Clinton vs. Who?

[Guest]

Even with all the baggage she carries, we all know it is almost a certainty that Mrs. Clinton will be the Democratic candidate.

Now there are 15 GOP candidates. Let's have some serious discussion on who would be electable over Hillary. It will have to be someone who can get a lot of the youth vote, a good percentage of the black and other minority vote, and almost all the women votes.

Walker is out, Cruz is out, Rubio?, Bush with the Bush name baggage?, Santourom- not for women. Trump - not electable.

I say Bush has the best chance.

[Guest]

I sure there will be more democraps crawl out from under rocks to challenge toxic Hillary for the nomination. I sure there ringer in the making some where.

[Guest]

It might a surprise to some that Carly Fiorina is playing well with young voters.
Politics is a strange animal and highly susceptible to even the most benign news.

Other Democratic candidates are running because the DNC doesn't want to put all their eggs in one basket.

While it is inconceivable for me to believe that people would vote for Clinton because she has done little to qualify and much damage while Secretary and we haven't even gotten to talk about her moral character. Haven't said that thee are simply too many lazy voters who cannot get beyond name recognition

Bush seems to be the favorite on the Republican side but in my mind he is too much a moderate. He could get a lot of the Hispanic vote.

Still too early in my mind to call a leading candidate


Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

I sure there will be more democraps crawl out from under rocks to challenge toxic Hillary for the nomination. I sure there ringer in the making some where.

A barftroll makes his appearance.

[Guest]

I still do not understand why so many democrats so readily pronounce that Clinton is "most likely" their candidate.

Forget party, how can she be an acceptable let alone most likely candidate given all the issues including poor performance as secretary of state.

It certainly cannot be she is viewed as the only candidate that can carry the "young" vote...because she isn't. Or that she is the only candidate that can carry the female vote....because she is not.

So why do the democrats, at least at this point, so readily accept a person of tarnished character, that did a very poor job of secretary of state and whose honesty is openly suspect.

I object to requests asking to comparisons of republican candidates who can beat the spoiled merchandise of the democratic choosing....for now.

Try and remember she was the fair haired candidate in 2008 and was beat out by a relatively unknown, inexperienced and unqualified dark horse!

[Guest]

I still do not understand why so many democrats so readily pronounce that Clinton is "most likely" their candidate.

Forget party, how can she be an acceptable let alone most likely candidate given all the issues including poor performance as secretary of state.

It certainly cannot be she is viewed as the only candidate that can carry the "young" vote...because she isn't. Or that she is the only candidate that can carry the female vote....because she is not.
So why do the democrats, at least at this point, so readily accept a person of tarnished character, that did a very poor job of secretary of state and whose honesty is openly suspect.

I object to requests asking to comparisons of republican candidates who can beat the spoiled merchandise of the democratic choosing....for now.

Try and remember she was the fair haired candidate in 2008 and was beat out by a relatively unknown, inexperienced and unqualified dark horse!

Nice job of deflecting the question but let's get back to the question.

Which of the 15 GOP candidates has the very best chance of winning over Mrs. Clinton?

[Guest]

Nice job of deflecting the question but let's get back to the question.

Which of the 15 GOP candidates has the very best chance of winning over Mrs. Clinton?

I believe the poster was suggesting that ANY or ALL can beat her, and not deflecting at all.

[Guest]

Nice job of deflecting the question but let's get back to the question.

Which of the 15 GOP candidates has the very best chance of winning over Mrs. Clinton?
Mathmatically no GOP candidate that suggests making the tough decisions that have to be made can win. The country is well beyond that tipping point. Can Bush out promise Hilary is the only relevant question. Remember what wins elections in the USA now and it is not "What can I do for my country".

[Guest]

Even though I am a registered Democrat, I vote the person, not the party. I only vote for Governors who have been successful at turning their state around to the positive side. That rules out Hillary for me. Unless we get a Democratic Governor to run, I will vote Republican next time.

[Guest]

Nice job of deflecting the question but let's get back to the question.

Which of the 15 GOP candidates has the very best chance of winning over Mrs. Clinton?

I believe the poster was asking the more relevant question - why are the democrats so willing to put blinders on to accept only one candidate....and so soon in the process? It seems many of us on the other side of the aisle are willing to wait out the process, keep our eyes and ears open, and educate ourselves before making such an important decision. The Clinton supporters make this out to be some kind of child's game where the only purpose is to win at any cost. When so much in our country, and in the world for that matter, is at stake, I don't care to look at it as a game. It's not about winning or losing, it's about making an intelligent decision based on the facts gathered before casting one's vote.

[Guest]

Even though I am a registered Democrat, I vote the person, not the party. I only vote for Governors who have been successful at turning their state around to the positive side. That rules out Hillary for me. Unless we get a Democratic Governor to run, I will vote Republican next time.

I appreciate your reply and I should have referred in my previous post not "why are the democrats so willing to put blinders on...." but "why are liberals.....". I apologize for that. As a Republican, I agree with your thinking about voting the person, not the party. I know many Democrats who feel as you do. I hope for the sake of your party and the country, that one of the Democratic governors as you describe does step out. Those in your party deserve a better choice of candidates. Heck, I might even take a look at a candidate like that! Actually, that is what I have been trying to say all along - wouldn't it be great to have 2 upstanding, proven leaders with integrity from which to choose - one from each party? With the moral degeneration of politics as a whole over the last few decades, it almost seems too much to ask.

[Guest]

A barftroll makes his appearance.


O I'm sorry did I offend the blind indoctrinated liberal sheep. Baa :eclipsee_gold_cup:

[Guest]

Even though I am a registered Democrat, I vote the person, not the party. I only vote for Governors who have been successful at turning their state around to the positive side. That rules out Hillary for me. Unless we get a Democratic Governor to run, I will vote Republican next time.


Can you name one democrat governor that actually turned a state around?

[Guest]

Maybe just maybe, Democrat governors didn't have to turn their states around like Republican governors did. What does turning your state mean cutting every program that help the poor, and lower middle class?

I am an independent. However, the Republicans have gone so far to the right that a moderate can't even consider voting for them. How can that be good for the Republican party?

I am not fond of Hillary. If a Republican governor that accepted Medicaid funds under the Affordable Care Act gets the nomination, I will vote for him. You know that governor has the best interest of his citizens in mind; rather than what his party thinks.

You want to talk about lazy people try people that only listen to Fox News. Those people aren't looking for both sides of an argument. They are looking for what passes for news that confirms their warped view of the government as it exists today. Someone is going to have to turn this road to nowhere around. That means talking to the other party. You know the good old days of Reagan, and O'Neil.

[Guest]

Maybe just maybe, Democrat governors didn't have to turn their states around like Republican governors did. What does turning your state mean cutting every program that help the poor, and lower middle class?

I am an independent. However, the Republicans have gone so far to the right that a moderate can't even consider voting for them. How can that be good for the Republican party?

I am not fond of Hillary. If a Republican governor that accepted Medicaid funds under the Affordable Care Act gets the nomination, I will vote for him. You know that governor has the best interest of his citizens in mind; rather than what his party thinks.

You want to talk about lazy people try people that only listen to Fox News. Those people aren't looking for both sides of an argument. They are looking for what passes for news that confirms their warped view of the government as it exists today. Someone is going to have to turn this road to nowhere around. That means talking to the other party. You know the good old days of Reagan, and O'Neil.

You lost me, and I am sure others, when you mention Fox news. THAT is a dead giveaway as to how you work. You have seriously been indoctrinated and are unable to discuss facts because as all of those who seem to mention that, you have no idea of what is happening and have been told that going after a network is how to do it. No network changes the news...it is not hidden. Using a network to make your point is a bit desperate and obvious.

Not a defense of Fox by any means but what ever you think a news network has to do with ANYTHING is beyond me.

Secondly, if you have children or grandchildren, I suggest you do some investigation on where the Affordable Care Act is going to take our states and the federal budget in the future....I am sure you are aware it has not all kicked in as of yet.

Too late to repeal but it needs some serious work to save future disaster.

If you do not have children or grandchildren and do not care, sorry.

It has been said, and proven and not on Fox news, that the Democratic party is going so far left and then accusing the Republicans of going right. YES..the distance between them is greater but only one party is moving.

I suggest strongly that you read about your candidates..the two major ones and their radical backgrounds and their sharp turn left. Might help you a bit.

Sanders is so very very far left, he does not even call himself a democrat because they are not liberal enough and as far left as Clinton WAS, she is running left after him. You need to change those glasses

[Guest]

You lost me, and I am sure others, when you mention Fox news. THAT is a dead giveaway as to how you work. You have seriously been indoctrinated and are unable to discuss facts because as all of those who seem to mention that, you have no idea of what is happening and have been told that going after a network is how to do it. No network changes the news...it is not hidden. Using a network to make your point is a bit desperate and obvious.

Not a defense of Fox by any means but what ever you think a news network has to do with ANYTHING is beyond me.

Secondly, if you have children or grandchildren, I suggest you do some investigation on where the Affordable Care Act is going to take our states and the federal budget in the future....I am sure you are aware it has not all kicked in as of yet.

Too late to repeal but it needs some serious work to save future disaster.

If you do not have children or grandchildren and do not care, sorry.

It has been said, and proven and not on Fox news, that the Democratic party is going so far left and then accusing the Republicans of going right. YES..the distance between them is greater but only one party is moving.

I suggest strongly that you read about your candidates..the two major ones and their radical backgrounds and their sharp turn left. Might help you a bit.

Sanders is so very very far left, he does not even call himself a democrat because they are not liberal enough and as far left as Clinton WAS, she is running left after him. You need to change those glasses

I'm indoctrinated. Now, that is funny. The only news program that I watch is Morning Joe. Joe Scarborough certainly is a flaming liberal. When Mika Brzezinski opens her mouth, I hit the mute button. She has nothing to offer.

You are obviously a Fox News fanatic. Viewers don't have to defend the "fair and balanced" network, because they don't watch anything else. They are all living in a bubble. They take everything they say as gospel. It would be like criticizing the Vatican. You go straight to hell.

