Bill Clinton Trashes Obama: 'Awful Legacy of the Last Eight Years
http://www.weeklystandard.com/bill-clint...le/2001665

damn. I see another Trump ad coming up soon, especially since Hilliar said she wanted to be the next 4 years of Obama.

Well, it's an election year, so either he has Obama's permission to criticize the current administration, or he's got word the indictment is coming down. Hope it's the latter.

I really don't see any love for Obama by the Clintons. After all He stole Her Crown in '08 ! Now She has to make a senile attempt to get it at an age where She can't enjoy it like She could have 8 years ago.

Bill's people say he was just talking about congress. Regardless, he certainly could have worded it better.

(03-22-2016 09:25 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Bill's people say he was just talking about congress. Regardless, he certainly could have worded it better.

Except that 3 out of the last 8 years congress was run by democrats in super majorities.

And he knew exactly what he was saying, because he said the last 8, and the last 7 before that. Had he said the last 8 and 8 before that, that would have been the final year of his presidency. So he knew exactly how far back to go.

(03-22-2016 09:43 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 09:25 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Bill's people say he was just talking about congress. Regardless, he certainly could have worded it better.

Except that 3 out of the last 8 years congress was run by democrats in super majorities.

That's factually inaccurate.

Quote:So, to the extent there was a filibuster proof majority in the Senate it lasted during two brief periods which lasted for a total of just over five months when counted altogether (and Congress was in its traditional summer recess for most of the July-August 2009 time frame).

It’s important to keep this fact in mind when discussing what could have happened in the 111th Congress, I think, and it’s probably something I haven’t kept in mind myself in the past.

Did The Democrats Ever Really Have 60 Votes In The Senate, And For How Long?

Does anyone really think Bill wants Hillary to get elected and Destroy the Clinton Family name ?

(03-22-2016 09:59 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 09:43 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 09:25 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Bill's people say he was just talking about congress. Regardless, he certainly could have worded it better.

Except that 3 out of the last 8 years congress was run by democrats in super majorities.

That's factually inaccurate.

Quote:So, to the extent there was a filibuster proof majority in the Senate it lasted during two brief periods which lasted for a total of just over five months when counted altogether (and Congress was in its traditional summer recess for most of the July-August 2009 time frame).

It’s important to keep this fact in mind when discussing what could have happened in the 111th Congress, I think, and it’s probably something I haven’t kept in mind myself in the past.

Did The Democrats Ever Really Have 60 Votes In The Senate, And For How Long?

It was realistically accurate. Also, the numbnuts who claimed to be independent were democrats.

(03-22-2016 10:07 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 09:59 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 09:43 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 09:25 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Bill's people say he was just talking about congress. Regardless, he certainly could have worded it better.

Except that 3 out of the last 8 years congress was run by democrats in super majorities.

That's factually inaccurate.

Quote:So, to the extent there was a filibuster proof majority in the Senate it lasted during two brief periods which lasted for a total of just over five months when counted altogether (and Congress was in its traditional summer recess for most of the July-August 2009 time frame).

It’s important to keep this fact in mind when discussing what could have happened in the 111th Congress, I think, and it’s probably something I haven’t kept in mind myself in the past.

Did The Democrats Ever Really Have 60 Votes In The Senate, And For How Long?

It was realistically accurate. Also, the numbnuts who claimed to be independent were democrats.

Yes, and those are counted towards the 60 vote super-majority. And it's a fact...they only had a 60 vote majority for 5 months and 2 of those months, congress was in recess. They did not hold a super-majority for 3 years as you said.

With the filibuster, the Republicans (and however is in the minority) can block most legislation from getting through.

(03-22-2016 10:13 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 10:07 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 09:59 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 09:43 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 09:25 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Bill's people say he was just talking about congress. Regardless, he certainly could have worded it better.

Except that 3 out of the last 8 years congress was run by democrats in super majorities.

That's factually inaccurate.

Quote:So, to the extent there was a filibuster proof majority in the Senate it lasted during two brief periods which lasted for a total of just over five months when counted altogether (and Congress was in its traditional summer recess for most of the July-August 2009 time frame).

It’s important to keep this fact in mind when discussing what could have happened in the 111th Congress, I think, and it’s probably something I haven’t kept in mind myself in the past.

