AZGrizFan wrote:Well, that and DEATH. She ain't makin' it to 2016.TwinTownBisonFan wrote: The ONLY thing that stops her in 2016 is her decision not to run. If she wants it - it's hers for the taking (the Dem nomination that is)
Crazy Uncle Joe might take her out in the primaries.......bluehenbillk wrote:AZGrizFan wrote:
Well, that and DEATH. She ain't makin' it to 2016.
He stops her in 2016.....
It sure won't be Biden!bluehenbillk wrote:AZGrizFan wrote:
Well, that and DEATH. She ain't makin' it to 2016.
He stops her in 2016.....
What do you see down there Z?AZGrizFan wrote:Wedgie:Wedgebuster wrote:
Your country maybe Z, mine is doing just fine.
From a December 13 post ...TwinTownBisonFan wrote:The polling on Hillary doesn't back that up (neither does it on Bill)UNI88 wrote: I agree that Hillary came out ahead on this one but she will not win the 2016 election. She's extremely qualified and people love her in a cabinet role but when they start thinking about her as President all of the warts (haughty and crusty personality) and baggage (Bill is a double-edged sword) will come out and her campaign will sink.
What the polling tells us about Hillary is that her personality is seen predominantly as "strong leader" - THE critical metric in winning a national election. Her numbers among women (not surprisingly) are through the roof and her numbers among men are MUCH stronger than you'd think.
Her numbers among men over 40 are bad - (as are all Dems) but under 40... she's perhaps the most popular political figure in America.
The ONLY thing that stops her in 2016 is her decision not to run. If she wants it - it's hers for the taking (the Dem nomination that is)
UNI88 wrote:Not so fast on the Clinton 16 campaignWedgebuster wrote:Hillary Clinton is riding a huge wave of popularity and world respect towards her eventual candidacy, nomination and election as the next POTUS in 2016.
The unlikelihood of President Hillary - She's most popular at a distance from the White House
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012 ... -elections" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The public seems to like Hillary a lot better when she's far removed from the presidency. The closer she gets the more distrust she evokes. When she ran in 2008, her popularity sagged. That's how she managed to lose a nomination that most people assumed was hers for the taking.
She is easier for people to take in the role of diplomat than politician. When she lectures dictators at the United Nations, voters tend to approve. When she lectures audiences in Iowa, they tend to bristle.
I, personally, am doing fine. It's not ME I'm worried about. It's a country being run by people who have no care for the people they govern, only in maintaining, increasing and strengthening their grip on power and money. And FYI, I watch more CNN than Fox.Wedgebuster wrote:We are enjoying the best days of our lives.
Quit watching Fox News Z, and start to live YOUR life again, if you just can't bring yourself to find tranquility, then for cripes sakes go see a doctor about it, maybe there is a pill that can help you (besides cyanyde).
Whiny conk bitches need to have some warm milk and cookies before they give themselves the vapors.CitadelGrad wrote:Eight hours. That's how long the attack lasted. That is almost how long they were calling for air support. That is almost how long they were sending out real-time communications to CIA, DoS, DoD, Africom and that big-ass carrier battle group we had in the Med. That is almost how long we had drones, armed and unarmed overhead, providing live video feeds to Washington. Eight. ****. Hours.TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
No... but the other party trying to score cheap political points off of a national tragedy tends to. The rational people left in the room see this for what it is... a partisan attack.
There are needs for answers on what happened in Libya - and she was 100% right in saying our priority ought to be figuring out what happened and how to secure our embassies to prevent it happening again. The why matters far less - unless you are on a partisan fishing trip - looking for **** to tack on to a weak narrative calling this administration "weak"... (which in and of itself is a complete farce)
WTF was Obama doing during those eight **** hours? Answer me that, you **** common party hack.
So what were Obama, Petraeus, Clinton and Panetta doing during those eight hours?houndawg wrote:Whiny conk bitches need to have some warm milk and cookies before they give themselves the vapors.CitadelGrad wrote:
Eight hours. That's how long the attack lasted. That is almost how long they were calling for air support. That is almost how long they were sending out real-time communications to CIA, DoS, DoD, Africom and that big-ass carrier battle group we had in the Med. That is almost how long we had drones, armed and unarmed overhead, providing live video feeds to Washington. Eight. ****. Hours.