The Five is a perfect example of what Fox thinks "fair and balanced" is. Four Republicans and one Democrat. I guess dividing by two is a problem too hard to solve.

You have no idea what Fox News has to do with anything. Republicans are going there to reinforce their own beliefs. They are not going there for news. Criticize, condemn, and complain is all that they do. They all work off the same script, and use the same buzz words. They are preprogramed before they go on the air. That is not news. You want to see how bad they are look up "Fox News hypocrisy" on the internet. We know that is not going to happen.

The Republicans haven't moved further to the right. What world have you been in since the birth of the Tea Party? The Republicans have moved so far to the right that they are off the grid. Joe Scarborough is a conservative Republican, and he is being called a RINO. Please give the Republican nomination to Ted Cruz. Bozo, the clown, could beat him.

Peoples beliefs never change over time. Then, how do you explain gay marriage? What she did in college has little to nothing to do what she thinks now. She is running on her husband's name. Rule one in politics, do anything or say anything to get elected. Then run for reelection on your record. How could any woman stay with her husband after being publically embarrassed as she was? She needs his name.

You want to fix health care, then go to single payer. Socialism! It costs the government 4 cents to process a claim and 24 cents for the insurance companies. These numbers may have changed recently. Who cares what you call it? You can reduce cost of insurance by 20% by going single payer. Who the hell are you kidding to think competition by insurance companies will reduce costs? All you are doing guaranteeing price fixing.

[Guest]

What about Ben Carson? Definitely a smart man and very talented doctor.

How would he do as President?

[Guest]

I am indoctrinated. That's too funny. The only National news program I watch is Morning Joe. Joe Scarborough is a conservative Republican, or so he thinks. When Mika Brzezinski opens her mouth, I hit the mute button. She is a flaming liberal that only wants to talk about women's issues.

The statement that a find truly unbelievable is only one party has moved, and it's the Democratic party. Where have you been since the Tea Party has sprung into existence? They have pushed the Republicans so far to the right that they are off the grid. They call Scarborough, a conservative from the Florida Panhandle, a RINO. The Tea Party is a new animal. It is one that eats it's own. If the Republican haven't moved far right, please explain Eric Cantor losing his seat. Why are all the Republican elected officials catering to the Tea Party? Answer is, because they vote.

The Fox National News organization is a problem. Whether you want to hear it or not. Republicans aren't going there for news. They are going there to confirm their own beliefs. Not all Republican fall into this category, but the majority certainly live the Fox News bubble.

"Fair and Balanced!" The Five is a perfect example of fair and balanced. It is four Republicans and one Democrat. I guess dividing by two is a math problem that is too hard to solve for the bleached blond network. You want to see hypocrisy at its finest goggle FOX News Hypocrisy. You wouldn't like what you see, that is if you have an open mind.

Concerning the ACA, Republicans are saying it's a disaster right now, and not twenty years from now, but they never back it up with facts. You want to fix health care then go single payer. Socialism! There will be no competition between insurance companies. They will fix the rates. It costs the government four cents to process a claim, and insurance companies twenty four cents. The more mistakes they make; the more money they make (cost plus). Sometimes sanity should replace Capitalism.

Bernie Sanders is pulling a George McGovern. You go to places you know will bring a big crowd. It will give the appearance that you have a real chance to become president. McGovern keep coming back to Mass. every time he wanted to feel good about his chances. He always drew a crowd of 50,000 to 100,000. Surprise! Surprise! Mass. is the only state that he won.

The first rule in politics is say anything or do anything to get elected. Then, run for reelection on your record. The only reason Hillary stayed with Clinton was the name Clinton. Her political future was more important to her than the national embracement she had to endure due to Bill's idea of a coffee break.

[Guest]

Maybe just maybe, Democrat governors didn't have to turn their states around like Republican governors did. What does turning your state mean cutting every program that help the poor, and lower middle class?

I am an independent. However, the Republicans have gone so far to the right that a moderate can't even consider voting for them. How can that be good for the Republican party?

I am not fond of Hillary. If a Republican governor that accepted Medicaid funds under the Affordable Care Act gets the nomination, I will vote for him. You know that governor has the best interest of his citizens in mind; rather than what his party thinks.

You want to talk about lazy people try people that only listen to Fox News. Those people aren't looking for both sides of an argument. They are looking for



what passes for news that confirms their warped view of the government as it exists today. Someone is going to have to turn this road to nowhere around. That means talking to the other party. You know the good old days of Reagan, and O'Neil.

Your liberal democrat, don't try to hide behind indenpendent. You are indoctrinated by abc, cbs, nbc, public school, and probably college indoctrinated also. you will not and can not think on your own. Keep drinking the koolaid. Your stupid comment about governors show your liberal intent.

[Guest]

You lost me, and I am sure others, when you mention Fox news. THAT is a dead giveaway as to how you work. You have seriously been indoctrinated and are unable to discuss facts because as all of those who seem to mention that, you have no idea of what is happening and have been told that going after a network is how to do it. No network changes the news...it is not hidden. Using a network to make your point is a bit desperate and obvious.

Not a defense of Fox by any means but what ever you think a news network has to do with ANYTHING is beyond me.

Secondly, if you have children or grandchildren, I suggest you do some investigation on where the Affordable Care Act is going to take our states and the federal budget in the future....I am sure you are aware it has not all kicked in as of yet.

Too late to repeal but it needs some serious work to save future disaster.

If you do not have children or grandchildren and do not care, sorry.

It has been said, and proven and not on Fox news, that the Democratic party is going so far left and then accusing the Republicans of going right. YES..the distance between them is greater but only one party is moving.

I suggest strongly that you read about your candidates..the two major ones and their radical backgrounds and their sharp turn left. Might help you a bit.

Sanders is so very very far left, he does not even call himself a democrat because they are not liberal enough and as far left as Clinton WAS, she is running left after him. You need to change those glasses

Dear Guest: I continue to hear the combination of Fox News and indoctrination in the same sentence which the speaker(you in this case) utilizes to denigrate both Fox News and its viewer. This appears to me to be a straw man argument. It also assumes that the Fox viewer is incapable of free thinking. If you watched Fox News you would have noted that it contains some of the best journalist around, some of whom work for the Wall Street Journal.. You would also note spirited debate between these various journalist, their guests etc.

While I dislike Bill O'Reilly's self importance demeanor one must admit he spares no democrat or republican embarassment. His points are often spot on. Megan Kelly's legal background makes her an excellent investigative journalist who is not afraid to ask the tough questions. Also excellent journalist Bret Hume and Bret Baer and let us not for the very liberal Mike Wallace's son. The Five represents both progressive and conservative views.

Could it be that Fox News is the most watched because it offers viewers a fair and balanced accounting of Washington, et al. Can it be that Fox viewers are looking for objective assessments? Does agreement connote only indoctrination or does agreement signify that what Fox reports viewers view as having the ring of truth?

Why is it, do you suppose that viewers are shunning CNN MSNBC, NBC , CBS ABC ? Why is it these stations spend more time discussing celebrities then covering Washington scandals and yet will spend days upon days beating up on conservatives?

I agree that in the field of journalism bias leaks through but we also know that the news media has always had a very liberal bent and up until Fox News came on the scene could get away with it without notice. Its why Obama the most powerful man in the world breaks presidential protocol and stoops so low as to strike out at Fox. Its like the head of a corporation picking on a file clerk in his corporation

The topic at hand is who against Clinton. I believe it is still too early to tell.

I was sent a long quiz and your answers and the weight of those answers told you who your likely choice would be. In my case 96% of my answers tracked with Marco Rubio and then the survey went down the line. The candidate not on my survey was Jeb Bush. Having said that my final decision will occur when I enter the poling booth because I want to ensure to myself that I am making my very best choice because this is a pivotal point for our nation

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

Is that Joe Biden coming into view in the rear view mirror.

More qualified than Clinton without a doubt......he has more time in the WH as an executive.....VS clinton's stint as ist lady.

His gaffes are far more acceptable than questionable ethics and dishonesty.

Is Joe the 2016 dark horse? Certainly imminently more qualified than the 2008 dark horse.

He is by far......WAY, WAY by far the more human, likeable person than Clinton or Obama.

Do I hear Run-Joe-Run chanting in the back ground?

[Guest]

It remains so funny that the Regressives are so scared of a candidacy of Hillary that they are trying to stir up 2008, Biden, and Sanders.

The Regressives KNOW that with Hillary running, ANY REGRESSIVE candidate would be blown out of the water and it WILL be another Democratic win for president.

Demographics, people, demographics! The Democratics have the demographics to win and Hamster Hair is guaranteeing that!

[Guest]

It remains so funny that the Regressives are so scared of a candidacy of Hillary that they are trying to stir up 2008, Biden, and Sanders.

The Regressives KNOW that with Hillary running, ANY REGRESSIVE candidate would be blown out of the water and it WILL be another Democratic win for president.

Demographics, people, demographics! The Democratics have the demographics to win and Hamster Hair is guaranteeing that!

I am intrigued by your continued certainty of a Clinton win. The reason being is that I have yet to find one person either Republican or Democrat that is willing to vote for her. In my family, work circle, friends, etc, I hang with some pretty mixed company, politically, and I am just not seeing what you're putting down here. Now, not to say that a Democrat will not win - I'm just not seeing the enthusiasm for Hillary. In fact, I'm seeing genuine dislike for her as a person - black, white, female, male, young and old - this is not a homogeneous group here.

[Guest]

It remains so funny that the Regressives are so scared of a candidacy of Hillary that they are trying to stir up 2008, Biden, and Sanders.

The Regressives KNOW that with Hillary running, ANY REGRESSIVE candidate would be blown out of the water and it WILL be another Democratic win for president.

Demographics, people, demographics! The Democratics have the demographics to win and Hamster Hair is guaranteeing that!

Just cut the party talking points BS and for once just answer the question.
Is it not obvious that Joe Biden is the better candidate no matter how you slice it. And the woman female argument does not fly because women will stand by an ethical-honest man long before they do a questionable character and doubtful ethics women.

Let's see you drop the script and answer the question.

