretary of State is that she traveled incessantly, and that she presided over Benghazi. Unfortunately for the GOP, Romney didn't leverage the situation well, despite the fact that he really could have. It's a very easy thing to do during an election, and a better run campaign would've done it.

> It will be eye opening for the progressives on
> here what general election voting looks like when
> the first time black vote doesnt reappear without
> Obama on the ticket. A Corey Booker type could
> possibly get some of that to stay, but he wouldnt
> have an interest running as her VP. Even then
> though part of it seems to have been
> disenfranchised by the fact they didnt get all the
> free stuff they though, even in 2012 the numbers
> were down from 08.

I don't think Corey Booker is running. He's more interested in fighting for the NJ Senate seat left vacant by Frank Lautenberg's death. Traditionally, blacks vote Democratic, but the other demographics that vote for the Democrats, namely 18-25 year olds, have had falls in turnout.

All this anointment of Hillary as the next president is premature. She may not get the nomination. If she gets the nomination, she may not win.

_____________
We are all Eesh.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's where you dumbass Republicans went wrong.
> You beat the dead end dead horse into oblivion
> when it comes to Benghazi. It is literally
> probably the most investigated attack incident per
> lives lost ever in the history of this country.
> Hearing after hearing, appearances and
> transcripts. Talking points and other bullshit
> even. It's all been done.
>
> Now, if you weren't rabid mouth watering shit
> faces, you could of saved some of that bullshit
> that wouldn't eventually matter anyway to ramp up
> the media around the election. There's nothing
> left. You're going to scream Benghazi like Mitt
> Romney did terrorism during the presidential
> debate and people are going to say you're idiots
> and vote the other way.
>
> You got nothing, she's got a record and is
> proclaiming historical significance for the
> country.
>
> If a black man with a Muslim name did it to you
> for two terms? What do you think a white woman
> who's time has more than come is going to do to
> you? She's going to wipe the fucking floor with
> you.

How dumb are you? Serious question. You don't know any of the actual candidates for your own party's 2016 nomination outside of Hillary, and she hasn't actually announced any interest.

There are better FEMALE choices in the Democratic Party. Not to mention the fact that O'Malley, Schweitzer, and Warner would appeal to the center far more than Hillary would.

_____________
We are all Eesh.

Qualye Hunting Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If republicans are stupid enough to bet the farm
> on stopping Hillary by new Benghazi hearings then
> Hillary doesn't even need to campaign to win.


They don't have to. Her primary opponents will drag it out in much worse form than Republicans have. Where do you think all of the not born here, he's a Muslim, the shady Tony Rezko deal, gay accusations, and all of the other stuff originated for Obama? Tip: It wasn't the Republicans.

mNdeW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They don't have to. Her primary opponents will
> drag it out in much worse form than Republicans
> have. Where do you think all of the not born
> here, he's a Muslim, the shady Tony Rezko deal,
> gay accusations, and all of the other stuff
> originated for Obama? Tip: It wasn't the
> Republicans.

She's screwed once she hits the primary debates. O'Malley and others will eviscerate her.

_____________
We are all Eesh.

Hillary Clinton will destroy the modern construct of the Republican Party. It will turn on itself and may split into two different party affiliations. The Republican Party is not sustainable and the election of another Democratic president will only speed up its demise. Hillary Clinton has the highest probability of providing for that continuum.

She will inflict the final death blow on all that you have come to know the GOP as being.

You are a dying breed, we're just trying to make the process quicker and less painful.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's where you dumbass Republicans went wrong.
> You beat the dead end dead horse into oblivion
> when it comes to Benghazi. It is literally
> probably the most investigated attack incident per
> lives lost ever in the history of this country.
> Hearing after hearing, appearances and
> transcripts. Talking points and other bullshit
> even. It's all been done.
>
> Now, if you weren't rabid mouth watering shit
> faces, you could of saved some of that bullshit
> that wouldn't eventually matter anyway to ramp up
> the media around the election. There's nothing
> left. You're going to scream Benghazi like Mitt
> Romney did terrorism during the presidential
> debate and people are going to say you're idiots
> and vote the other way.
>

The only thing that saved Obama was that Romney got shouted down by Crowley and the press avoided covering it as much as they possibly could.

Doesn't matter how much it's been investigated when the questions people will be asking haven't been answered particularly as it affects her.

What were Obama and Clinton doing during the hours following the attack? Never been answered.

Why was security reduced for the compound and who in particular was responsible for signing off on it? Never been answered.

Why was Rice sent out to parrot the obviously laughable video story instead of Clinton doing what would be expected following the death of an ambassador? (Even Schieffer, among others, called her out for that.)

