Will this effect nominations/elections....

» Site Navigation
Home Page The Villages Maps The Villages Activities The Villages Clubs The Villages Book Healthcare Rentals Real Estate Section Classified Section The Villages Directory Home Improvement Site Guidelines Advertising Info Register Now Video Tutorials Frequently Asked Questions
» Newsletter Signup
» Premium Tower
» Advertisements
» Trending News
» Tower Sponsors




















» Premium Sponsors
» Banner Sponsors
» Advertisements
 
Thread Tools
  #16  
Old 02-15-2015, 04:05 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
Maureen Dowd has been running this same column since 1998, and David Brock left the Clinton campaign last week. Old news.
Is one week the limit ? Then all is forgiven ? Never saw that rule but thanks.

HOWEVER, you might mention to the Clintons AND the NYTimes, that the article that has been running since 1998 has a lot of current stuff in it...how did that happen ?

[B]"With the understood blessing of the Clintons, Brock runs a $28 million cluster of media monitoring groups and oppo research organizations that are vehicles to rebut and at times discredit and threaten anyone who casts a gimlet eye at Clinton Inc.

As Confessore and Chozick wrote, he uses a fund-raiser named Mary Pat Bonner, whose firm has collected millions of dollars in commissions a practice many fund-raising experts consider unethical.

Everyone wants to be at the trough for this one because Hillary is likely to raise, and more important, spend more than $1 billion on her campaign.


"The Clinton crowd is trying to woo Brock back into the fold because hes good at getting money and knows how their enemies think. The Clintons appreciate the fact that Brock, like Morris, is a take-no-prisoners type with the ethical compass of a jackal. Baked in the tactics of the right, Brock will never believe that negative coverage results from legitimate shortcomings. Instead, its all personal, all false, and all a war."


Go figure how she knew this in 2008 that he would leave and they would be after him this very week.
  #17  
Old 02-15-2015, 04:44 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Not only were there questions concerning Bill Hillary and Chelsea Foundations authorities wondering where all the millions went for the Haitian Foundations to rebuild people's lives following the heavy hit they took from a hurricane Millions have gone missing.

All of the preceding may not matter because the people that follow the Clintons made it clear when he lied under oath "I did not have sex with..... that character didn't matter. The fact is that the liberal media will come to her aid. They will clean her and her family up They will portray her as a woman so strong she has managed to keep her family together despite the bill's many indiscretions In fact Bill will feign a turn my life around awakening

The short answer is the liberal media know that most voters don't read more than tag lines and so thy will be an easy sell.

Unless the Republicans nominate a truly qualified candidate, and I unfortunately see none at this time, Hillary will walk away with the job and America will continue its steady decline because she is no more qualified than Obama
  #18  
Old 02-15-2015, 05:26 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
The only shots being taken at Jeb's family has to do with all the wars his brother started.

Jeb will have to answer for that - saying he doesn't want to talk about the past won't cut it.
Nor does he want to talk about the biggest recession since the great depression, which started under his brother's watchful eye. Jeb must have been in a coma from 2000 to 2008.
  #19  
Old 02-15-2015, 05:30 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
Two things Clinton based will dampen voters apetite for her.

One of course is their past....his sexual romps and her past as Secretary of State....her ranting during the Benghazi incestigation and losing control while spouting those famous totally insensitive telling comments....WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE.

What will it take to convince some that not being qualified for the job does in fact have something to do with who is the candidate.

What is sort of disarming is the dialogue that spins around she is the most likely to be able to win. Really? Regardless of her past lack of performance representing the USA on the world stage? Regardless she is not qualified to be POTUS.....and that SHOULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

I still say those dems who fell for the promises and all the talk with no action....added to the just terrible way the USA has been represented and or defended in the rest of the world.....will have an affect on whether Clinton or another dem can win.

Clinton just will not bring around any more change in how we do business in Washington or the rest of the world. She is and has been a part of the crumudgeon system and has no clue how to conduct business any other way.

If we are going to error on the side of inexperience how about somebody younger (yes I said YOUNGER with specific intent) who is not a product of the current system.

For either party are we not weary of more of the same all these years? I am.
I want a ballsy/gutsy POTUS who does in fact do exactly what he has sworn to do. One who will restore America back to the status of greatness of the past. Back to leading the world technologically, militarily here on earth and outer space.

Show me the candidate who has the capability to get at that job and that is who I would vote for........it certainly is not the people being fawned over as the Dream Team.....not unless one is satisfied with more of the same!!!
Not too sexist to say "I want a ballsy/gutsy POTUS who does in fact do what HE has sworn to do".
  #20  
Old 02-15-2015, 06:22 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
Not too sexist to say "I want a ballsy/gutsy POTUS who does in fact do what HE has sworn to do".
Sexist and insulting to 53% of the population.
  #21  
Old 02-16-2015, 12:10 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ballsy is an adjective that can be used as gender neutral. I knew I should have used a parenthetical qualifier.

Sorry to disappoint those with the sexist/race magnifying glasses....neither are my intent. You will easily know when I do.
  #22  
Old 02-16-2015, 06:47 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ballsy is by far gender "neutral". Last time I checked women don't have a pair...
  #23  
Old 02-16-2015, 08:58 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fraugoofy View Post
Ballsy is by far gender "neutral". Last time I checked women don't have a pair...
How did you get the name posted and not guest?

Anyway....the way I used it and the I intended it was not as an anatomical reference....as in one who may or may not have a pair.

BUT as I stated above to reflect a mode of action as in describing the action taken as ballsy.....

Mode of action or behavior NOT anatomical.

Feel free to stop "checking"
  #24  
Old 02-16-2015, 09:18 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I think when I post on here my name shows up because they don't have the android app figured out!! I don't own a computer, only a phone...
  #25  
Old 02-16-2015, 10:37 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Geeezz.......some people on here need to check a dictionary once in awhile before attacking others -

Ballsy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Notice that even the example given in a sentence uses the female gender!
  #26  
Old 02-16-2015, 11:11 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
Significant, in that article.....said on Meet The Press, but not oft reported...

"Hillary took another hit when Claire McCaskill, the prominent Democratic senator from Missouri, weighed in on Bill's reputation."hes been a great leader, McCaskill said, but I dont want my daughter near him.


I bring this up, not just because of the article today, but I noticed someone taking shots at Jeb Bush's family, their heritage, etc., thus.....
Actually McCaskill is right. What's truly amazing to behold is ... we have a lot of Clinton droids who love the guy and would reelect him again if they could ... BUT, most of them would also never let their daughters near the "lovable lug"
  #27  
Old 02-16-2015, 11:41 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
A non-issue. Except, of course, to the hard right "family values" trumps everything crowd.
You mean as opposed to the liberal left "anything goes?" crowd?
  #28  
Old 02-16-2015, 12:07 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
Geeezz.......some people on here need to check a dictionary once in awhile before attacking others -

Ballsy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Notice that even the example given in a sentence uses the female gender!
OK...that updates me on current affairs !!
  #29  
Old 02-16-2015, 12:10 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
Actually McCaskill is right. What's truly amazing to behold is ... we have a lot of Clinton droids who love the guy and would reelect him again if they could ... BUT, most of them would also never let their daughters near the "lovable lug"
If you were reading a novel, and in it the President of the United States was receiving oral sex in the oval office......what might you think ?

Certainly not a "lovable lug"

He did not do this in a hotel, on a plane, in a car, in any bedroom. He did it in the oval office...our very own office, ie. the office of the people.

What he did with the cigar is up to your imagination...IN THE OVAL OFFICE.
  #30  
Old 02-16-2015, 05:49 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

This is how I remember President Clinton

https://www.americanprogress.org/iss...clinton-years/
 

Thread Tools

You are viewing a new design of the TOTV site. Click here to revert to the old version.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:48 AM.