[Guest]

Just cut the party talking points BS and for once just answer the question.
Is it not obvious that Joe Biden is the better candidate no matter how you slice it. And the woman female argument does not fly because women will stand by an ethical-honest man long before they do a questionable character and doubtful ethics women.

Let's see you drop the script and answer the question.


No it is not obvious that Joe Biden is the better candidate as demonstrated by ALL the polling data. Everybody loves Joe, and he should be VP for life, but women have been waiting 239 years to have a female president and won't wait any longer.

Some are forgetting that Hillary Clinton got 18 million votes in the 2008 primary and came in a very close second to Barack Obama, who won two elections with over 50% of the popular vote. Something no one has done since Ike.

Women rallied behind Obama and put him over the top when he defeated Clinton in 2008 and have been waiting patiently for eight years. Worry more about your front runner, Donald Trump, and who he will pi$$ off next.

[Guest]

No it is not obvious that Joe Biden is the better candidate as demonstrated by ALL the polling data. Everybody loves Joe, and he should be VP for life, but women have been waiting 239 years to have a female president and won't wait any longer.

Some are forgetting that Hillary Clinton got 18 million votes in the 2008 primary and came in a very close second to Barack Obama, who won two elections with over 50% of the popular vote. Something no one has done since Ike.

Women rallied behind Obama and put him over the top when he defeated Clinton in 2008 and have been waiting patiently for eight years. Worry more about your front runner, Donald Trump, and who he will pi$$ off next.

These posts get more humorous by the day.

Thought about these posters this week when our military was speaking and saying how Russia was the greatest threat to the USA, and recalling how Romney was mocked on this forum as "stuck in the fifties" and actually made fun of him on here.

It seems to be typical of some, and they overrun the logical sane liberal posters, to call people names and instead of worrying about issues, they worry about votes. They have the right to post like this, but sometimes we need to remind them just how WRONG they can be. It happens when vitrol overtakes any sanity.

[Guest]

I am laughing at you. I need to change my glass. You need to post standing up. God, in his infinite wisdom, put a button on the seat of some people pants. When they sit down, their brain shuts off. We need to know, if people are posting with a fully functional brain.

Proven that the Republican haven't moved to the right, but stayed moderate/conservative. What the hell was this moron looking at? How many moderate/conservative have lost their seats to the Tea Party? Start with Eric Cantor. Boehner won't even put bills on the floor, if they don't have Tea Party support.

The Republican candidates are all saying Obamacare is a disaster right now, and not twenty years from now. None have put anything forward, or said what parts of the law are a disaster. You think that health insurance companies are going to lose 7 million customers and not raise prices through the roof?

I only watch Morning Joe. You know Joe Scarborough, who is being called a RINO, but the Republicans haven't moved to the right. Hell no. It been proven. You get both sides of an argument.

I certainly was college indoctrinated. Bentley College of Accounting and Finance is the birth place of the far left movement toward socialism.

My comments above governors was stupid, but I haven't seen where you mentioned one as being in need of help.

[Guest]

No it is not obvious that Joe Biden is the better candidate as demonstrated by ALL the polling data. Everybody loves Joe, and he should be VP for life, but women have been waiting 239 years to have a female president and won't wait any longer.

Some are forgetting that Hillary Clinton got 18 million votes in the 2008 primary and came in a very close second to Barack Obama, who won two elections with over 50% of the popular vote. Something no one has done since Ike.

Women rallied behind Obama and put him over the top when he defeated Clinton in 2008 and have been waiting patiently for eight years. Worry more about your front runner, Donald Trump, and who he will pi$$ off next.

A LOT has changed since 2008 - I think you may find this to be true at election time in 2016.

[Guest]

No it is not obvious that Joe Biden is the better candidate as demonstrated by ALL the polling data. Everybody loves Joe, and he should be VP for life, but women have been waiting 239 years to have a female president and won't wait any longer.

Some are forgetting that Hillary Clinton got 18 million votes in the 2008 primary and came in a very close second to Barack Obama, who won two elections with over 50% of the popular vote. Something no one has done since Ike.

Women rallied behind Obama and put him over the top when he defeated Clinton in 2008 and have been waiting patiently for eight years. Worry more about your front runner, Donald Trump, and who he will pi$$ off next.

You did not answer the question.

Yes Joe Biden is the obvious better, more qualified, more ethical, more liked candidate fot POTUS.

What you stated was that the women of the USA, their first priority is to get a woman into the WH and it does not matter to the women of America whther she is ethical or honest.

You are demeaning all the democratic women of the USA when you state they will back her no matter what she has and has not done and is not the better candidate.

Really? You are drinking way too much kool aide along with your own bath water.

The polls are BS and the ones that tell you what you want to hear are the worst. They were designed to come out that way.

I will help you out. Joe Biden no matter what anybody dislikes about him is a far superior candidate that Clinton. That is the answer to the question asked.

To berate the women of America and state the polls said so is just too funny for words.

Pretty sad state of affairs for you and any others that will take a liar and a cheat and a dishonest character with ethics of question....JUST BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN!!!!!!!!

:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:
:a20::a20::a20:

[Guest]

The subject of the thread has not even been broached yet. It was WHO in the REGRESSIVES will be her opponent.

It will not be Trump the Chump, will it?

Certainly not Ben or Carly.

Santorum is a guaranteed loser. Perry is a guaranteed loser. Walker is too conservative. Bush is the only possible candidate.

Any other ideas?

[Guest]

Now to the sane Fox News defender. Some of their reporters work for The Wall Street Journal. The Wall Street Journal is a Republican leaning newspaper.. There is no surprise there. If they work for the New York Times, or Washington Post, now you have something to point to. You know that these reporters have to look at both sides of an argument. They would also have to get their articles by the editors at these two newspapers.

B. Hume and B. Baer are two excellent reporters. The Five has both progressive, and conservative views. They do, but not in equal proportion. There are four Republicans, and one Democrat. Apparently dividing by two is a problem to hard for Fox News to solve. How is 80%, 20% fair or balanced? The Democrat is constantly being constantly being shouted down from several sides at once. How is that fair or balanced? Does the Democrat get to chose what is being discussed 50% of the time? Probably not. Again how is that fair or balanced? The Five is hardly the gold standard for fair and balanced reporting.

What is the age breakdown of Fox News viewers. Aren't most of them over 50 ears old. Concerning the other stations, maybe the younger viewers are just plain fed up with what is going on in Washington, and not watching the news at all. Who could blame them? Ed Shultz, and Al Sharpton (bigot of all bigots) should not be on the air. If MSNBC is losing viewers because of these two, that makes complete sense.

Who determines what a scandal is? Benghazi is a good example. How many congressional hearing have there been on Benghazi, five? These hearings are no longer about the families of the slain Americans. They are a political attack on Hillary Clinton. How many hearing were there on the Iraq war? Four thousand Americans lost their lives there. What about their families?

President Obama is being attacked on a daily basis by more than a few Fox News reporters. Why not swing back.? What is he, Jesus Christ, so he has to turn the other cheek? They have called him every name in the book, socialist, community organizer (like that is something bad), Kenyan, liar, liar, liar, racist, communist, and dictator wannabe. He probably isn't let Afro grow out, because a crown doesn't look good on an Afro.

In your praise I noticed that you didn't mention the two male reporters on Fox and friends. The president referred to these two as potted plants. That shoe really fits. these two always have a dumbfounded look on their faces.

If you really want to see the fair and balanced news station at its finest goggle "Fox News Hypocrisy".

[Guest]

You did not answer the question.

Yes Joe Biden is the obvious better, more qualified, more ethical, more liked candidate fot POTUS.

What you stated was that the women of the USA, their first priority is to get a woman into the WH and it does not matter to the women of America whther she is ethical or honest.

You are demeaning all the democratic women of the USA when you state they will back her no matter what she has and has not done and is not the better candidate.

Really? You are drinking way too much kool aide along with your own bath water.

The polls are BS and the ones that tell you what you want to hear are the worst. They were designed to come out that way.

I will help you out. Joe Biden no matter what anybody dislikes about him is a far superior candidate that Clinton. That is the answer to the question asked.

To berate the women of America and state the polls said so is just too funny for words.

Pretty sad state of affairs for you and any others that will take a liar and a cheat and a dishonest character with ethics of question....JUST BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN!!!!!!!!

:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:
:a20::a20::a20:


Joe Biden had his chance in 2008 and couldn't break out of the pack. He finished way behind even John Edwards.

The 2016 election will be all about policies. Please list all the policies that the GOP supports that benefit women. Is it the right to choose what they do with their own bodies, the right to birth control, increasing the minimum wage, equal pay for equal work, violence against women act, freedom to marry whomever they love?

Listen to Hillary Clinton's speech tomorrow on the economy and maybe learn something.

[Guest]

A LOT has changed since 2008 - I think you may find this to be true at election time in 2016.

We will have to wait until election night to find out. If Hillary loses, I will bring the champagne to tea party headquarters and we can have a real hullabaloo, celebrating Trump's or Bush's or Walker's or whoever's win.

I hope it's a better party than the ones in 2008 and 2012 when the gang of six showed up to celebrate only to go home in tears.

[Guest]

I have observed on here that it seems the liberal posters take great delight in avoiding issues and ALWAYS have little slick mocking names for anyone in the Republican Party. Most times based on looks or some such thing.

I offer to the conservatives that henceforth Hillary Clinton be called one of the following...

The old lying frump

Big Hill

The Split Tongue Devil


your choice

Certainly should I post on TOTV, will never give her any respect. It just seems fair to do it that way.

Also noticed that the Liberal posters take great delight in making fun of other posters. Perhaps those that post from the other side might take the same tact and instead of being serious about anything, make it your objective to make as much fun of these people as possible.

After all, as they always tell everyone on here, they are the only ones that know anything, thus you cannot certainly hurt their feelings as you would a normal person.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1085976]

The 2016 election will be all about policies. Please list all the policies that the GOP supports that benefit women. Is it the right to choose what they do with their own bodies, the right to birth control, increasing the minimum wage, equal pay for equal work, violence against women act, freedom to marry whomever they love?
-------

Very easy to list all the AOWMIC (Angry Old White Men In Congress) policies that support women. There aren't any!!!