Did The Democrats Ever Really Have 60 Votes In The Senate, And For How Long?

It was realistically accurate. Also, the numbnuts who claimed to be independent were democrats.

Yes, and those are counted towards the 60 vote super-majority. And it's a fact...they only had a 60 vote majority for 5 months and 2 of those months, congress was in recess. They did not hold a super-majority for 3 years as you said.

With the filibuster, the Republicans (and however is in the minority) can block most legislation from getting through.

That hasn't stopped Him from executive action to get what he wanted.

(03-22-2016 10:22 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 10:13 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 10:07 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 09:59 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 09:43 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Except that 3 out of the last 8 years congress was run by democrats in super majorities.

That's factually inaccurate.

Quote:So, to the extent there was a filibuster proof majority in the Senate it lasted during two brief periods which lasted for a total of just over five months when counted altogether (and Congress was in its traditional summer recess for most of the July-August 2009 time frame).

It’s important to keep this fact in mind when discussing what could have happened in the 111th Congress, I think, and it’s probably something I haven’t kept in mind myself in the past.

Did The Democrats Ever Really Have 60 Votes In The Senate, And For How Long?

It was realistically accurate. Also, the numbnuts who claimed to be independent were democrats.

Yes, and those are counted towards the 60 vote super-majority. And it's a fact...they only had a 60 vote majority for 5 months and 2 of those months, congress was in recess. They did not hold a super-majority for 3 years as you said.

With the filibuster, the Republicans (and however is in the minority) can block most legislation from getting through.

That hasn't stopped Him from executive action to get what he wanted.

No...and it didn't stop those before him from doing the same either. That being said, no, presidents don't get everything they want with just executive action. It's just not possible.

Tom's backpeddlin something fierce. Clinton called the past 7 years of Obama, and the 4 years of democratic majorities and supermajorities, a disaster. No other way to try to spin it. His words.

(03-22-2016 10:59 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Tom's backpeddlin something fierce. Clinton called the past 7 years of Obama, and the 4 years of democratic majorities and supermajorities, a disaster. No other way to try to spin it. His words.

Try again. I only posted what the Clinton people are saying...that he was talking about congress. Then I merely corrected you on your assessment of how long the D's had a super-majority.

I clearly said above that if he was talking just about congress that he should have chosen better words.

Move along.

Bill will be Hillary's running mate. They will sell the VP mansion to Chinese investors, and make a ton of money for themselves. Bill will leak enough information that Hillary will be indicted and sent to prison, Bill will ascend back to the Presidency in Hillary's absence, and will enjoy an entirely new intern staff.

(03-22-2016 10:05 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Does anyone really think Bill wants Hillary to get elected and Destroy the Clinton Family name ?

There may be some truth to the fact that he would probably prefer to enjoy his golden years, still make the bank that ex-president's make, and enjoy his days. Being the male equivalent of a First Lady, will be anything but that.

(03-22-2016 02:05 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  Bill will be Hillary's running mate. They will sell the VP mansion to Chinese investors, and make a ton of money for themselves. Bill will leak enough information that Hillary will be indicted and sent to prison, Bill will ascend back to the Presidency in Hillary's absence, and will enjoy an entirely new intern staff.

Makes sense.

At least with Bill we know that his weakness is women. Killarys weakness is her mind.

WHERE’S BILL? Clinton AWOL after trashing Obama

Wet Willie having to take a time out.

Quote:After the former president criticized Barack Obama’s “awful legacy” during a campaign appearance on Monday, he hasn’t campaigned publicly for Hillary since.

He was scheduled to be in Cheyenne, Wyoming yesterday, but the event was canceled and an impending snow storm was blamed.

There have been no local media reports of appearances on Hillary’s behalf, and his Twitter account has been largely silent, with the exception of an obligatory tweet about the Brussels terrorist attack.

Has he finally become too much of a liability to his wife’s campaign?

On Monday, Clinton seemed to tear down President Obama to boost Hillary — a sharp contrast to her repeated attempts to wrap herself in Obama’s legacy.

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/wheres-...ma-swipes/

Just imagine the action Billy Boy would get with Hilldawg behind bars.

ol' billy bob is looking rough these days.....

I'm thinking she'll help shuffle another harem through the lincoln bedroom this go round with billy still at that helm....

what would one call ol' billy bob at that point....mr first and all others lady???