WTF was Obama doing during those eight **** hours? Answer me that, you **** common party hack.
Foreign service is a dangerous business and all those who volunteer know that we lose some people every year.
It's a shame we lost them. It's a shame we out our own CIA agents too.
Good question. Again, why didn't the congressmen press her more on this issue?CitadelGrad wrote:So what were Obama, Petraeus, Clinton and Panetta doing during those eight hours?houndawg wrote:
Whiny conk bitches need to have some warm milk and cookies before they give themselves the vapors.
Foreign service is a dangerous business and all those who volunteer know that we lose some people every year.
It's a shame we lost them. It's a shame we out our own CIA agents too.
We realize there are foreign enemies who target our foreign service personnel. Apparently, those enemies are sometimes assisted by people at the highest level of our government.
Those folks are simply going to hell.dbackjon wrote:It is funny all of these people that claim the country is going to hell, but personally, they are doing great - so who is it that is going to hell (besides Catholic archbishops, that is)
If you have an (R) next to your name, you're still going to have to do a little time in Purgatory Wedgie.Wedgebuster wrote:Those folks are simply going to hell.dbackjon wrote:It is funny all of these people that claim the country is going to hell, but personally, they are doing great - so who is it that is going to hell (besides Catholic archbishops, that is)
It is the dyed in the wool republicans that are going to hell in a handbasket.
Big difference there I bet, but I won't be finding out since everybody knows I am not a dyed in the wool republican.
I feel sorry for Z and all though, handbaskets sound awfully cramped.
Playing strip poker and smoking swisher sweets.CitadelGrad wrote:So what were Obama, Petraeus, Clinton and Panetta doing during those eight hours?
It's a shame we lost them, yes. It's a fucking travesty that their loss could have been avoided. THAT is the issue. That you're too blind, dumb and stupid to see that isn't all that surprising.houndawg wrote:Whiny conk bitches need to have some warm milk and cookies before they give themselves the vapors.CitadelGrad wrote:
Eight hours. That's how long the attack lasted. That is almost how long they were calling for air support. That is almost how long they were sending out real-time communications to CIA, DoS, DoD, Africom and that big-ass carrier battle group we had in the Med. That is almost how long we had drones, armed and unarmed overhead, providing live video feeds to Washington. Eight. ****. Hours.
WTF was Obama doing during those eight **** hours? Answer me that, you **** common party hack.
Foreign service is a dangerous business and all those who volunteer know that we lose some people every year.
It's a shame we lost them. It's a shame we out our own CIA agents too.
You are just PLAYING stupid, aren't you?dbackjon wrote:It is funny all of these people that claim the country is going to hell, but personally, they are doing great - so who is it that is going to hell (besides Catholic archbishops, that is)
AZGrizFan wrote:It's a shame we lost them, yes. It's a **** travesty that their loss could have been avoided. THAT is the issue. That you're too blind, dumb and stupid to see that isn't all that surprising.houndawg wrote:
Whiny conk bitches need to have some warm milk and cookies before they give themselves the vapors.
Foreign service is a dangerous business and all those who volunteer know that we lose some people every year.
It's a shame we lost them. It's a shame we out our own CIA agents too.
And those that WERE close to the events spent the next 4 months lying out their asses about what really happened...trying to get everyone to focus on the CHANGES they're making and catching the bad guys, and getting the focus OFF the massive fuckups and cluster fuck that is the State Dept in general.houndawg wrote:AZGrizFan wrote:
It's a shame we lost them, yes. It's a **** travesty that their loss could have been avoided. THAT is the issue. That you're too blind, dumb and stupid to see that isn't all that surprising.
20/20 hindsight by those who were nowhere near the events.
AZGrizFan wrote:And those that WERE close to the events spent the next 4 months lying out their asses about what really happened...trying to get everyone to focus on the CHANGES they're making and catching the bad guys, and getting the focus OFF the massive **** and cluster **** that is the State Dept in general.houndawg wrote:
20/20 hindsight by those who were nowhere near the events.
In the real world most of us inhabit, the "why" is very important to determining the "how". Aren't the causes of the attack paramount to this prevention Madame Secretary was talking about?TwinTownBisonFan wrote:No... but the other party trying to score cheap political points off of a national tragedy tends to. The rational people left in the room see this for what it is... a partisan attack.AZGrizFan wrote:
Yeah, getting ambassadors killed apparently does wonders for your approval rating.
There are needs for answers on what happened in Libya - and she was 100% right in saying our priority ought to be figuring out what happened and how to secure our embassies to prevent it happening again. The why matters far less - unless you are on a partisan fishing trip - looking for **** to tack on to a weak narrative calling this administration "weak"... (which in and of itself is a complete farce)
Fully? Uh... NO. I imagine this fits neatly into your own little narrative, but House Dems voted 82-126 and Senate Dems voted 29-21 in favor of the boondoggle. In contrast, just 2% of Republicans (House or Senate) voted against the Iraq War Resolution.ASUG8 wrote:Dems were fully behind an Iraqi invasion post 9/11, then played Monday morning QB and said "they didn't have all the facts".
No, it is still funny, in a Keystone Cops kind of way of way.... getting slapped around by girls must take these guys back to their grade school playground days.SDHornet wrote:Disgusting all the way around. No excuse for allowing an ambassador to get offed. No excuse for not sending anyone to save their asses in the time it took for the islamists to finally kill them. Also no excuse for the board/politicians not being more pressing during this thing. No excuse for Hillary not owning up to this (the buck stops at her desk on this). After all that, I hate to say it but Hillary completely turned the tables during this thing and embarrassed the Repubs yet again. Repubs just can't get anything right, wafj they have really become. They are getting pwned at every turn and it isn't even funny anymore, its just embarrassing.
Clearly you don't mean Hillary. Everyone knows she is a he.houndawg wrote:No, it is still funny, in a Keystone Cops kind of way of way.... getting slapped around by girls must take these guys back to their grade school playground days.SDHornet wrote:Disgusting all the way around. No excuse for allowing an ambassador to get offed. No excuse for not sending anyone to save their asses in the time it took for the islamists to finally kill them. Also no excuse for the board/politicians not being more pressing during this thing. No excuse for Hillary not owning up to this (the buck stops at her desk on this). After all that, I hate to say it but Hillary completely turned the tables during this thing and embarrassed the Repubs yet again. Repubs just can't get anything right, wafj they have really become. They are getting pwned at every turn and it isn't even funny anymore, its just embarrassing.
Once again the Republicans revert to their traditonal brand of miserable failure in their desperate attempt to appear relevant.
Alas, going off half-cocked in these situations rarely has the desired outcome. See Desert 1, WMD, Lebannon, etc...cooler heads prevailed and likely saved a much higher body count by avoiding walking into a trap.
All this feeble attempt at the blame game did was point out how embarrassingly inept certain Republican senators are. Anybody think that asscclown from VA will get reelected after the pimp-slapping Hillary gave him?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCVZlLBchVE[/youtube]biobengal wrote:Fully? Uh... NO. I imagine this fits neatly into your own little narrative, but House Dems voted 82-126 and Senate Dems voted 29-21 in favor of the boondoggle. In contrast, just 2% of Republicans (House or Senate) voted against the Iraq War Resolution.ASUG8 wrote:Dems were fully behind an Iraqi invasion post 9/11, then played Monday morning QB and said "they didn't have all the facts".
Cool story, bro. Does the fact that her inquisitors failed to ask the right questions make the SoS oversights go away?houndawg wrote:AZGrizFan wrote:
And those that WERE close to the events spent the next 4 months lying out their asses about what really happened...trying to get everyone to focus on the CHANGES they're making and catching the bad guys, and getting the focus OFF the massive **** and cluster **** that is the State Dept in general.
Where were all these hard-hitting questions when she was testifying? She mopped the floor with those pussy conk Senators.