Let women have complete rights to their own bodies!

[Guest]

No it is not obvious that Joe Biden is the better candidate as demonstrated by ALL the polling data. Everybody loves Joe, and he should be VP for life, but women have been waiting 239 years to have a female president and won't wait any longer.

Some are forgetting that Hillary Clinton got 18 million votes in the 2008 primary and came in a very close second to Barack Obama, who won two elections with over 50% of the popular vote. Something no one has done since Ike.

Women rallied behind Obama and put him over the top when he defeated Clinton in 2008 and have been waiting patiently for eight years. Worry more about your front runner, Donald Trump, and who he will pi$$ off next.

Dear Guest: Democrats have an obsession with historical first's. It seems that it has been lost on them that the focus of the first black president neglected to consider qualifications. There is not one area of government that Obama has touched that is now reeling from his incompetence.

Now Democrats want another historic event by electing the first woman president but again we find their selection short on bona fides and long on irresponsibility, accountability. questionable ethical practices. A Carly Fiorina can run circles around Clinton. Please if you insist on a woman president fin one that can effectively do the job because Obama has created a widow maker for the next elected president

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1085976]

The 2016 election will be all about policies. Please list all the policies that the GOP supports that benefit women. Is it the right to choose what they do with their own bodies, the right to birth control, increasing the minimum wage, equal pay for equal work, violence against women act, freedom to marry whomever they love?
-------

Very easy to list all the AOWMIC (Angry Old White Men In Congress) policies that support women. There aren't any!!!

Let women have complete rights to their own bodies!

Dear Guest: What you speak to is the same straw man Oops better replace it with same straw woman argument.

The wage argument is such a false narrative. How do I know because I had been involved for many years in a number of states and working with various companies in these communities who shared information to determine market value. I established job description pay grades performance evaluation programs and monitored them. I worked as an operation manager and the women and men's salaries were determined by performance and annual review did not reveal any such discrimination. by the way I am a white male and I happen to believe in equal treatment and I seldom get angry

You speak of control over your bodies and as I recall roe v Wade has been around for a very long time. I also notice that America is suffering a dangerously low responsible replacement population because of low birth rates.

I will admit that I believe in life over choice but then I can only speak to my personal belief.

You speak of violence against women and I wonder why reality shows draw such a large female audience?

Most of all your argument is weak because it has nothing really to do with deciding on the best presidential candidate. In other words I view the economy, foreign policy, our defense, future sources of energy, etc to be priorities and I also believe that social issues you obsess on should be dealt at the state level


Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

[quote=Guest;1086002]

Dear Guest: What you speak to is the same straw man Oops better replace it with same straw woman argument.

The wage argument is such a false narrative. How do I know because I had been involved for many years in a number of states and working with various companies in these communities who shared information to determine market value. I established job description pay grades performance evaluation programs and monitored them. I worked as an operation manager and the women and men's salaries were determined by performance and annual review did not reveal any such discrimination. by the way I am a white male and I happen to believe in equal treatment and I seldom get angry

You speak of control over your bodies and as I recall roe v Wade has been around for a very long time. I also notice that America is suffering a dangerously low responsible replacement population because of low birth rates.

I will admit that I believe in life over choice but then I can only speak to my personal belief.

You speak of violence against women and I wonder why reality shows draw such a large female audience?

Most of all your argument is weak because it has nothing really to do with deciding on the best presidential candidate. In other words I view the economy, foreign policy, our defense, future sources of energy, etc to be priorities and I also believe that social issues you obsess on should be dealt at the state level


Personal Best Regards:


Hillary Clinton will be giving the first of many speeches on the economy tomorrow, laying out her vision for the path forward. Sorry, will get back to you with the time of speech.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1085976]

The 2016 election will be all about policies. Please list all the policies that the GOP supports that benefit women. Is it the right to choose what they do with their own bodies, the right to birth control, increasing the minimum wage, equal pay for equal work, violence against women act, freedom to marry whomever they love?
-------

Very easy to list all the AOWMIC (Angry Old White Men In Congress) policies that support women. There aren't any!!!

Let women have complete rights to their own bodies!

OK.....OK....OHKAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You have us convinced there is one plank in the Clinton platform. She is a female.
So post after post after post like the one above the priority is to get a female.....no other traits or characteristics or capabilities not required or matter.
Post after post verifies that Clinton's negative ethics, honesty and peronal issues are of no concern.

We get it.....Clinton....female....OK.

Does this mean there are no real female candidates with honor and integrity and personality in the democratic camp.

We all know that there has to be.

Why is it OK to have a flawed unethical, dishonest shrew-ish female to represent the gender?

For many of us it just does seem right to compromise principals and character to accomplish a goal.

And oh by the way some of us are also weary hearing that the only candidate that understands and adequately serve women is a woman. We all know that is not true as well.

Can you honestly say that Clinton is the best you can do to represent your party and or your gender?

I'll save you the keystrokes....we ALL know she is not. Under normal circumstances with no name on the resume' or track record her resume' would not make the first cut!

Take a look at what a black has done in almost 8 years for the blacks. Ask them if they are any better off.

Ya just gotta have more than race or gender for qualifiers.

[Guest]

Now to the sane Fox News defender. Some of their reporters work for The Wall Street Journal. The Wall Street Journal is a Republican leaning newspaper.. There is no surprise there. If they work for the New York Times, or Washington Post, now you have something to point to. You know that these reporters have to look at both sides of an argument. They would also have to get their articles by the editors at these two newspapers.

B. Hume and B. Baer are two excellent reporters. The Five has both progressive, and conservative views. They do, but not in equal proportion. There are four Republicans, and one Democrat. Apparently dividing by two is a problem to hard for Fox News to solve. How is 80%, 20% fair or balanced? The Democrat is constantly being constantly being shouted down from several sides at once. How is that fair or balanced? Does the Democrat get to chose what is being discussed 50% of the time? Probably not. Again how is that fair or balanced? The Five is hardly the gold standard for fair and balanced reporting.

What is the age breakdown of Fox News viewers. Aren't most of them over 50 ears old. Concerning the other stations, maybe the younger viewers are just plain fed up with what is going on in Washington, and not watching the news at all. Who could blame them? Ed Shultz, and Al Sharpton (bigot of all bigots) should not be on the air. If MSNBC is losing viewers because of these two, that makes complete sense.

Who determines what a scandal is? Benghazi is a good example. How many congressional hearing have there been on Benghazi, five? These hearings are no longer about the families of the slain Americans. They are a political attack on Hillary Clinton. How many hearing were there on the Iraq war? Four thousand Americans lost their lives there. What about their families?

President Obama is being attacked on a daily basis by more than a few Fox News reporters. Why not swing back.? What is he, Jesus Christ, so he has to turn the other cheek? They have called him every name in the book, socialist, community organizer (like that is something bad), Kenyan, liar, liar, liar, racist, communist, and dictator wannabe. He probably isn't let Afro grow out, because a crown doesn't look good on an Afro.

In your praise I noticed that you didn't mention the two male reporters on Fox and friends. The president referred to these two as potted plants. That shoe really fits. these two always have a dumbfounded look on their faces.

If you really want to see the fair and balanced news station at its finest goggle "Fox News Hypocrisy".

Dear Guest: If you read the Wall Street Journal and I have since 1978 you would find that their focus is on anything that affect the economy. In plain English I have seen them take both Democrats and Republicans to task . But I am not here to defend the WSJ. As to the Washington Post and the New York Times as I recollect they have had more than their fair share of journalist who have been proven to falsify their stories

If you were also honest with yourself you would have acknowledged that Obama is such a egotistical personality that unless you agree with him your on his enemies list. But what is lost on you is that the reason he strike back is because they keep catching him with his hands in the cookie jar.

You make reference to the age of Fox viewers and that begs the question do you have an age bias? And haven't you heard from enough alternative sources that many young people have been so disengaged that they have no idea how our government operates who runs our government etc etc etc

If you pay attention to The Five format you would recognize that liberal panel members get to participate in the planning of each day's format.

You reference what and who defines a scandal and claim for instance that Benghazi is just being politicized by the Republicans. But with every Obama Admin scandal the same approach is undertaken deny stall demonize make light of it. Obama Team are artful dodgers but the real credit goes to the liberal media who justify the means and let Obama 's Teams malfeasance go uncheck. There is a ring of truth to the IRS scandal, Benghazi, Clinton Charitable Foundation and Clintons intentionally destroying e-mails from her personal server to hide embarrassing and damaging facts about her Benghazi and her Foundation and the news media and people like you are complicit . Why does Obama & company continue to block such investigation if they have nothing to hide? Doesn't Occam Razor suggest that the simplest explanation is the most likely?

The non sequitur statements about Fox News again is a straw man/woman argument because Fox News is the only news outlet that has said out loud the emperor has no clothes

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

Yes, it has been shown once again that the Republicans are running scared of Hillary Clinton.

I heard on Fox News this afternoon that the Republicans are spending over a BILLION dollars in the next few months to "villify" Hillary Clinton. This will be a massive influx of negative tv ads and the ever popular robo-calls.

Yes, this was on Fox News today (Sunday, around 4 pm).

Villify was their wording, not mine.

[Guest]

Yes, it has been shown once again that the Republicans are running scared of Hillary Clinton.

I heard on Fox News this afternoon that the Republicans are spending over a BILLION dollars in the next few months to "villify" Hillary Clinton. This will be a massive influx of negative tv ads and the ever popular robo-calls.

Yes, this was on Fox News today (Sunday, around 4 pm).

Villify was their wording, not mine.

Gee, you didn't get WHO said it, or in WHAT CONTEXT ?

Could they have been discussing the NY Times article from yesterday..

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/12/us/the-best-way-to-vilify-clinton-gop-spends-heavily-to-test-it.html

Or perhaps the context was the 25 ADDITIONAL million recently raised through George Soros for the same purpose...

Soros Helps Raise Nearly $25 Million For Hillary Clinton (http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/07/soros-donations-clinton/)

Or perhaps, and sorry I have no links on this but reports are that Soros is waiting for the Republican candidate to be formulated before his next check that will be for the super packs that do the negative.

