Old, ugly, fat white woman.

Yeah, I went racist.

(04-09-2014 02:52 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  


She wouldn’t last a day in a conservative woman’s shoes, and no, not because of her cankles.

Hillary Clinton said Tuesday that life under relentless public scrutiny can at times feel dehumanizing and isolating.

Clinton, the former secretary of state and potential 2016 presidential contender, kicked off an international speakers series for the World Affairs Council of Oregon.

In an event that lasted about an hour and a half, she offered up a speech that focused on foreign policy and the importance of advancing women’s rights, and then participated in a question-and-answer session.

At one point, she was asked about what it’s like to live in the spotlight.

There is “relentless scrutiny that now stalks not only people in politics but people in all kinds of public arenas,” she told the Portland audience. “And it gives you a sense of being kind of dehumanized as part of the experience. You really can’t ever feel like you’re just having a normal day. And you have to get over that. You have to make up your mind, you’re going to live your life the best you can. And it takes some planning and it takes some thought. It can be done, but you never forget you’re in that public arena.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/hi...05511.html

Liberal men in their 20 and 30s are sexually attracted to her. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

Mmmmm. Mmmmmm


That Hillary....... Sure looking goooood!!!

(04-09-2014 07:14 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Mmmmm. Mmmmmm
That Hillary....... Sure looking goooood!!!

What can you say positive about Hillary except that she would probably win the election?
What has she ever accomplished that would make you believe she would be a successful president?
To me it looks like the left is going all ga-ga over Hillary because they think she would almost certainly win an election, with no regard whatsoever to whether she is actually capable and qualified to do the job. That's pretty scary.

(04-09-2014 05:34 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  She has always talked about the issue. All of this political smear campaigns and all do take a toll.

But she refuses to drop out of the lime light. So she should STFU.

(04-09-2014 07:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 07:14 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Mmmmm. Mmmmmm
That Hillary....... Sure looking goooood!!!

What can you say positive about Hillary except that she would probably win the election?
What has she ever accomplished that would make you believe she would be a successful president?
To me it looks like the left is going all ga-ga over Hillary because they think she would almost certainly win an election, with no regard whatsoever to whether she is actually capable and qualified to do the job. That's pretty scary.

Are you guys ever going to tire of this meme?

Several weeks back I rattled off the list of the presidential contenders for the past couple decades. Her qualifications and accomplishments are basically identical to nearly every other candidate and winner.

There's no test to prove the successfulness of a president. None.

It's a pointless exercise to keep asking this question.

And you guys keep overplaying the gaga-ness too. I would prefer another choice personally. But if it's her against any of the current crop of GOP clowns, she's got my vote. I can't regress our country by having it elect one of those yahoos.

If you went by a check list. She is more accomplished than at least the last 5 presidents. I never dignify the meme with a response. It's silly.

(04-10-2014 12:15 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 07:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 07:14 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Mmmmm. Mmmmmm
That Hillary....... Sure looking goooood!!!

What can you say positive about Hillary except that she would probably win the election?
What has she ever accomplished that would make you believe she would be a successful president?
To me it looks like the left is going all ga-ga over Hillary because they think she would almost certainly win an election, with no regard whatsoever to whether she is actually capable and qualified to do the job. That's pretty scary.

Are you guys ever going to tire of this meme?

Several weeks back I rattled off the list of the presidential contenders for the past couple decades. Her qualifications and accomplishments are basically identical to nearly every other candidate and winner.

There's no test to prove the successfulness of a president. None.

It's a pointless exercise to keep asking this question.

And you guys keep overplaying the gaga-ness too. I would prefer another choice personally. But if it's her against any of the current crop of GOP clowns, she's got my vote. I can't regress our country by having it elect one of those yahoos.

She will be the most qualified incompetent to ever run for the White House. She is failure in damn near every aspect of her life and yet for some reason she is popular with the Left. I guess misery loves company.

41 being the head of the CIA. Nudges him up with her but being Sec. of State would trump it I believe. It's just a silly argument.

Reagan check

Carter check

Ford check

Nixon check.

She might be the most accomplished Presidential Candidate in my memory. Owl is better than this.

She is failure in damn near every aspect of her life


?????????????????????????????????????????????????????