Among many others all of which will come back. And this time they'll not be asked by Republicans but rather by more Progressive candidates than her. Over and over and over at every campaign appearance, TV commercial, by Progressive web sites supporting others, and in every debate.

Enjoy! :) lol

I don't think you understand how much you've beat Benghazi into irrelevancy. The Republican echo chamber makes anyone outside of it nauseous. It's dead, and it will do you no good.

To tell you the truth, I may support Rand Paul if he were the nominee over Clinton. Just because it would cleanse the GOP of it's Zionist scourge that has destroyed the country and that party.

I'll tell you this, the Jews are gonna use their media power and money to rough up your boy Rand Paul though. You can bet your ass on that. They literally scared Iowa away from giving the state to his father.

Not a coincidence that Chris Christie got a call from Sheldon Adelson after his war of words with Rand Paul.

Benghazi was relevant for the wrong reason. It would've been a perfect of this country's hypocrisy in foreign affairs.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'll tell you this, the Jews are gonna use their
> media power and money to rough up your boy Rand
> Paul though. You can bet your ass on that. They
> literally scared Iowa away from giving the state
> to his father.
>
> Not a coincidence that Chris Christie got a call
> from Sheldon Adelson after his war of words with
> Rand Paul.


Sheldon's millions didn't help Newt too much did it Ger? If Romney couldn't get the Jew vote after what Obama has done to Israel, then no republican will. The GOP needs to write off the Jew vote and get on with building an actual GOTV system and make inroads into the blue collar and youth vote. Paul can do that.

Dan Balz from the Amazon Post wrote a book on the implosion of the Romney campaign is has come away shocked at how little actual ground game planning and GOTV efforts the campaign put in. They thought people were pissed off enough to show up without it. Balz seems to think this was the critical error that cost Romney the election.

Gerrymander2: a tolerant progressive!

_____________
We are all Eesh.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't think you understand how much you've beat
> Benghazi into irrelevancy. The Republican echo
> chamber makes anyone outside of it nauseous. It's
> dead, and it will do you no good.


Uh, no. Again, look at the polling. Independents think that there was a cover up and disapprove of Hillary's handling of it even more than Republicans in most polls. Even Dems with an IQ greater than 50, whether they'll admit it or not, know that there was a concerted effort to make it "not a story" because of the election.

It all becomes a lot more relevant again on that side for Hillary when it's another Dem saying it and she doesn't have the cover of all of the troops falling into line as Obama did. If you don't think that you're going to hear "What difference does it make!" a bazillion times during the primary and Hillary's role more directly scrutinized far more so than Republicans did then you're dreaming.

MeFck Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I don't think you understand how much you've
> beat
> > Benghazi into irrelevancy. The Republican echo
> > chamber makes anyone outside of it nauseous.
> It's
> > dead, and it will do you no good.
>
>
> Uh, no. Again, look at the polling. Independents
> think that there was a cover up and disapprove of
> Hillary's handling of it even more than
> Republicans in most polls. Even Dems with an IQ
> greater than 50, whether they'll admit it or not,
> know that there was a concerted effort to make it
> "not a story" because of the election.
>
> It all becomes a lot more relevant again on that
> side for Hillary when it's another Dem saying it
> and she doesn't have the cover of all of the
> troops falling into line as Obama did. If you
> don't think that you're going to hear "What
> difference does it make!" a bazillion times during
> the primary and Hillary's role more directly
> scrutinized far more so than Republicans did then
> you're dreaming.


Hillary OWNED the hearings and answered everything completely making those accusing look like the idiots they really are...Benghazi would be a great thing FOR Hillary as it shows how she handles misinformation and party blinded idiots.

There is nothing negative about Benghazi - if anyone tries to throw that shit out there, well the 13 "scandals" of embassy bombings under Bush comes up and people wonder why Benghazi is any different? It is not - the ONLY thing that conservatives are STILL bitching about is the way it was relayed in the first place.......which, again Hillary answered and explained in the hearings.

Clips of Hillary making the GOP look like mad school children would only help her, so please continue to think this "scandal" is a bad thing.

You know what your polls do not reveal (Although polls have historically proven useless) is how many people have no idea what, where, when, who, Benghazi ever was. Ask 100 people on the street and 85 of them will not know anything about it except that it was where some people got killed at an embassy (Most will not know where it even is) - THAT IS IT! Your imaginary world where average people give a shit, or even are aware of, silly political posing is delusional.

There were embassy bombings under Bush. Yes, everyone admits that. How many of them had a cover up? How many of them were blamed on a YOUTUBE video?

Answer: 0

I didn't like Bush, and I think Obama is inept. Hillary won't win the nomination.

_____________
We are all Eesh.

LnW6v Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hillary OWNED the hearings and answered everything
> completely making those accusing look like the
> idiots they really are...Benghazi would be a great
> thing FOR Hillary as it shows how she handles
> misinformation and party blinded idiots.
>
> There is nothing negative about Benghazi - if
> anyone tries to throw that shit out there, well
> the 13 "scandals" of embassy bombings under Bush
> comes up and people wonder why Benghazi is any
> different? It is not - the ONLY thing that
> conservatives are STILL bitching about is the way
> it was relayed in the first place.......which,
> again Hillary answered and explained in the
> hearings.


Blaming Bush ain't gonna work for Hillary.

It's different because nobody tried covering up the others in order to win an election. Which a vast majority of people believe is the case. They may believe that Republicans politicized it, but they still think Obama, and Hillary by proxy, are full of shit (see not as dumb as you think below).


>
> Clips of Hillary making the GOP look like mad
> school children would only help her, so please
> continue to think this "scandal" is a bad thing.

Uh huh, good luck with with that. You'll be arguing it with an O'Malley supporter soon enough.


>
> You know what your polls do not reveal (Although
> polls have historically proven useless) is how
> many people have no idea what, where, when, who,
> Benghazi ever was. Ask 100 people on the street
> and 85 of them will not know anything about it
> except that it was where some people got killed at
> an embassy (Most will not know where it even is) -
> THAT IS IT! Your imaginary world where average
> people give a shit, or even are aware of, silly
> political posing is delusional.


Not true. People aren't as dumb as you libtards always tend to think that they are. In most it's along the lines of 70% who had followed the story closely.

But you know what the best part of all of this is? It's that it just won't go away. Which drives poor fuckers like you crazy. lmao

DYNXW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Uh huh, good luck with with that. You'll be
> arguing it with an O'Malley supporter soon enough.

I wouldn't be surprised if O'Malley won the nomination. I'd rather have him than Hillary. At least he hasn't been in Washington for the last 20 years.

_____________
We are all Eesh.

I wouldnt support this sleazy woman who would put up with anything and do anything to gain power. I do realize she need only do one thing to win and that is to promise to keep funding all the free stuff Obama is giving out.

Software Updater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I'll tell you this, the Jews are gonna use
> their
> > media power and money to rough up your boy Rand
> > Paul though. You can bet your ass on that.
> They
> > literally scared Iowa away from giving the
> state
> > to his father.
> >
> > Not a coincidence that Chris Christie got a
> call
> > from Sheldon Adelson after his war of words
> with
> > Rand Paul.
>
>
> Sheldon's millions didn't help Newt too much did
> it Ger? If Romney couldn't get the Jew vote after
> what Obama has done to Israel, then no republican
> will. The GOP needs to write off the Jew vote and
> get on with building an actual GOTV system and
> make inroads into the blue collar and youth vote.
> Paul can do that.
>
> Dan Balz from the Amazon Post wrote a book on the
> implosion of the Romney campaign is has come away
> shocked at how little actual ground game planning
> and GOTV efforts the campaign put in. They
> thought people were pissed off enough to show up
> without it. Balz seems to think this was the
> critical error that cost Romney the election.


If you honestly think I'm talking about the so called non existent irrelevant "Jewish Vote", you are either making a pathetic attempt at obfuscating my original point or completely lost on it.

Sheldon Adelson doesn't pump 100 million dollars into an election to persuade a couple of Jews in Florida on whom they should vote for.

Zionists do not like Libertarians and Libertarians do not like entangling alliances that don't serve American interests.

Sheldon Adelson is nothing compared to the power structure at CNN and their ability influence elections. He's just cash for any given candidate. The Zionists are very powerful and influential in many different ways that can affect elections.

They do not like Rand Paul. Rand Paul would not be a run of the mill Republican Israeli puppet.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/07/2013 10:03PM by Gerrymanderer2.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> If you honestly think I'm talking about the so
> called non existent irrelevant "Jewish Vote", you
> are either making a pathetic attempt at
> obfuscating my original point or completely lost
> on it.
>
> Sheldon Adelson doesn't pump 100 million dollars
> into an election to persuade a couple of Jews in
> Florida on whom they should vote for.
>
> Zionists do not like Libertarians and Libertarians
> do not like entangling alliances that don't serve
> American interests.
>
> Sheldon Adelson is nothing compared to the power
> structure at CNN and their ability influence
> elections. He's just cash for any given
> candidate. The Zionists are very powerful and
> influential in many different ways that can affect
> elections.
>
> They do not like Rand Paul. Rand Paul would not
> be a run of the mill Republican Israeli puppet.