Are you really so naive, OR is your intent in implying that only Republicans are raising money for this purpose a bit skewed ?

You have to be that naive to post that

[Guest]

Forty posts and not many specifics about who in the GOP is strong enough to beat Hillary Clinton, in answer to the OP's question.

[Guest]

It seems way too early to tell what may come out between now and the Elections in November 2016.

Right now I would expect Bush vs. Clinton as both seem to have the best name recognition and are trying to pull many into their corners. Trump has a lot of name recognition but he is probably angering many more people than he is convincing to possibly vote for him. Cannot see how he can take back his many ugly expressions of his ideas.

[Guest]

I sure hope that everyone understands how stupid this thread is...1 /1/2 years ahead of an election and a year and 1/4 before a candidate is selected. NOBODY can even get close to responding

[Guest]

Yes, it has been shown once again that the Republicans are running scared of Hillary Clinton.

I heard on Fox News this afternoon that the Republicans are spending over a BILLION dollars in the next few months to "villify" Hillary Clinton. This will be a massive influx of negative tv ads and the ever popular robo-calls.

Yes, this was on Fox News today (Sunday, around 4 pm).

Villify was their wording, not mine.

I don't think anyone has to do that for her. She does a pretty good job doing that for herself.

[Guest]

Who started the war between the parties? McConnell and the Republicans made it clear from day one their goal was to make Obama a one term president. Sure, that is always the goal of the opposing party. No one has taken it to the level that McConnell, the filibuster king, did. The economy was in a free fall caused by "W", and the Republicans fought everything that Obama was doing to try to recover. There is no excuse for that. I have no problem with "W". He was a well intentioned president, who got taken to the cleaners by his closest advisors, and 9/11.

If you didn't goggle "Fox News hypocrisy", please do. Then, tell me whose hands gets caught in the cookie jar over and over. When you attack him on everything, you are bound to get some things right. When you do, blow it out of proportion, and state that his misrepresentation that you found is representative everything this president does, and will do.

Age bias? I am missing something here. I am over 65. I also stated that the youth of this country are up with the current state of Washington, and not engaged in the news. So, what is the disagreement?

Is the only disagreement that we have about The Five is the Democrat gets a say in the format? So everything else I said rings true. So, The Five is not "fair and balanced". I don't have a problem with what The Five is doing. One Democrat is better than none. I have a real problem with anyone calling Fox News (national) "fair and balanced".

Fox News leans toward the Republican party. Is there a dispute there? The liberal press calls Fox News, the mouth piece of the Republican party. That is over the top. However, Fox News calling themselves "fair and balanced" is also over the top. That statement from Fox News is a downright lie. Repeating a lie over and over doesn't turn it magically into the truth.

Who determines what the level of a scandal is? The real IRS scandal is that the IRS is not allowed to enforce the law concerning political charitable organizations 501(c)06. The law states these organizations are not allowed to preform any political actions. The IRS commissioner wants to enforce the law as written. Congress won't let him.

Concerning Hillary emails concerning Benghazi, she should have let an independent group look into her mails. Then gone over with this group what was personal and what was not. Any dispute should have gone to a neutral person. She should have seen what was coming from the fifth Benghazi congressional hearing. There is no way in hell she should have given all of her emails to Trey Gowdy. She has been running for president forever. Anything and everyone she mailed concerning her run, would have found its way to her Republican opponent. Talk about an unfair advantage, nothing like having your opponents playbook.

Maybe just maybe there is no smoking gun. You can look forever for something that isn't there, but claim that it just well hidden. We will find it even if it takes the next two presidential elections to locate it. This assumes she wins in 2016. Come on John Kasich, please announce. As I stated before, a Republican governor that accepted Medicaid under ACA will get my vote. This is a clear indication that he puts people over party.

I apologize to everyone here for getting off subject. I did discuss the subject, but not at great length.

[Guest]

Who started the war between the parties? McConnell and the Republicans made it clear from day one their goal was to make Obama a one term president. Sure, that is always the goal of the opposing party. No one has taken it to the level that McConnell, the filibuster king, did. The economy was in a free fall caused by "W", and the Republicans fought everything that Obama was doing to try to recover. There is no excuse for that. I have no problem with "W". He was a well intentioned president, who got taken to the cleaners by his closest advisors, and 9/11.

If you didn't goggle "Fox News hypocrisy", please do. Then, tell me whose hands gets caught in the cookie jar over and over. When you attack him on everything, you are bound to get some things right. When you do, blow it out of proportion, and state that his misrepresentation that you found is representative everything this president does, and will do.

Age bias? I am missing something here. I am over 65. I also stated that the youth of this country are up with the current state of Washington, and not engaged in the news. So, what is the disagreement?

Is the only disagreement that we have about The Five is the Democrat gets a say in the format? So everything else I said rings true. So, The Five is not "fair and balanced". I don't have a problem with what The Five is doing. One Democrat is better than none. I have a real problem with anyone calling Fox News (national) "fair and balanced".

Fox News leans toward the Republican party. Is there a dispute there? The liberal press calls Fox News, the mouth piece of the Republican party. That is over the top. However, Fox News calling themselves "fair and balanced" is also over the top. That statement from Fox News is a downright lie. Repeating a lie over and over doesn't turn it magically into the truth.

Who determines what the level of a scandal is? The real IRS scandal is that the IRS is not allowed to enforce the law concerning political charitable organizations 501(c)06. The law states these organizations are not allowed to preform any political actions. The IRS commissioner wants to enforce the law as written. Congress won't let him.

Concerning Hillary emails concerning Benghazi, she should have let an independent group look into her mails. Then gone over with this group what was personal and what was not. Any dispute should have gone to a neutral person. She should have seen what was coming from the fifth Benghazi congressional hearing. There is no way in hell she should have given all of her emails to Trey Gowdy. She has been running for president forever. Anything and everyone she mailed concerning her run, would have found its way to her Republican opponent. Talk about an unfair advantage, nothing like having your opponents playbook.

Maybe just maybe there is no smoking gun. You can look forever for something that isn't there, but claim that it just well hidden. We will find it even if it takes the next two presidential elections to locate it. This assumes she wins in 2016. Come on John Kasich, please announce. As I stated before, a Republican governor that accepted Medicaid under ACA will get my vote. This is a clear indication that he puts people over party.

I apologize to everyone here for getting off subject. I did discuss the subject, but not at great length.

I did the GOOGLE search you recommended, and I would not even reference any of the links provided. As well I googled LIBERAL NEWS HYPOCRISY and got the same thing; I would never consider using them as links on ANYTHING.

In both searches the results are so far left or right, that who would even read them. MEDIA MATTERS for example was set up EXCLUSIVELY AND ONLY to watch every word on Fox.

[Guest]

Who started the war between the parties? McConnell and the Republicans made it clear from day one their goal was to make Obama a one term president. Sure, that is always the goal of the opposing party. No one has taken it to the level that McConnell, the filibuster king, did. The economy was in a free fall caused by "W", and the Republicans fought everything that Obama was doing to try to recover. There is no excuse for that. I have no problem with "W". He was a well intentioned president, who got taken to the cleaners by his closest advisors, and 9/11.

If you didn't goggle "Fox News hypocrisy", please do. Then, tell me whose hands gets caught in the cookie jar over and over. When you attack him on everything, you are bound to get some things right. When you do, blow it out of proportion, and state that his misrepresentation that you found is representative everything this president does, and will do.

Age bias? I am missing something here. I am over 65. I also stated that the youth of this country are up with the current state of Washington, and not engaged in the news. So, what is the disagreement?

Is the only disagreement that we have about The Five is the Democrat gets a say in the format? So everything else I said rings true. So, The Five is not "fair and balanced". I don't have a problem with what The Five is doing. One Democrat is better than none. I have a real problem with anyone calling Fox News (national) "fair and balanced".

Fox News leans toward the Republican party. Is there a dispute there? The liberal press calls Fox News, the mouth piece of the Republican party. That is over the top. However, Fox News calling themselves "fair and balanced" is also over the top. That statement from Fox News is a downright lie. Repeating a lie over and over doesn't turn it magically into the truth.

Who determines what the level of a scandal is? The real IRS scandal is that the IRS is not allowed to enforce the law concerning political charitable organizations 501(c)06. The law states these organizations are not allowed to preform any political actions. The IRS commissioner wants to enforce the law as written. Congress won't let him.

Concerning Hillary emails concerning Benghazi, she should have let an independent group look into her mails. Then gone over with this group what was personal and what was not. Any dispute should have gone to a neutral person. She should have seen what was coming from the fifth Benghazi congressional hearing. There is no way in hell she should have given all of her emails to Trey Gowdy. She has been running for president forever. Anything and everyone she mailed concerning her run, would have found its way to her Republican opponent. Talk about an unfair advantage, nothing like having your opponents playbook.

Maybe just maybe there is no smoking gun. You can look forever for something that isn't there, but claim that it just well hidden. We will find it even if it takes the next two presidential elections to locate it. This assumes she wins in 2016. Come on John Kasich, please announce. As I stated before, a Republican governor that accepted Medicaid under ACA will get my vote. This is a clear indication that he puts people over party.

I apologize to everyone here for getting off subject. I did discuss the subject, but not at great length.

You also seem to have trouble with context and as with many, HISTORY.

McConnell comments.......

"The Facts

McConnell made his remarks in an interview that appeared in the National Journal on Oct. 23, 2010 — nearly two years after Obama was elected president. The interview took place on the eve the of the midterm elections. The interview is relatively short, so we will print it in its entirety, with key portions highlighted.

When did McConnell say he wanted to make Obama a (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/when-did-mcconnell-say-he-wanted-to-make-obama-a-one-term-president/2012/09/24/79fd5cd8-0696-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_blog.html)

I realize context and actual truth are important to you so thought I might point this out. Would you like quotes from Democrats on the eve of off year elections to balance it all out ?

He did not make that clear from day one as you state.

[Guest]

You also seem to have trouble with context and as with many, HISTORY.

McConnell comments.......