That would have been the last GOP candidate. Other than the Texas Rangers pretty much a complete failure. Hillary has made money in the markets. Unbelievable Cattle future picker and land developer.

I could go on and on.

(04-10-2014 12:25 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  41 being the head of the CIA. Nudges him up with her but being Sec. of State would trump it I believe. It's just a silly argument.

Reagan check

Carter check

Ford check

Nixon check.

She might be the most accomplished Presidential Candidate in my memory. Owl is better than this.

Having jobs and being horrible at them is not an accomplishment. She reached her level of incompetence decades ago. She defied the Peter Principle because of her husband. She is a zero personified.

(04-10-2014 12:15 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 07:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 07:14 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Mmmmm. Mmmmmm
That Hillary....... Sure looking goooood!!!

What can you say positive about Hillary except that she would probably win the election?
What has she ever accomplished that would make you believe she would be a successful president?
To me it looks like the left is going all ga-ga over Hillary because they think she would almost certainly win an election, with no regard whatsoever to whether she is actually capable and qualified to do the job. That's pretty scary.

Are you guys ever going to tire of this meme?

Several weeks back I rattled off the list of the presidential contenders for the past couple decades. Her qualifications and accomplishments are basically identical to nearly every other candidate and winner.

There's no test to prove the successfulness of a president. None.

It's a pointless exercise to keep asking this question.

And you guys keep overplaying the gaga-ness too. I would prefer another choice personally. But if it's her against any of the current crop of GOP clowns, she's got my vote. I can't regress our country by having it elect one of those yahoos.

If they found a dead cat on the side of the road and stamped a "D" on it - that would get your vote every time over any "R" candidated - just how you roll.

(04-10-2014 12:28 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  She is failure in damn near every aspect of her life


?????????????????????????????????????????????????????

That would have been the last GOP candidate. Other than the Texas Rangers pretty much a complete failure. Hillary has made money in the markets. Unbelievable Cattle future picker and land developer.

Making money in the markets is not a talent for a politician Mach. Unless you are stupid it is easy. They do it using inside information that you and I are not privy too.

(04-10-2014 12:28 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Hillary has made money in the markets. Unbelievable Cattle future picker and land developer.

I remember in the 1990s, when the Clintons claimed to have lost money in the "land developer" business. They actually emphasized it as proof of their integrity and purity.

But the Clintons' appeal has always been aimed at people with the attention span of a fruit-fly, so if they're now claiming to have made money on those deals, and saying it proves how shrewd and business-savvy they were (are), well I guess that's really not too surprising.

(04-10-2014 12:33 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(04-10-2014 12:15 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 07:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 07:14 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Mmmmm. Mmmmmm
That Hillary....... Sure looking goooood!!!

What can you say positive about Hillary except that she would probably win the election?
What has she ever accomplished that would make you believe she would be a successful president?
To me it looks like the left is going all ga-ga over Hillary because they think she would almost certainly win an election, with no regard whatsoever to whether she is actually capable and qualified to do the job. That's pretty scary.

Are you guys ever going to tire of this meme?

Several weeks back I rattled off the list of the presidential contenders for the past couple decades. Her qualifications and accomplishments are basically identical to nearly every other candidate and winner.

There's no test to prove the successfulness of a president. None.

It's a pointless exercise to keep asking this question.

And you guys keep overplaying the gaga-ness too. I would prefer another choice personally. But if it's her against any of the current crop of GOP clowns, she's got my vote. I can't regress our country by having it elect one of those yahoos.

If they found a dead cat on the side of the road and stamped a "D" on it - that would det your vote every time over any "R" candidated - just how you roll.

dumb***...quite your chirping. You have no clue about me. I'm not a Democrat and I have no love for the Democrat party. They're mostly spineless imbeciles.

But yes, they will get my vote over the even worse candidates that the R's keep trotting out.

And the last time I registered, I actually registered as a Republican...lol

I've voted for numerous R's in local and state elections in the past and will likely vote for Gov. Snyder in the next Michigan election.

And I'm not totally opposed to voting for Chris Christie either...if he cleans up his bullying act a little.