^ LOL @ Gerry the "tolerant" Progressive.

I have no tolerance for the intolerant. That would be stupid and counter productive now wouldn't it? I speak the cold hard truth. Truth you will one day have to face as an individual and as a nation.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have no tolerance for the intolerant. That
> would be stupid and counter productive now
> wouldn't it? I speak the cold hard truth. Truth
> you will one day have to face as an individual and
> as a nation.


That's what all bigots say.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have no tolerance for the intolerant. That
> would be stupid and counter productive now
> wouldn't it? I speak the cold hard truth. Truth
> you will one day have to face as an individual and
> as a nation.

So you have no tolerance for yourself?

Liberal Logic 26 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So you have no tolerance for yourself?

Based on Gerry's reasoning, he must not. His version of "the truth" is nonsensical. I can't wait to see how he goes off when Hillary fails to get the nomination.

Will the charge be sexism or "the Zionists?"

_____________
We are all Eesh.

You might be some Jew loving sell out I impotent males but that's not the case here. Rick Sanchez told you who ran CNN before they silenced him permanently for even daring to mention that confidential power structure.

I just comment on what I see. What seems blatantly obvious to me before my eyes seems to be a profound mystery to others. I suppose the Project for a New American Century(PNAC) was just a figment of my imagination too.

I remember it proudly posted for 6 of the 8 years Bush was in office and then mysteriously disappeared along with Bush approval ratings and war support.

So, the point I made is there is an influential interconnected power structure crosses different types of institutions with one cohesive agenda.

And Rand Paul is the only fuckin Republican that's an actual American first that doesn't agree with all that wasteful non sense riff raff.

You'll see them come after Rand Paul. If you're smart enough and try hard enough, you'll be able to decipher and witness the majesty of their hidden hand at work.

I'm here to enlighten, if you try hard enough you will witness that my predictions weren't bigotry but a reflection of the unfortunate reality.

gerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You might be some Jew loving sell out I impotent
> males but that's not the case here. Rick Sanchez
> told you who ran CNN before they silenced him
> permanently for even daring to mention that
> confidential power structure.
>
> I just comment on what I see. What seems blatantly
> obvious to me before my eyes seems to be a
> profound mystery to others. I suppose the Project
> for a New American Century(PNAC) was just a
> figment of my imagination too.
>
> I remember it proudly posted for 6 of the 8 years
> Bush was in office and then mysteriously
> disappeared along with Bush approval ratings and
> war support.
>
> So, the point I made is there is an influential
> interconnected power structure crosses different
> types of institutions with one cohesive agenda.
>
> And Rand Paul is the only fuckin Republican that's
> an actual American first that doesn't agree with
> all that wasteful non sense riff raff.
>
> You'll see them come after Rand Paul. If you're
> smart enough and try hard enough, you'll be able
> to decipher and witness the majesty of their
> hidden hand at work.
>
> I'm here to enlighten, if you try hard enough you
> will witness that my predictions weren't bigotry
> but a reflection of the unfortunate reality.


Ahhh. The layers of little Gerry's psychosis start to peel back. lol

(Actuallly, THEY sent me here to monitor him. muhahahaha)

The GOP Chairman Priebus is an idiot.

Here Priebus is on CNN discussing the objection. Now Priebus says CNN should stop all coverage of Hillary, good or bad, because "It's clear she is going to run."

What's worse in his craziness is the guy who filmed the documentary slammed the hell out of Obama.

He's another RNC idiot with no clue leading republicans.

Here's the video for you to see yourself -

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/politics/2013/08/07/erin-rnc-reince-priebus-intv.cnn

>She's has sooooo much smelly baggage however (ala Terry "The Shyster" McAuliffe)
>that she is definitely beatable if the Republicans put up a decent candidate for a
>change (think Rand Paul, not another RINO like fatass Chrisie).

Don't be fooled - the GOP is praying that Hillary gets the nomination, not because she'd make such a bad president but because against her, they could really rally the troops again. They may be counting too much on the 'anti-bill clinton' vote but they'll hang everything their faithful hates about Obama around her neck. All the scandal-mongering and the backlash over the stagnant congress (in reality, 38 votes against Obamacare should tell you all you need to know about that), they're looking for all that to pay off in 2016.

So in the meantime, look forward to 3 years of Br'er Rabbiting 'please don't nominate Hillary Clinton! We're so scared of Hillary Clinton!'. She's the most beatable candidate they could hope for, especially using detestable methods. So look forward to seeing those again too.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/08/2013 12:06PM by abelard.

abelard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't be fooled - the GOP is praying that
> Hillary gets the nomination

Yes, I have noticed the GOP is working pretty hard to make sure Hillary gets elected.