"The Facts

McConnell made his remarks in an interview that appeared in the National Journal on Oct. 23, 2010 — nearly two years after Obama was elected president. The interview took place on the eve the of the midterm elections. The interview is relatively short, so we will print it in its entirety, with key portions highlighted.

When did McConnell say he wanted to make Obama a (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/when-did-mcconnell-say-he-wanted-to-make-obama-a-one-term-president/2012/09/24/79fd5cd8-0696-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_blog.html)

I realize context and actual truth are important to you so thought I might point this out. Would you like quotes from Democrats on the eve of off year elections to balance it all out ?

He did not make that clear from day one as you state.


I forgot to add the summary from that Washington Post piece......

" The Pinocchio Test

There is no doubt that McConnell said he wanted to make Obama a one-term president. But he did not say it at the start of Obama’s term; instead, he made his comments at the midpoint, after Obama had enacted many of his preferred policies.

Perhaps, in Obama’s memory, McConnell was always uncooperative. But that does not give him and other Democrats the license to rearrange the chronology to suit the party’s talking points.

Two Pinocchios

When did McConnell say he wanted to make Obama a (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/when-did-mcconnell-say-he-wanted-to-make-obama-a-one-term-president/2012/09/24/79fd5cd8-0696-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_blog.html)

[Guest]

Who started the war between the parties? McConnell and the Republicans made it clear from day one their goal was to make Obama a one term president. Sure, that is always the goal of the opposing party. No one has taken it to the level that McConnell, the filibuster king, did. The economy was in a free fall caused by "W", and the Republicans fought everything that Obama was doing to try to recover. There is no excuse for that. I have no problem with "W". He was a well intentioned president, who got taken to the cleaners by his closest advisors, and 9/11.

If you didn't goggle "Fox News hypocrisy", please do. Then, tell me whose hands gets caught in the cookie jar over and over. When you attack him on everything, you are bound to get some things right. When you do, blow it out of proportion, and state that his misrepresentation that you found is representative everything this president does, and will do.

Age bias? I am missing something here. I am over 65. I also stated that the youth of this country are up with the current state of Washington, and not engaged in the news. So, what is the disagreement?

Is the only disagreement that we have about The Five is the Democrat gets a say in the format? So everything else I said rings true. So, The Five is not "fair and balanced". I don't have a problem with what The Five is doing. One Democrat is better than none. I have a real problem with anyone calling Fox News (national) "fair and balanced".

Fox News leans toward the Republican party. Is there a dispute there? The liberal press calls Fox News, the mouth piece of the Republican party. That is over the top. However, Fox News calling themselves "fair and balanced" is also over the top. That statement from Fox News is a downright lie. Repeating a lie over and over doesn't turn it magically into the truth.

Who determines what the level of a scandal is? The real IRS scandal is that the IRS is not allowed to enforce the law concerning political charitable organizations 501(c)06. The law states these organizations are not allowed to preform any political actions. The IRS commissioner wants to enforce the law as written. Congress won't let him.

Concerning Hillary emails concerning Benghazi, she should have let an independent group look into her mails. Then gone over with this group what was personal and what was not. Any dispute should have gone to a neutral person. She should have seen what was coming from the fifth Benghazi congressional hearing. There is no way in hell she should have given all of her emails to Trey Gowdy. She has been running for president forever. Anything and everyone she mailed concerning her run, would have found its way to her Republican opponent. Talk about an unfair advantage, nothing like having your opponents playbook.

Maybe just maybe there is no smoking gun. You can look forever for something that isn't there, but claim that it just well hidden. We will find it even if it takes the next two presidential elections to locate it. This assumes she wins in 2016. Come on John Kasich, please announce. As I stated before, a Republican governor that accepted Medicaid under ACA will get my vote. This is a clear indication that he puts people over party.

I apologize to everyone here for getting off subject. I did discuss the subject, but not at great length.


Oh and since you have such an interest in such stuff you may find this interesting....this is from about a year ago but it fits for the entire time

"The U.S. Senate failed to advance another piece of popular bipartisan legislation late Monday, and the reason tells the real story of Washington gridlock in the current Congress. To wit, Harry Reid has essentially shut down the Senate as a place to debate and vote on policy.

The Majority Leader's strategy was once again on display as the Senate failed to get the 60 votes to move a popular energy efficiency bill co-sponsored by New Hampshire Democrat Jeanne Shaheen and Ohio Republican Rob Portman. Mr. Reid blamed the defeat on Republican partisanship. But the impasse really came down to Mr. Reid's blockade against amendments that might prove politically difficult for Democrats.

Harry Reid's Senate Blockade - WSJ (http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304081804579560251530777852)

[Guest]

Who started the war between the parties? McConnell and the Republicans made it clear from day one their goal was to make Obama a one term president. Sure, that is always the goal of the opposing party. No one has taken it to the level that McConnell, the filibuster king, did. The economy was in a free fall caused by "W", and the Republicans fought everything that Obama was doing to try to recover. There is no excuse for that. I have no problem with "W". He was a well intentioned president, who got taken to the cleaners by his closest advisors, and 9/11.

If you didn't goggle "Fox News hypocrisy", please do. Then, tell me whose hands gets caught in the cookie jar over and over. When you attack him on everything, you are bound to get some things right. When you do, blow it out of proportion, and state that his misrepresentation that you found is representative everything this president does, and will do.

Age bias? I am missing something here. I am over 65. I also stated that the youth of this country are up with the current state of Washington, and not engaged in the news. So, what is the disagreement?

Is the only disagreement that we have about The Five is the Democrat gets a say in the format? So everything else I said rings true. So, The Five is not "fair and balanced". I don't have a problem with what The Five is doing. One Democrat is better than none. I have a real problem with anyone calling Fox News (national) "fair and balanced".

Fox News leans toward the Republican party. Is there a dispute there? The liberal press calls Fox News, the mouth piece of the Republican party. That is over the top. However, Fox News calling themselves "fair and balanced" is also over the top. That statement from Fox News is a downright lie. Repeating a lie over and over doesn't turn it magically into the truth.

Who determines what the level of a scandal is? The real IRS scandal is that the IRS is not allowed to enforce the law concerning political charitable organizations 501(c)06. The law states these organizations are not allowed to preform any political actions. The IRS commissioner wants to enforce the law as written. Congress won't let him.

Concerning Hillary emails concerning Benghazi, she should have let an independent group look into her mails. Then gone over with this group what was personal and what was not. Any dispute should have gone to a neutral person. She should have seen what was coming from the fifth Benghazi congressional hearing. There is no way in hell she should have given all of her emails to Trey Gowdy. She has been running for president forever. Anything and everyone she mailed concerning her run, would have found its way to her Republican opponent. Talk about an unfair advantage, nothing like having your opponents playbook.

Maybe just maybe there is no smoking gun. You can look forever for something that isn't there, but claim that it just well hidden. We will find it even if it takes the next two presidential elections to locate it. This assumes she wins in 2016. Come on John Kasich, please announce. As I stated before, a Republican governor that accepted Medicaid under ACA will get my vote. This is a clear indication that he puts people over party.

I apologize to everyone here for getting off subject. I did discuss the subject, but not at great length.

I will assume that you trust CNN, thus I got this from them and it gives a bit of an overview on the IRS situation.........which you glossed over as business as usual

IRS Scandal Fast Facts - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/18/politics/irs-scandal-fast-facts/)

I will not post it until some resolve comes from it....however, once again we have lost emails and the gal in charge refuses to testify...nothing to hide here

[Guest]

You also seem to have trouble with context and as with many, HISTORY.

McConnell comments.......

"The Facts

McConnell made his remarks in an interview that appeared in the National Journal on Oct. 23, 2010 — nearly two years after Obama was elected president. The interview took place on the eve the of the midterm elections. The interview is relatively short, so we will print it in its entirety, with key portions highlighted.

When did McConnell say he wanted to make Obama a (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/when-did-mcconnell-say-he-wanted-to-make-obama-a-one-term-president/2012/09/24/79fd5cd8-0696-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_blog.html)

I realize context and actual truth are important to you so thought I might point this out. Would you like quotes from Democrats on the eve of off year elections to balance it all out ?

He did not make that clear from day one as you state.


McConnell made himself look like a jacka$$ saying his only goal was to make Obama a one-term president. Not only did he not accomplish his one and only goal, but Obama went on to win his second election with 51% of the popular vote, making him the only president to win back-to-back elections with over 50% of the popular vote since Eisenhower.

[Guest]

I didn't gloss over anything. Did the IRS target Tea Party groups? When you put the Tea Party target on your chest, someone is going to shoot at it. The IRS thinks that they are answerable to nobody. They don't have a gun in their hands. They have a B52 loaded with smart bombs.

The law concerning 501(c)4 political charitable groups dates back to the early 50's and states that these groups can perform no political advertising/actions. There is another IRS regulation concerning activity by political action groups. In the late 50's, that was changed to no more than 50% political activity. However, the law was never changed. The IRS commissioner wants to enforce the law as written in the early 50's. There is no way that Congress to go back to the law as written. They will changed it to the way it is being enforced now, because it benefits both parties.

It was reported that McConnell had a meeting with other top Republicans prior to Obama accepting the oath of office with the purpose of how to deal with the new president. That's where they agreed to try and make a one term president. I don't know if McConnell or anybody in the Congress or President or his staff could pass the Pinocchio test. I guess you would have to look at the number of items that McConnell filibustered during that period to get an idea who is telling the truth. It is not worth the trouble.

Instead of goggling "Fox News Hypocrisy", try this. Comcast on demand, TV, The Daily Show on June 22nd. Jon Stewart has made a lot of money attacking Fox News, and the Republican party. Don't listen to what he has to say. Look at the Fox News clips that he is showing concerning the 9 deaths in SC, and the 2 policemen in New York City. Fox News reporters stated that Obama was politizing (sp) the 9 deaths in SC even before the victims were put in the ground. However, they did the same thing in the deaths of the two officers attacking both Obama and de Blasio before the first officer was put in the ground.

What problem did Reid have with the energy bill? What were the amendments? I truly don't know.