Just because you have this picture of me that you feel is correct, doesn't give you the basis to keep trotting out the same old ridiculous line that idiots like SOAF keep playing.

You're just plain wrong.

(04-10-2014 12:25 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  41 being the head of the CIA. Nudges him up with her but being Sec. of State would trump it I believe. It's just a silly argument.

Reagan check

Carter check

Ford check

Nixon check.

She might be the most accomplished Presidential Candidate in my memory. Owl is better than this.

Name any of her accomplishments as a Senator or as SOS.

Being married to a President is not an accomplishment that remotely points to being a good president.

If you want to call being elected to the Senate as an accomplishment, ask yourself if she would have won without having the name recognition "achieved" for whom she married as well as carpet bagging into a state that's probably 65% Democrat to start with. Lets see - I'm famous for who I f_cked and I ran for office in a state where a dead cat could win if labeled Democrat. Hell of an accomplishment.

(04-10-2014 12:38 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-10-2014 12:33 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(04-10-2014 12:15 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 07:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 07:14 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Mmmmm. Mmmmmm
That Hillary....... Sure looking goooood!!!

What can you say positive about Hillary except that she would probably win the election?
What has she ever accomplished that would make you believe she would be a successful president?
To me it looks like the left is going all ga-ga over Hillary because they think she would almost certainly win an election, with no regard whatsoever to whether she is actually capable and qualified to do the job. That's pretty scary.

Are you guys ever going to tire of this meme?

Several weeks back I rattled off the list of the presidential contenders for the past couple decades. Her qualifications and accomplishments are basically identical to nearly every other candidate and winner.

There's no test to prove the successfulness of a president. None.

It's a pointless exercise to keep asking this question.

And you guys keep overplaying the gaga-ness too. I would prefer another choice personally. But if it's her against any of the current crop of GOP clowns, she's got my vote. I can't regress our country by having it elect one of those yahoos.

If they found a dead cat on the side of the road and stamped a "D" on it - that would det your vote every time over any "R" candidated - just how you roll.

dumb***...quite your chirping. You have no clue about me. I'm not a Democrat and I have no love for the Democrat party. They're mostly spineless imbeciles.

But yes, they will get my vote over the even worse candidates that the R's keep trotting out.

And the last time I registered, I actually registered as a Republican...lol

I've voted for numerous R's in local and state elections in the past and will likely vote for Gov. Snyder in the next Michigan election.

And I'm not totally opposed to voting for Chris Christie either...if he cleans up his bullying act a little.

Just because you have this picture of me that you feel is correct, doesn't give you the basis to keep trotting out the same old ridiculous line that idiots like SOAF keep playing.

You're just plain wrong.

......then quit carrying water for every Democrat that screws up. Maybe then I won't assume you're so biased.

(04-10-2014 12:25 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  She might be the most accomplished Presidential Candidate in my memory.

(04-10-2014 12:25 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  41 being the head of the CIA. Nudges him up with her but being Sec. of State would trump it I believe. It's just a silly argument.
Reagan check
Carter check
Ford check
Nixon check.
She might be the most accomplished Presidential Candidate in my memory. Owl is better than this.

Reagan was governor of a state. That puts him ahead of her.
GWB was governor of a state. That puts him ahead of her.
Carter was governor of a state. That puts him ahead of her.
Nixon was vice-president. That puts him ahead of her.
I would discount Ford's vice-presidential tenure as too short, and would put his house minority leader experience ahead of her, but that is the closest call of the group.

She's ahead of Obama. She's got more time in the senate, plus a gig as secretary of state.

As for losing candidates:

She's behind Al Gore, who had more time in the senate plus the vice-presidency.

With respect to Mondale or Dole or McCain or Kerry, it depends on how you compare longer senate tenure to secretary of state. I'd say there's an argument that these are pushes.

Romney was a governor of a state. That puts him ahead of her. Romney is also the only one in the entire group that actually had significant success in the real world economy. That might put him ahead of the whole group.

The idea that Hillary Clinton has ever done anything to make her the most qualified person in that group is astoundingly idiotic. You're better than that, Mach. Her only qualification is that she can cobble together a coalition of enough votes to win an election. And that's all democrats seem to care about.

Her most appealing qualification might be that she has better taste in women than Bill does.