Fresh?Recycling the same people who have been around for decades, is
not a fresh start.Many people would love the opportunity to serve
their country.Let's share the opportunities, and see some new
Worf-Couldn't agree with you more. Lots of talented people out
there. Let's hope they get a good look.
The next President thanks to the tea party.
A review of her past service, well . . . at this point what difference does it
make?!Why wasn't there a mention of Benghazi in the article, or
did I miss it?The thought of her as president is FRIGHTENING!
Hillary will need a new new slogan about Benghazi, Obamacare, Whitewater,
cattlegate, etc.: "Hope and change the subject."
this is the best libs have to offer? she has no chance. way to much baggage.
there is much that the american public don't know about billy's wife,
but will as things heat up.
As far as the statement that "in my mind, we have a different Hillary",
that is not so. As with almost all politicians with maybe Abe Lincoln being a
notable exception, it is a matter of image projection. Hillary has never changed
from the moment that she set eyes on Bill at Yale Law School. She has the same
agenda and has been locked into her goal of the presidency from that very
Why would Hillary want to shift direction? Who do you think she is? . . . Mitt
Romney? Hillary doesn't flip flop like a dying carp.Her past
Iraq-war stance isn’t relevant. As a result of GW Bush's WMD
scandal, millions of Americans including Ms Clinton, were mislead into
believing a war against Iraq was absolutely essential for America's
defense.You do remember the WMD scandal don't you? It
originated from faulty intelligence and resulted in a trillion dollars lost,
thousands of brain trauma cases, the complete destabilization of the Middle East
to the detriment of America, over a hundred thousand dead Iraqis, and over FOUR
THOUSAND dead American service members.To refresh your memory, the
WMD scandal is similar to the Benghazi scandal where four Americans died . . .
But it's over a THOUSAND times worse.Remember now?Hillary has too much integrity to change her stance on substantive issues just
to get votes. Why should she? She already reflects the pragmatic, can-do spirit
of most Americans.Hillary is no dying carp. You’ll find them
on the other side of the aisle.
@bungalow and GaryOWell Said.
Ok conservatives. Yes we know that Hilary has a terrible record for letting bad
things happen while she was Secretary of State. However, you forget that we
have a complicit media that will ignore any blemishes that she has, but will be
an unpaid propaganda arm for her. The only way to defeat Hilary is to have
somebody that the media loves more, and in that case I really would worry about
the type of person they would pick.To "GaryO" If you do some
searches, WMDs were found in Iraq. The problem is that they were finding small
supplies, and not a big wearhouse full like the media would like to report
on.To "bungalow" since brought up deficits, lets use the
same year 2000 debt as a comparison point for deficits. In 8 years bush took
the debt went from $5.5 Trillion to $9.9 Trillion. That is a 80% increase.
Using the same year as comparison, Obama has raised the debt to $17.2 Trillion
with 3 years left. That is a 132% increase in 5 years.Obama's
track record is looking really poor.The big question for you and
your liberal friends is this. What has Obama done differently than Bush?
To "bungalow" tell us what Obama has done differently than Bush. You
obviously hate Bush, and will follow the Democrat party line no matter what. I
would like you to step back, and tell us what Obama has done that is any
different than what Bush did. The only difference I can find is the magnitude
of the choices.The Republicans have little chance of winning unless
they can articulate why they are different from the Democrats. Bush is a
Progressive, and if we had elected McCain in place of Obama, we would still be
headed to the same end that Obama is. The only difference is that the GOP will
take 20 years to go where the Democrats went in 5.Do you want to
walk or run to socialism? That is the question, and that is why the Republicans
need to run a canidate that is not just a "Lite" version of the
Democrats, but is a libertarian to run in opposition to the Progressive
Redshirt, contrary to what you prefer to believe, no WMD's were found in
Iraq. Some yellow cake uranium was found, but even if they had tons of that
stuff, it wouldn't make a good dirty bomb.The closest thing to
a WMD found in Iraq was a bottle of drain cleaner underneath Saddam's
kitchen sink."What has Obama done differently than Bush?"
