I seem to remember her and Barry almost coming to fisticuffs in the 2007/2008 election campaign. Mudslinging and name calling. - Then they decided to let her be ambassador to calm her down some.
there is NOTHING the Clintons wont do for power, that is obvious.
Hillary shows the entitlement mentality of the left, she thinks its hers and she is owed the nomination. She is going to have a hard road to hoe so to speak as her shame on you Obama line is played over and over and her a part of his administration.
Same election as last time. Nothing changed after 5 years with 3 more to go.
Oh great: War on Women, income equality, abortions and gay rights.
and the country goes done the toilet.
i thought you would get a kick out of the "biatch" line.
i knew i would regret saying the "H" name. as evidenced by her history...she is not above doing anything...and i mean anything in which to acheive her goals. the problem is i think she is more in love with her persona than Obama is with his. it has been proven that he, like Billy Jeff, has an eye for the ladies...although Obama appears to prefer blondes while Bill gets off(pun intended) on brunettes and their dresses (pun intended) much to Hillary's chagrin.
aid to many countries on the continent of Africa and have made minimal impact over the past 50 years. there is no way short of a take-over and management by our government for them to see an effective change. take a look at the history of many of those countries when they were governed by other nations...namely europeans. when they were liberated from being colonial entities, you see which way they turned when given the chance to govern themselves. corruption and dictators thrived under those circumstances. there are just some things that can't be fixed and many do-gooders are too hard-headed to accept that fact.
asknot...we can talk about them all we want, but that may only really appeal to Fred as he seems to justify his posts by reciting history. there is nothing wrong in that but justification for continuing bad policies and just saying..."well look at what they did" is absurd. the thing about Syria is that he painted himself into a corner and had to find a way out and did so in a rather slimy way by trying to lie. this president must think everyone is so insanely in love with him that he can treat us like his biatch and blatantly lie then think he will get away with it. i do not dwell on the bad decisions i have made in the past and i wished that others would not cloud the garbage going on today by being mired in the past. regarding terrorists hating us...they seem to hate everyone but themselves...it has nothing to do with us per se. they are like ground hornets...one wrong move and you are toast. intervention in world politics is tricky to say the least. we have been sending
step up and be prepared to make the hard calls. we need someone cold, hard and ruthless...sounds like Hillary...egad..better go back to bed...it must be a nightmare. stay warm!!!
perceived as the policeman of the world has its own set of problems. mainly...when do we intercede and when do we allow the events to take their course? we are undoubtedly the leader when it comes to humanitarian aid as well as putting our men and women in harms way to either benefit ourselves or our friends and neighbors in the world. i do believe the president mentioned in his oath his solemn duty to protect the U.S. from enemies within and abroad...not provide welfare to its citizens. when handing out the blame for excessive military speanding, please do not forget there is another party that doesn't mind dipping into the military complex trough for their own benefit. the big question that always looms is when do we exercise our might and influence in sovereign countries activities and when do we stay on the sideline. unfortunately not everyone can sit on the political fence and only make the easy decisions. hard decisions always come with conseqences. we need strong leaders to st
good morning asknot...feel free to utilize as many comment blocks as you need to express your thoughts. i can read and comprehend fairly quickly...depending on the time of day. i am somewhat dismayed that the problems that we are going through now are always compared to the administration before rather than against where we would like to see them go. other than changing to more of a covert war and trying to keep his hands from being perceived as bloody, this administration has seemed to be focued on gaining a concensus from the world which is ineffective to say the least. we can all sit around and discuss the mess or someone can step in and clean it up. his appeasement form of leadership in world has made us appear very weak. in times of crisis, everyone migrates to stength and confidence. you can hardly say this is the case with this administration. no need to compare with previous...just read the opinions from the nations newspapers from around the world...and you have. being percei
asknot...your assessment may untimately turn out to be the case. so what in your mind warrants, from this administration, the perpetuation and escalation of the many policies that have been continued as well as the problems in Africa...et al? the current administration does not have a stellar track record in regards to international management. if anything we appear to have allowed our postition in the world to be degraded and yes i do believe we should be the number one nation...period.
moderation, the right must be the only ones that "poop" since you rarely if ever seem to call out the venerable left on their mistakes. anyway....thank you, but like you, i just offer a viewpoint and it is as important as anyone elses. i appreciate your input and have ever since i began posting to this site.
fair enough. back to the game...brrrrrr.
lts- I think you are doing a fine job of educating the left by yourself. By the way, I am not as liberal as you like to suggest.But if something smells like poop,I will call it poop.
bengals-charger game...sorry about that.
difference...they are not in power but he is.
*mere....happy fingers sorry. man that bengals-cincy game sure looks nasty...weather-wise.
no... what i am saying is that Saddam did have weapons of mass destruction by todays liberal definition for weapons of mass destruction. do you disagree? it was admitted after the fact that 90-95% of his chemical weapons had been accounted for. would you say that a meer minimum 5% of a rather large supply would be harmful? either way... i am not offering justification, just clarification of a term. now if the term only applies to chemical, biological and nuclear weapons then you may wish to educate your left leaning friends as they have hi-jacked the definition to further their agenda.
700 Channel Lane , Marietta, OH 45750 | 740-373-2121