Ok, that made me laugh.

Dude, cut your Prozacs in half and stop drinking before noon.

Hillary in 2016. Cankles become all the rage.

The GOP will never win another national election. All they can do is keep pandering to their shrinking base - a bunch of rabid frothy-mouthed bigots. I'm betting these idiots will actually nominate Rand "AquaBuddha" Paul who somehow thinks that Libertarian and Republican are the same thing. Bunch of fucking numbskulls. It's fun to watch the implosion of the once "grand" old party.

GOP the party of yesteryear Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The GOP will never win another national election.
> All they can do is keep pandering to their
> shrinking base - a bunch of rabid frothy-mouthed
> bigots. I'm betting these idiots will actually
> nominate Rand "AquaBuddha" Paul who somehow thinks
> that Libertarian and Republican are the same
> thing. Bunch of fucking numbskulls. It's fun to
> watch the implosion of the once "grand" old party.

The GOP base of hate the poor, anti-blacks, anti-foreigners, start wars for defense contractors, and force the bible and marriage on all Americans is so outdated.

The idea of less taxes and less government I like but the GOP has too many nut jobs in the party now so that idea is 5% of what the party actually does.

I really wish the Tea Party would of continued but the GOP stumped that out pretty quickly like Chris Christie.

Tea Baggins Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The idea of less taxes and less government I like
> but the GOP has too many nut jobs in the party now
> so that idea is 5% of what the party actually
> does.

The GOP has become very right wing and the Democrats have become very left wing. The center doesn't seem to have anywhere to go.

_____________
We are all Eesh.

Fruitcake Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ahhh. The layers of little Gerry's psychosis
> start to peel back. lol
>
> (Actuallly, THEY sent me here to monitor him.
> muhahahaha)

Gerry is a tolerant progressive. You know, the type who'll accuse you of being a bigoted, racist homophobe. Not to mention a Jew lover.

Does it piss you off, Gerry? Does it piss you off that members of the world's smallest major religion have more influence over American foreign policy than you do?

_____________
We are all Eesh.

Where did they film the part where she runs off a helicopter in Bosnia dodging mortar rounds and sniper fire?

Nope it doesn't piss me off at all. I see it as a sad state of affairs. You may think such a small minority with inherent loyalties to a foreign state which is engaged in apartheid and perpetual conflict having tremendous influence over American foreign and domestic security policy is a perfectly acceptable thing.

I don't think it's healthy or American, and I'm not alone. Don't get defensive but you should question your national pride with how flimsy you are.

The documentary is not complete so I don't know why republicans are upset about it.

Priebus' objection to just having "Hillary in the news" as being wrong shows he knows nothing about politics.

He is the same type of idiot that thinks even having your name in the news for something terrible is important.

Bad stories are just that, bad.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nope it doesn't piss me off at all. I see it as a
> sad state of affairs. You may think such a small
> minority with inherent loyalties to a foreign
> state which is engaged in apartheid and perpetual
> conflict having tremendous influence over American
> foreign and domestic security policy is a
> perfectly acceptable thing.
>
> I don't think it's healthy or American, and I'm
> not alone. Don't get defensive but you should
> question your national pride with how flimsy you
> are.


Yeah! Have some fucking national pride!

>Yeah! Have some fucking national pride!

You do know that this was the original salute to the American flag, don't you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellamy_salute

Can't refute the facts around the actions of American Jews, I know, quick, call him a Nazi. That always kills that conversation. Little Zionist slaves doing all they can to use the tools their masters gave them. Like house niggers.

Gerry misses George Lincoln Rockwell.

Perhaps he would be better served in another country... like Iran, where the Zionists are at fault for everything.

gerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Can't refute the facts around the actions of
> American Jews, I know, quick, call him a Nazi.
> That always kills that conversation. Little
> Zionist slaves doing all they can to use the tools
> their masters gave them. Like house niggers.


Just like most 'progressives.' Scratch a little through their thin veneer and you see the real crap inside that it's covering up.

Mighty Whitey of U Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Just like most 'progressives.' Scratch a little
> through their thin veneer and you see the real
> crap inside that it's covering up.


Progressives, Nazis

What's the difference?

I'm sorry the blueprint for our modern war footing wasn't created by Chinese Americans. Anyone that talks about Neo Conservative history and American war policy is a Nazi? These are historical facts. Just because you're misinformed and have been conditioned not to deal with certain facts or realities doesn't mean those of us with intellect should confine ourselves to such boundaries.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/09/2013 01:38AM by Gerrymanderer2.