The woman has no sense of reality. Only political, empty headed, pure nonsense, cackle infested, desparate name calling.

Liberal host: Clinton 'pathetic' for playing 'sexism' card | Washington Examiner

How many democrats are willing to trade a racist POTUS for a sexist POTUS?
When she isn't lying or breaking the law.

Where is the cackle icon when it is needed!

Originally Posted by Guest

The woman has no sense of reality. Only political, empty headed, pure nonsense, cackle infested, desparate name calling.

Liberal host: Clinton 'pathetic' for playing 'sexism' card | Washington Examiner

How many democrats are willing to trade a racist POTUS for a sexist POTUS?
When she isn't lying or breaking the law.

Where is the cackle icon when it is needed!

......

Originally Posted by Guest

The woman has no sense of reality. Only political, empty headed, pure nonsense, cackle infested, desparate name calling.

Liberal host: Clinton 'pathetic' for playing 'sexism' card | Washington Examiner

How many democrats are willing to trade a racist POTUS for a sexist POTUS?
When she isn't lying or breaking the law.

Where is the cackle icon when it is needed!

If she does manage to get elected, Hillary (along with the rest of the Liberals) will play the sexism card at every opportunity.

I will not look at any link from the Washington Examiner. It is fit only for wrapping fish entrails.

Originally Posted by Guest

I will not look at any link from the Washington Examiner. It is fit only for wrapping fish entrails.

Of course not. You would rather a reference from the Huffington Post.

Originally Posted by Guest

I will not look at any link from the Washington Examiner. It is fit only for wrapping fish entrails.

Not that is something I cannot understand.

If someone posts a link from the oped section and you have a problem with that source, that is not a problem is it ?

iF NOT, YOU are simply burying your head in the sand so you do not hear what you dont want to hear.

I am big on links, etc, but this is a quoted video fact, not someones opinion.

Originally Posted by Guest

Of course not. You would rather a reference from the Huffington Post.

Actually from the Washington Post.

I feel so sorry for that poster with his head imbedded in the sand. So got this just for him. I know any liberal worth his salt will believe MSNBC and we all know how that bad Washington Examiner edits tapes from tv show

Morning Joe - Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski & Willie Geist on msnbc

Look, yes sites have editorial bias, and in fact will highlight and accent some stories to fit that bias (I must add that actually doctoring a NEWS story would be really unique), but wise up....it is getting very frustrating to hear people post comments concerning content without having a clue about what they are saying.

There are a few sites that are just arms of a political party. Those I ignore, on both sides because they are tools, both literally and figuratively.

I love the tactic of addressing one's opinion about the source and completely ignoring the subject.

Regardless the news source the madame Clinton is already playing what she thinks is her trump (PUN intended) card....sexism.
Usually an intelligent person would save their trump cards until really neccessary. Even the it would have been a waste of time.

Does any female democrat really think the matron Clinton represents the American female(s)?

Just another political vote buying sham like the racist card player in the WH now.

Now that some have dumped on the source maybe they are allowed to comment on the uncalled for use of the sex card.

Originally Posted by Guest

I love the tactic of addressing one's opinion about the source and completely ignoring the subject.

Regardless the news source the madame Clinton is already playing what she thinks is her trump (PUN intended) card....sexism.
Usually an intelligent person would save their trump cards until really neccessary. Even the it would have been a waste of time.

Does any female democrat really think the matron Clinton represents the American female(s)?

Just another political vote buying sham like the racist card player in the WH now.

Now that some have dumped on the source maybe they are allowed to comment on the uncalled for use of the sex card.

The person that made the derogatory statement concerning Washington Examiner was wrong. The entire news report on Morning Joe was included in the initial post. It was also include in the link to Morning Joe. You just had to scroll down to view it.

If you listened to the people clapping at both Hillary's speeches, you could tell that they were women. So, yes women do think Hillary is representing them. Unlike the race issue that is on display every time a black is shot, there isn't that graphic display of women's issues that will be played out on TV. We wouldn't be trading race issues for women's issues, if she becomes president.

When Mika, the feminist of all feminist, criticizes you on a women's issue, you know you have gone way too far. Mika is unbearable to listen to, but not in this case.

Originally Posted by Guest

I feel so sorry for that poster with his head imbedded in the sand. So got this just for him. I know any liberal worth his salt will believe MSNBC and we all know how that bad Washington Examiner edits tapes from tv show

Morning Joe - Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski & Willie Geist on msnbc

Look, yes sites have editorial bias, and in fact will highlight and accent some stories to fit that bias (I must add that actually doctoring a NEWS story would be really unique), but wise up....it is getting very frustrating to hear people post comments concerning content without having a clue about what they are saying.

There are a few sites that are just arms of a political party. Those I ignore, on both sides because they are tools, both literally and figuratively.

I am not being wise. I don't understand why you brought up the Morning Joe link. Are you implying that it has a left wing bias?

If it would not be trading racism for feminism then why does Clinton keep flaunting the sexism card....even when there is not an issue.

She is baiting for support.

Phony baiting....just like race baiting.

Some are making the error to think Clinton is at all concerned about her fellow females......she is doing NOTHING MORE than pandering and buying the vote block.

NOTHING MORE!!

Hillary's campaign will not be affected one iota by her comment.

The Republicans are grasping at straws to try and make it seem Mrs. Clinton' being a woman and mentioning it is a bad thing.

She is an inspiration to women who want our sex to break the glass ceiling.

A strong woman leader is a lot better than the likes of Huckabee, Cruz, Santorum, or the dropped out Walker. We do not need nor want a theocracy in America. If those who want a theocracy, book your next flight to Iran. See how far being an outspoken woman will get you over there.

Dear Guests:

It may be to some but not all pundits, nor even voters that Clinton is unstoppable. She continues to lead the Democrats candidates in the polls but just a cursory look tells you why. Sanders came to her rescue at the Democratic Debate and in return she attacked him or being a sexist.

Contributors know she is fatally flawed and that is causing great concern with the Democrat bigwig. Her default mode is to deceive.

Did she best the Republicans during the Benghazi Hearings? Or were the comments about her composure another validation of how she can lie without blinking an eye?

Consider that a know nothing came against her when she had all the big money contributors and she lost to him. She was thought to have been invincible then as now.

Consider that Clinton has moved so far left, if elected her presidency would represent an Obama third term, and as such she will have to own his legacy

She is playing the gender card but are women still buying that canard?

The polls consistently confirm that the majority of Americans find her untrustworthy.

Even some Democrats express concern because they view her as very polarizing and a candidate of the distant past

She shows contempt for the 1% with a blink because she has a long history of being cozy with Wall Street

As to news agency print, pixel or digital the issue should not be to defend any agency but demand from journalist or anyone claiming to represent a news agency to present objective and unbiased facts. Why is that so hard for some people to understand. Freedom of the press is no longer freedom if the truth tellers do not tell the truth. I can be as angry at a Fox News pundit has I can of a MSNBC pundit that try and push their bias down listeners throats.

Personal Best Regards: