02-05-2013 06:55 AM
trainset wrote:
Thats your next pres...the reich wing will meltdown
2016 and 2020 will be hers, if she so chooses...the GOP shot their wad.
02-05-2013 07:22 AM
yanktar wrote:
savoldi wrote:
Used2BMarkoh wroteWell, I don't want to call you a liar, but I don'
I'm TELLING you why I voted for him and you can't process THAT. Obama was not elected and re-elected because of white guilt. That's a rightwing fantasy even more absurd than the usual ones.
WTF is wrong with this editor? It just blew away my entire text without a hint why!
RWNTs from Markoh to Mitt Romney never believed it was possible for Romney to lose until Fux Noise was FORCED to call Ohio for Obama, over Karl Rove's insane tantrum. They don't live in the real world so when the real world kicks 'em in the ass they have to INVENT some crack-pot crazy reason because they cannot deal with the obvious one: They are wrong.
There is a save feature that has helped me when I've accidently erased a post. I don't know how to access it, or what triggers it to pop up at the top above the original post, but I've used it a handful of times. There's some key I'm hitting around the shift button that erases everything I've typed up to a certain point. Laptop space limitations.
02-05-2013 10:27 AM
yumpy wrote:
guido61 wrote:
That's why his re-election was more important than the first. It put an end to all that "people just voted for the black guy" and "it was all about Bush" nonsense.
And he was the most experienced and qualified candidate.
BS!
he hasn't done squat and yeah, they did vote for the black guy and not the rich white guy.
that's the only thing that makes any fuckin sense! lol!!!
j/k sorta
so we will see, if the "blame everyone/thing but obama" meme starts up again.
notice that no one gets sacked? benghazi=petreaus, wtf?
sacrificial lambs and the biggest BS ever.
i've watched politics since JFK. obama has his place in history, no prob but what about his legacy?
Don't wave the nobody got sacked flag around. Who got sacked for 9/11? Maybe you should have watched politics just a bit more. There's no comparson between that incident and this in terms of magnitude, and that's one reason why you clowns can't and won't make this stick. The repubs decided to go after Hillary instead of the perps. It didn't work. You'd have to be real myopic in your politics to miss that, but if you're a righwhack, flailing around desperately in denial is about all you've got left.
02-05-2013 01:44 PM
yumpy wrote:
guido61 wrote:
That's why his re-election was more important than the first. It put an end to all that "people just voted for the black guy" and "it was all about Bush" nonsense.
And he was the most experienced and qualified candidate.
BS!
he hasn't done squat and yeah, they did vote for the black guy and not the rich white guy.
that's the only thing that makes any fuckin sense! lol!!!
j/k sorta
so we will see, if the "blame everyone/thing but obama" meme starts up again.
notice that no one gets sacked? benghazi=petreaus, wtf?
sacrificial lambs and the biggest BS ever.
i've watched politics since JFK. obama has his place in history, no prob but what about his legacy?
After 2008 the conventional-wisdom on the right was that people voted for Obama because after 8 years of Bush, war and the crashing economy, they bought into the "hope and change" stuff, they fell in love with the idea of voting for a black guy, ANY Democrat would have won following Bush, and McCain sucked.
OK fine. Let's assume all that was true. But then you can't use any of that to explain 2012. Bush was long gone, the economy was now Obama's, we already did the "vote for the black guy" thing, and Romney didn't suck. Well, OK. Maybe he did. But still...
The GOP spun as hard as they could for 4 years to try and dismiss Obama as a fluke. As somebody that the country didn't REALLY want and regreted voting for. That he was the 2nd coming of Jimmy Carter.
It didn't work. He got relected because people preferred him and his platform to the other guy. Plain and simple. And yeah...Romney sucked. But the GOP platform he got stuck supporting sucked worse. THAT'S what people voted against.
So to win in 2016 or beyond, the GOP needs to make some serious changes. Or find their own "messiah" .
02-05-2013 01:49 PM - edited 02-05-2013 01:50 PM
guido61 wrote:
After 2008 the conventional-wisdom on the right was that people voted for Obama because after 8 years of Bush, war and the crashing economy, they bought into the "hope and change" stuff, they fell in love with the idea of voting for a black guy, ANY Democrat would have won following Bush, and McCain sucked.
OK fine. Let's assume all that was true. But then you can't use any of that to explain 2012. Bush was long gone, the economy was now Obama's, we already did the "vote for the black guy" thing, and Romney didn't suck. Well, OK. Maybe he did. But still...
The GOP spun as hard as they could for 4 years to try and dismiss Obama as a fluke. As somebody that the country didn't REALLY want and regreted voting for. That he was the 2nd coming of Jimmy Carter.
It didn't work. He got relected because people preferred him and his platform to the other guy. Plain and simple. And yeah...Romney sucked. But the GOP platform he got stuck supporting sucked worse. THAT'S what people voted against.
So to win in 2016 or beyond, the GOP needs to make some serious changes. Or find their own "messiah" .
I agree. What skeers me about the Retard party is what they'll do after they to pull up even and get someone in the White House. What then? Will they go back to their old ways and fuck us in the ass again?

02-05-2013 02:18 PM
savoldi wrote:
Caulk Rocket wrote:
96% of Americans don't even know what the fuck the Sec of State is.They know who Hillary is, and she's got the big stamp of approval on what she did. That's how she'll be remembered. The right will go through their usual contortions about her record, but that's mostly for comforting themselves. She oversaw the end in Iraq and the beginning of the end in Afghanistan. Americans are onboard with that, and that's real easy to remember. 69%. She's been through hell and highwater in her personal and professional life and came out a survivor and winner. She's got icon staus, and the right has nobody to compete wth that fact. Can they beat her in 2016 if she runs? Sure, but they really need to up their game and their players, and so far there's no sign of that.
Powell had an even higher rating, and oversaw a disastrous foreign policy.
That 69 percent approval rating is higher than any other outgoing secretary of state measured in a survey since 1948 -- with one exception: Colin Powell, whose approval rating was at 77 percent per a late 2004 Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll.
The poll was from January. Here's the same (WSJ) from February:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014241278873239
Condi Rice: 47% Positive - 18% Negative (27% neutral, 8 don't know)
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/w
02-05-2013 04:45 PM
Caulk Rocket wrote:
savoldi wrote:
Caulk Rocket wrote:
96% of Americans don't even know what the fuck the Sec of State is.They know who Hillary is, and she's got the big stamp of approval on what she did. That's how she'll be remembered. The right will go through their usual contortions about her record, but that's mostly for comforting themselves. She oversaw the end in Iraq and the beginning of the end in Afghanistan. Americans are onboard with that, and that's real easy to remember. 69%. She's been through hell and highwater in her personal and professional life and came out a survivor and winner. She's got icon staus, and the right has nobody to compete wth that fact. Can they beat her in 2016 if she runs? Sure, but they really need to up their game and their players, and so far there's no sign of that.
Powell had an even higher rating, and oversaw a disastrous foreign policy.
That 69 percent approval rating is higher than any other outgoing secretary of state measured in a survey since 1948 -- with one exception: Colin Powell, whose approval rating was at 77 percent per a late 2004 Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll.
The poll was from January. Here's the same (WSJ) from February:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014241278873239
26104578276291709538474.html?KEYWORDS=hillary
Condi Rice: 47% Positive - 18% Negative (27% neutral, 8 don't know)
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/w
sjpoll20081211.pdf
Yep. You can't cherry pick this stuff. It's the overall impression that matters, and some politcal figures just transcend the resume and rise above with that something extra. Bill has had that for decades. Hillary got there fairly recently by simply staying the course. He's got the charisma, and she's tough as nails. Both winners in the court of public opinion.
02-05-2013 04:57 PM
savoldi wrote:
Caulk Rocket wrote:
savoldi wrote:
Caulk Rocket wrote:
96% of Americans don't even know what the fuck the Sec of State is.They know who Hillary is, and she's got the big stamp of approval on what she did. That's how she'll be remembered. The right will go through their usual contortions about her record, but that's mostly for comforting themselves. She oversaw the end in Iraq and the beginning of the end in Afghanistan. Americans are onboard with that, and that's real easy to remember. 69%. She's been through hell and highwater in her personal and professional life and came out a survivor and winner. She's got icon staus, and the right has nobody to compete wth that fact. Can they beat her in 2016 if she runs? Sure, but they really need to up their game and their players, and so far there's no sign of that.
Powell had an even higher rating, and oversaw a disastrous foreign policy.
That 69 percent approval rating is higher than any other outgoing secretary of state measured in a survey since 1948 -- with one exception: Colin Powell, whose approval rating was at 77 percent per a late 2004 Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll.
The poll was from January. Here's the same (WSJ) from February:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014241278873239
26104578276291709538474.html?KEYWORDS=hillary
Condi Rice: 47% Positive - 18% Negative (27% neutral, 8 don't know)
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/w
sjpoll20081211.pdf
Yep. You can't cherry pick this stuff. It's the overall impression that matters, and some politcal figures just transcend the resume and rise above with that something extra. Bill has had that for decades. Hillary got there fairly recently by simply staying the course. He's got the charisma, and she's tough as nails. Both winners in the court of public opinion.
They rally a certain segment of shriekers like no other (except for maybe Obama himself).
02-05-2013 08:45 PM
savoldi wrote:
Caulk Rocket wrote:
savoldi wrote:
Caulk Rocket wrote:
96% of Americans don't even know what the fuck the Sec of State is.They know who Hillary is, and she's got the big stamp of approval on what she did. That's how she'll be remembered. The right will go through their usual contortions about her record, but that's mostly for comforting themselves. She oversaw the end in Iraq and the beginning of the end in Afghanistan. Americans are onboard with that, and that's real easy to remember. 69%. She's been through hell and highwater in her personal and professional life and came out a survivor and winner. She's got icon staus, and the right has nobody to compete wth that fact. Can they beat her in 2016 if she runs? Sure, but they really need to up their game and their players, and so far there's no sign of that.
Powell had an even higher rating, and oversaw a disastrous foreign policy.
That 69 percent approval rating is higher than any other outgoing secretary of state measured in a survey since 1948 -- with one exception: Colin Powell, whose approval rating was at 77 percent per a late 2004 Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll.
The poll was from January. Here's the same (WSJ) from February:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014241278873239
26104578276291709538474.html?KEYWORDS=hillary
Condi Rice: 47% Positive - 18% Negative (27% neutral, 8 don't know)
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/w
sjpoll20081211.pdf
Yep. You can't cherry pick this stuff. It's the overall impression that matters, and some politcal figures just transcend the resume and rise above with that something extra. Bill has had that for decades. Hillary got there fairly recently by simply staying the course. He's got the charisma, and she's tough as nails. Both winners in the court of public opinion.
Winners in the court of public opinion - the opinion of morons. How many of the people declaring hillary Clinton and Colin Powell popular are more concerned with the next American Idol winner or who Kim Kardashian is dating, than they are about the use of drones to kill our own citizens or Wall Street mega banks running the economy.
02-05-2013 08:53 PM
02-05-2013 09:00 PM
guido61 wrote:
And if only the political and business and society "elites" picked the candidates, do you really think it would be any different? How do you think people like Clinton or Powell got to be where they are in the first place? The "morons" can only choose amongst the candidates presented to them.
Not only that, but how successful could any of them be at changing the basics of the system itself, which is the real problem.
02-05-2013 09:25 PM
guido61 wrote:
And if only the political and business and society "elites" picked the candidates, do you really think it would be any different? How do you think people like Clinton or Powell got to be where they are in the first place? The "morons" can only choose amongst the candidates presented to them.
If the society and business elites picked the candidates, we would be getting George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama...
But the "morons" shouldn't be happy about them. 69% approval for someone who voted to go to war in Iraq and voted for a Wall Street bailout, that never helped Main Street even slightly? 69% approval?
02-05-2013 09:27 PM
savoldi wrote:
guido61 wrote:
And if only the political and business and society "elites" picked the candidates, do you really think it would be any different? How do you think people like Clinton or Powell got to be where they are in the first place? The "morons" can only choose amongst the candidates presented to them.Not only that, but how successful could any of them be at changing the basics of the system itself, which is the real problem.
How successful have Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama been at changing the system - not at all. And why? Bcause they don't want to change the system.
02-06-2013 09:42 AM
PFB wrote:
savoldi wrote:
guido61 wrote:
And if only the political and business and society "elites" picked the candidates, do you really think it would be any different? How do you think people like Clinton or Powell got to be where they are in the first place? The "morons" can only choose amongst the candidates presented to them.Not only that, but how successful could any of them be at changing the basics of the system itself, which is the real problem.
How successful have Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama been at changing the system - not at all. And why? Bcause they don't want to change the system.
Of course they do. They all like being elected, but not what happens (or more accurately what DOESN'T happen) afterwards. These days politics mostly resembles trench warfare in WW1. A tremendous waste of lives and treasure with minimal to no gains for either side.
About HCHarmonyCentral.com is the leading Internet resource for musicians, supplying valuable information from news and product reviews, to classified ads and chat rooms.
Advertise on HC