Well, just look at the facts, and you tell me.Clinton left Bush a
country at peace, with a recent history of balanced budgets, a pretty good
economy, strong international allies, and a solid revenue stream. GW
left Obama a country simultaneously involved in two very expensive and possibly
fruitless wars, a history of massive budget deficits, a doubling of the debt,
estranged former allies, and complete financial devastation.Now,
under Obama's administration, the country is on the upswing again, in spite
of massive obstructionism on the part of Right Wing ideologues.Things are looking up. And things will look a lot better after we vote out the
obstructionists and replace them with sensible peopleOh . . . and no
sky scrapers have come tumbling down lately either. That only happens under
To "bungalow" actually, you are wrong.Bush had negociated to
pull out of Iraq in 2007. See the "U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces
Agreement" signed by Bush in November 2008. That required the US combat
troops to be out of Iraq by December 16, 2011.Obama didn't have
BinLaden tracked down. Bush had set that in motion back in 2001. Bush tracked
down and got Saddam.So what has Obama done to get those jobs added?
The jobs that have been added have not kept up with the population increase.
Obama has the lowest job participation rate since Jimmy Carter. That means that
the percent of working age people is lower today, than it has been since early
1978.Domestic oil production has soard on PRIVATE lands. Government
lands are more locked up than ever. Obama has been hindering US oil production.
Gas prices under Obama have nearly doubled since he was sworn in.Solar, that is a great one. Obama is following the Spain example. They lost
2.2 jobs for every "green energy" job created. I don't think that
is a big selling point.So again, what has he done differently than
Bush. They have both been lackluster on every front.
To "GaryO" actually, WMDs were found.Pay close attention to
the WikiLeaks article."Troops 'foil Iraq nerve gas
bid'" July 2, 2004"US did find Iraq WMD" NY Post October
25, 2004"Iraqi Nerve Gas, WMD Find Blows Away Pundits" NewsMax,
May 17, 2004"WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq – With
Surprising Results" Wired October 23, 2010"Iraq mortar shells
contain blister agent" USA Today January 11, 2004"Bomb said to
hold deadly sarin gas explodes in Iraq" MSNBC May 17, 2004"Sarin,
Mustard Gas Discovered Separately in Iraq" Fox New May 17, 2004"Hundreds of WMDs discovered in Iraq" WorldNetDaily June 21, 2006"Initial tests of Iraqi chemicals show nerve agent" CNN April 27,
2003They point to a lot of chemical agents being found.
Redshirt, first of all, most of the sites you listed are not legit.The NY Post and FOX "News," for example, are both owned by Rupert
Murdoch, a would-be plutocrat, whose collection of Right Wing propaganda mills
churn out misinformation and opinion designed to create and sustain pliable
citizens who will support a corporatist Right Wing Agenda.And
WikiLeaks is incredible . . . as in not at all credible.News Max and
World Net Daily are completely disconnected with reality. I never said that
nonfactual right-wing sights are not omnipresent on the net.MSNBC
quoted someone as having said something? Good for them, but hardly proof of
WMD's. You say CNN said "Initial tests of Iraqi chemicals
show nerve agent?" "Initial tests?" What did the final tests
say?Sure, it's possible that shells from way back when may have
gotten lost. After all, WWI mustard gas shells are still being dug up in Europe
. . . But was Iraq a WMD threat in 2003?No way.So far,
you have provided no legitimate sources that support your claims. And GW's
WMD scandal still racks up damage to this nation.
Redshirt, I checked on your wikileaks claim.Wikileaks made no such
claim. Right Wing "News" organizations and bloggers claimed that
Wikileaks made that claim . . . But of course those Right Wing "News"
organizations and bloggers misrepresented the facts.CBS news tells
all about what Wikileaks found in this article: "WikiLeaks Iraq War Logs: No
Evidence of Massive WMD Caches"
Don't be fooled!The media will decide our next president,
because our public is easily persuaded.If they wanted Lady
GaGa,--the American people could be talked into voting her in. If they want
Hillary, that's who they'll get in.Any decent person would
be victimized, and our people would fall for it. Sorry folks, but
that's the way it is. We have no say.
To "GaryO" no matter what, you have to admit that WMDs were found.
Granted it wasn't the wearhouse full of freshly manufactured weapons, but,
as they found there were mustard gas shells found. You should read the Senate
report. The confirmed that indeed WMDs were found. They also found that no new
chemicals were being manufactured, but there were still WMDs being found
throughout the country.