[Guest]

Missed one thing. Concerning when McConnell made the comment about making Obama a one term president, he had to know that it was reported prior to Obama's oath of office. There is such a thing as "guilt by silence". He should have said something in early 2009 about the accuracy of the report.

[Guest]

This remains just another Regressive "yap, yap, yap".

The Regressives have no candidate who can pull out a Presidential win over Sec. Clinton. Their PACs are spending up to a BILLION dollars in the next few months to run negative ads against her to "villify" her. If they thought they had a chance of winning, they would trot out their candidates with positive positions on what THEY would do instead of concentrating on finding fault in the other prime contender.

Run scared, run Regressives!

[Guest]

This remains just another Regressive "yap, yap, yap".

The Regressives have no candidate who can pull out a Presidential win over Sec. Clinton. Their PACs are spending up to a BILLION dollars in the next few months to run negative ads against her to "villify" her. If they thought they had a chance of winning, they would trot out their candidates with positive positions on what THEY would do instead of concentrating on finding fault in the other prime contender.

Run scared, run Regressives!

Self satisfying, self gratification BS!

[Guest]

I didn't gloss over anything. Did the IRS target Tea Party groups? When you put the Tea Party target on your chest, someone is going to shoot at it. The IRS thinks that they are answerable to nobody. They don't have a gun in their hands. They have a B52 loaded with smart bombs.

The law concerning 501(c)4 political charitable groups dates back to the early 50's and states that these groups can perform no political advertising/actions. There is another IRS regulation concerning activity by political action groups. In the late 50's, that was changed to no more than 50% political activity. However, the law was never changed. The IRS commissioner wants to enforce the law as written in the early 50's. There is no way that Congress to go back to the law as written. They will changed it to the way it is being enforced now, because it benefits both parties.

It was reported that McConnell had a meeting with other top Republicans prior to Obama accepting the oath of office with the purpose of how to deal with the new president. That's where they agreed to try and make a one term president. I don't know if McConnell or anybody in the Congress or President or his staff could pass the Pinocchio test. I guess you would have to look at the number of items that McConnell filibustered during that period to get an idea who is telling the truth. It is not worth the trouble.

Instead of goggling "Fox News Hypocrisy", try this. Comcast on demand, TV, The Daily Show on June 22nd. Jon Stewart has made a lot of money attacking Fox News, and the Republican party. Don't listen to what he has to say. Look at the Fox News clips that he is showing concerning the 9 deaths in SC, and the 2 policemen in New York City. Fox News reporters stated that Obama was politizing (sp) the 9 deaths in SC even before the victims were put in the ground. However, they did the same thing in the deaths of the two officers attacking both Obama and de Blasio before the first officer was put in the ground.

What problem did Reid have with the energy bill? What were the amendments? I truly don't know.


You are hard to keep up with.

You told a bold face lie relative to McConnell...I mean bold face made up stuff. Then you say "IT WAS REPORTED"....WHERE was it reported. This is an old wives tale oft times shown to be untrue in every aspect, and instead of admitting you told a lie and apologizing for it, you continue with the revisionist history. Most, who read BOTH SIDES know it is simply democratic folk lore yet despite knowing the truth you continue to repeat.

I did the googling at your request, and again you simply glide over the stupid links it brings, and remember there are the same links on the other side. THAT I will not argue with, but repeating downright fables and then just changing the link does not work with anyone who is remotely paying attention.

IRS...as I said, key person REFUSES to cooperate....much of the evidence was destroyed, so I make no claims as you do. I assume you have good solid info about how up front everything was. Sort of like ACORN was always an upright clean cut group UNTIL.

I actually find your posts amusing...no truth and very very old tales from wherever.

Real history is more important and you have proven so many times that you have no problem positives downright lies. You must be proud

Oh, and the politicizing of this tragic deaths and others ? I disagree on some and think it very clearly apparent he did on others, but I assure you that opinions do vary, and your disregard for any opinion except yours is very telling.

And since you never ever even read about all the Reid follies in the Senate, I must dismiss you as one who is led around by a movement and not facts. I can tell you what most left wing and right wing pundits are saying this morning, and then am in the process of reading more facts from both sides of the issues.

I am mocked and made fun of for my links, but I believe in knowing both sides, and if I am going to discuss it here or anywhere, be able to tell someone where they may validate what I am saying. Mouthing one sides line must be boring...you certainly learn nothing except some revised look at an issue, whether it be right or left.

But to simply tell lies and stand by them...not sure what there is to be said.

[Guest]

Oh and for those looking for quotes, revisit this quotes posted from Hillary Clinton.

They are hate filled, and ethnic driven. THAT is the kind of language you should be worried about that comes from your heart and soul, not from political maneuvering.

"

[Guest]

Oh and for those looking for quotes, revisit this quotes posted from Hillary Clinton.

They are hate filled, and ethnic driven. THAT is the kind of language you should be worried about that comes from your heart and soul, not from political maneuvering.

"

Yap, yap, yap.

[Guest]

Oh and for those looking for quotes, revisit this quotes posted from Hillary Clinton.

They are hate filled, and ethnic driven. THAT is the kind of language you should be worried about that comes from your heart and soul, not from political maneuvering.

"

What quotes posted by Hillary Clinton?

[Guest]

"“I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.” — Hillary Clinton makes up a ridiculous, untrue story about her trip to Bosnia."

This is a link to SNOPES where they speak to a number of things this woman has said....some true some not but even if one or two is all, and it is a lot more than that....WOW..

snopes.com: Hillary Clinton Quotes (http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/hildabeast.asp)

"There’s no doubt, Hillary Clinton called Paul Fray a “f**king Jew *******.” If there were the slightest doubt, you can bet that vicious Hillary would have sicced her amoral $450-an-hour shyster David Kendall on every author, publication and news service that reported her anti-Semitic slur, regardless of how veiled and coy the media were about her vile outburst."

Hillary Clinton: (http://polidics.com/911/hillary-clintons-jew-*******.html)

In this link they show how various media reported this...

And then and remember, these are validated instances with witnesses and most importantly, remarks such as these come from a persons heart and soul and are not campaign talk....

"In one particularly shocking passage in the book, Oppenheimer quotes a campaign official who describes an angry attack by Hillary in which she screams at him, "You ****ing Jew *******!"

Two sourced eyewitnesses confirmed to Oppenheimer that they heard the verbal assault."

HIllary Jewish Slurs Claimed In New Book (http://www.rense.com/general2/hillh.htm)

The actual quote was in a book "STATE OF A UNION: INSIDE THE COMPLEX MARRIAGE OF BILL AND HILLARY CLINTON " and in the book, he says there are other witness and the man who whom she was speaking verifies it.

Hard to think about someone with this heart and this mouth being president.

But.....Like what was said......"Yap, yap, yap." A well informed and astute comment if I ever heard one

[Guest]

This thread has lost any signs of objectivity. Perhaps a breather is in order

I done with this thread

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

I lied. Then, you are operating without a clue. After you called me a liar, I goggled when did McConnell have a meeting with fellow Republicans concerning making Obama a one term president. The comment McConnell made was in 2012. Before jumping for joy, here is the rest of the story. It probably was reported on MSNBC. Where did they get this from? Probably from President Obama. Due all the obstruction in his first year, he was convinced that the meeting was held prior to his swearing in. Other Democrats were convinced that it happened 9 months into his presidency. This is what the Washington Post reported in Sept. 2012. It is logical to assume that McConnell's statement was reported early in 2009. Why would it be necessary to report on the timing of the meeting, if it hadn't been reported previously? I know. The Washington Post knew we were going to have this conversation in 2015. So, they printed the article in 2012 to cover my ass. Wow, do I wheel such power.

You did not view The Daily Show of June 22nd on Comcast on demand. There is no way in hell that you could defend the outright hypocrisy of the Fox News reporters that you praised concerning the murders of nine people in SC, and the two police in New York. There is no parallel to this anywhere given the magnitude of the murders. Wait I lied! You don't lie. You just express a different version of the truth.

I defy you to show you where I stated that the IRS didn't obstruct the hearing. What a stated TWICE is the IRS wants to enforce the laws concerning 501(c)4 political action groups as written in early 50's, and never changed. Putting word in my mouth hardly qualifies as me lying. Reading into something that isn't there seems to be a quality you are very proud of.

You want to talk about lies, something you must know a lot about because you defend the down right king of the liar world Fox News. Fox News is fair and balanced. That is a down right lie. Repeating a lie over and over doesn't make it the truth. It only shows that you have no self respect. I didn't see any attempt what so ever in defending that outright lie other than the Democrat on The Five gets to have a say in the topics to be discussed. Four Republicans and one Democrat is balanced. Shouting down the one Democrat is fair. In what world is this true other than Fox News, and their viewers? Over 70% of Fox News reporting is directed at the Democrat party, and not in a good way. Fair and Balanced my ass.

I defy you to show me one place that I lied. It doesn't bother me to be called a liar. I just consider the source. Maybe I was wrong. Listening to Fox News you must feel that no one is capable of telling the truth. Reporting the truth on Fox News is a bridge too far for them.

Call someone a liar, and then run for cover. That sounds like the act of a real coward. But I could be wrong.

[Guest]

You are right this has gotten way out of hand.

[Guest]

I lied. Then, you are operating without a clue. After you called me a liar, I goggled when did McConnell have a meeting with fellow Republicans concerning making Obama a one term president. The comment McConnell made was in 2012. Before jumping for joy, here is the rest of the story. It probably was reported on MSNBC. Where did they get this from? Probably from President Obama. Due all the obstruction in his first year, he was convinced that the meeting was held prior to his swearing in. Other Democrats were convinced that it happened 9 months into his presidency. This is what the Washington Post reported in Sept. 2012. It is logical to assume that McConnell's statement was reported early in 2009. Why would it be necessary to report on the timing of the meeting, if it hadn't been reported previously? I know. The Washington Post knew we were going to have this conversation in 2015. So, they printed the article in 2012 to cover my ass. Wow, do I wheel such power.

You did not view The Daily Show of June 22nd on Comcast on demand. There is no way in hell that you could defend the outright hypocrisy of the Fox News reporters that you praised concerning the murders of nine people in SC, and the two police in New York. There is no parallel to this anywhere given the magnitude of the murders. Wait I lied! You don't lie. You just express a different version of the truth.

I defy you to show you where I stated that the IRS didn't obstruct the hearing. What a stated TWICE is the IRS wants to enforce the laws concerning 501(c)4 political action groups as written in early 50's, and never changed. Putting word in my mouth hardly qualifies as me lying. Reading into something that isn't there seems to be a quality you are very proud of.

You want to talk about lies, something you must know a lot about because you defend the down right king of the liar world Fox News. Fox News is fair and balanced. That is a down right lie. Repeating a lie over and over doesn't make it the truth. It only shows that you have no self respect. I didn't see any attempt what so ever in defending that outright lie other than the Democrat on The Five gets to have a say in the topics to be discussed. Four Republicans and one Democrat is balanced. Shouting down the one Democrat is fair. In what world is this true other than Fox News, and their viewers? Over 70% of Fox News reporting is directed at the Democrat party, and not in a good way. Fair and Balanced my ass.

I defy you to show me one place that I lied. It doesn't bother me to be called a liar. I just consider the source. Maybe I was wrong. Listening to Fox News you must feel that no one is capable of telling the truth. Reporting the truth on Fox News is a bridge too far for them.

Call someone a liar, and then run for cover. That sounds like the act of a real coward. But I could be wrong.

You are truly delusional. You mix up opinion for facts. You jump from one proof to another and if that does not work, try another.

You flat out lied about McConnell. He did not make that statement at the beginning as you clearly claimed.....from the article...."McConnell made his remarks in an interview that appeared in the National Journal on Oct. 23, 2010

Then of course you jumped to that people thought as if you knew that.

This is a tireless discussion. The comments on Fox were OPINIONS...you present them as if they were presented as facts...THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE. OPINION IS NOT FACT.

This little thread is over. You are making things up, presenting things that are just not true and you cannot make them that way because someone told you it was...you really need to find out.

So have a nice evening, and my advise to you is to read a bit more of ALL sides of issues and concentrate on facts...not what you want to be facts but facts.

[Guest]

I am delusional. I was under the impression that you read and comprehend what is being written. Did you read the entire first paragraph? Do you have a problem with drawing a logical conclusion? That certainly appears to be case. You are just looking to see what you want to see.

I can't read. That is probably true too. The Washington Post wrote an article in Sept. 2012, which I read three hours ago, concerning when McConnell had the meeting about making Obama a one term president. The Post AGREED it was in 2010. What I stated was it was REPORTED in 2009 that McConnell had the meeting with fellow Republicans. You show me one place that I stated that the meeting was in 2009. You can't. I assume you do know what REPORTED means. Maybe I am wrong there.

AGAIN WHY WOULD THE POST WRITE IN ARTICLE IN 2012 ABOUT THE TIMING OF MC CONNELL'S MEETING, IF THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT WHEN IT OCCURED, AND WAS REPORTED? THE POST CERTAINLY WOULDN'T HAVE PICKED A DATE AFTER 2010 TO MAKE MCCONNELL LOOK BETTER. IT WAS REPORTED ON A NATIONAL NEWS STATION IN 2009 THAT THE MEETING WAS IN EARLY 2009. THAT IS WHY THE POST WROTE THE ARTICLE IN 2012 TO MAKE IT CLEAR WHEN THE DATE OF THE MEETING HAPPENED.

Do you have a habit of putting words in someone mouth, and then calling them a liar? That certainly appears so.

The reports on Fox News were opinions not facts. Unbelievable! These OPINIONS were made by people on Fox News, and the same people had completely DIFFERENT opinions on very similar murders. When they did it, that was perfectly acceptable. When someone else did the same thing, those people were completely wrong in doing it. It is impossible to look at what they reported and draw any other conclusion other than this is the height of HYPOCRISY.

I haven't made up anything. You on the other hand excel at it. Name calling, and distorting what people write is your game plan. I thought I was dealing with a reasonable person. I couldn't have been more wrong.

By the way, there is a good reason why I don't know what Reid did early this year. It has everything to do with my physical health in 2015. Not that you should care. I asked the question what he did, and immediately you said I was uninformed. Don't assume people are in good health around here. Maybe you should have just answered the question like any normal person would do. It appears that the only thing you want to do demean anyone that doesn't agree with you even if have to make things up to do so. You are the worse person to deal with, because you are under the false impression that you are all knowing.

Run and hide!

[Guest]

Some of us look forward to the pi$$ing contest of the past to fade away and allow real discussions of the threats to America of concern TODAY to resume or perhaps begin is more appropriate for some.

[Guest]

Some of us look forward to the pi$$ing contest of the past to fade away and allow real discussions of the threats to America of concern TODAY to resume or perhaps begin is more appropriate for some.

Do you mean to say that what Fox is saying, or what McConnell said years ago is not that important ? You mean you want discussions of what is happening now ?

Gee...this would certainly be a real hurdle to overcome for many posters !!!!

[Guest]

This thread is now on my no need to waste time on list.
:wave:

[Guest]

I am sick of this conversation to, and participated in it. Being called a liar over and over by someone, who thinks he is smarter than everyone else, it is not the path that I thought I would ever be dragged into.

I need an honest answer, if that is possible. Did you see anything in my first paragraph concerning when McConnell meeting occurred that I said that it happened in Jan, 2009. I said that it was reported in 2009, and back it up with an article from the Washington Post. Isn't taking that paragraph, and twisting it to fit your misguided beliefs, the real lie.

That is the reason why the McConnell meeting was bragged endlessly into these posts.

What I am saying about Fox News is, they are not "fair and balanced'. I don't have a problem with their reporting. I have a problem with that lie being repeated over and over. What is it designed to do make them feel better about themselves, or make their audience feel better about watching a Republican leaning station?

I would like an answer without the unnecessary name calling. Don't worry I have mellowed out. I got the last word in. You can't believe how happy that makes me!(lol)

[Guest]

I am sick of this conversation to, and participated in it. Being called a liar over and over by someone, who thinks he is smarter than everyone else, it is not the path that I thought I would ever be dragged into.

I need an honest answer, if that is possible. Did you see anything in my first paragraph concerning when McConnell meeting occurred that I said that it happened in Jan, 2009. I said that it was reported in 2009, and back it up with an article from the Washington Post. Isn't taking that paragraph, and twisting it to fit your misguided beliefs, the real lie.

That is the reason why the McConnell meeting was bragged endlessly into these posts.

What I am saying about Fox News is, they are not "fair and balanced'. I don't have a problem with their reporting. I have a problem with that lie being repeated over and over. What is it designed to do make them feel better about themselves, or make their audience feel better about watching a Republican leaning station?

I would like an answer without the unnecessary name calling. Don't worry I have mellowed out. I got the last word in. You can't believe how happy that makes me!(lol)

FROM THIS POST..

"I need an honest answer, if that is possible. Did you see anything in my first paragraph concerning when McConnell meeting occurred that I said that it happened in Jan, 2009. I said that it was reported in 2009, and back it up with an article from the Washington Post. Isn't taking that paragraph, and twisting it to fit your misguided beliefs, the real lie."

FROM POST 45...your original

"Who started the war between the parties? McConnell and the Republicans made it clear from day one their goal was to make Obama a one term president."

No mention of 2009 anywhere in YOUR POST.

The Washington Post article was not posted here by you at all. It was posted in response to your post

FROM THIS POST

"What I am saying about Fox News is, they are not "fair and balanced'. I don't have a problem with their reporting. I have a problem with that lie being repeated over and over. What is it designed to do make them feel better about themselves, or make their audience feel better about watching a Republican leaning station?"

Have you ever watched, for example Rachel Maddow or Chris Matthews on MSNBC ?

OPINIONS of commentators are not facts

[Guest]

I guess we are being civil again. Thank God. I am not a political junkie. I didn't lie in any of posts. When I hear something on the news, I believe it. Apparently in the current state of politics, that is character flaw. I guess that I am going to have live it.

When actual the date of McConnell was brought into question, that was the first time that I heard there was a dispute about the timing. That is when I goggled and found the Washington Post article. I just looking for that article again I can't find it. I didn't make up anything in my posts. The comment about Obama and the Democrats was in the article. I am going to have learn how to cut and paste an article. I didn't put a date in there, because prior to his oath of office would be 2009. Why would the Washington Post write an article in 2012, if the meeting wasn't reported sometime in 2009 or early 2010?

The only national news station that I watch on a regular basis is Morning Joe. I really think that is the only news show that is fair and balanced. When Mika speaks, I hit the mute button. All she wants to talk about is women issues. I haven't watched Rachel Maddow in years. I watch Chris Matthews sometimes, not often. I don't like anyone whose goal is to shout down someone, when he doesn't agree with what is being said by his guest. That is just plain rude.

To me "fair and balanced" has to apply to both opinions, and facts. When the show is called "The Five", balance would be two Democrats, and two Republicans, and one moderate Independent. Listen the tone of the reporters on Fox News other than the one you mentioned. They can't hide their hatred (maybe to strong) for President Obama. That is hardly fair.

As I stated, I am a moderate independent. Given the far right movement over the passed six years, the Republicans are making it hard to vote for them. I really like John Kasich. As I stated a Republican governor that accepted Medicaid funds given to states in the ACA, has my vote.

I was an accountant. The thing that really have to protect is your honesty. If you get caught lying or stealing and get fired, you are going to find it very hard to get another job. I just is worth being dishonest. I have carried that to here. What do you gain by lying, or making stuff up here? If you have to lie on a political board to support your argument, seek mental help.

[Guest]

Let's get back on subject, if we can. The rules were changed in 2012, that anyone eligible for the nomination would have to have the majority of votes in eight states. It can be changed again in 2016 to make it easier to be eligible.

I looked, but couldn't find out how many states were winner take all states. Given the amount of money some of the long shots have, it appears nobody will have enough delegates to win on the first ballot. I think that there will have to be a deal between the people left in the field. The vice president will probably come from the field. I think the best combination to run against Hillary will be Bush/Walker.