(07-27-2013 05:54 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-27-2013 03:52 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(07-27-2013 03:44 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(07-27-2013 02:44 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(07-27-2013 02:36 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  You might think she's all of those things but to me she's the damn best out of all the morons in the Republican Party and most of the incompetent ones in the Democratic Party too.

I don't think so. I've got history to inform me. If America can't (or won't) come up with someone better, it's going to be a bumpy ride.

So, answer the question. What makes her presidential timber? Don't tell me how electable she is. I already know that. Assume she's elected. Then what?

Look at her career. Take a good, hard, objective look at it. She's abrasive, thin-skinned, and paranoid. She's also ****** up a whole lot of things she's been put in charge of. She's the Democrats' Richard Nixon.

You never know how someone will be as president.

Using that logic, the guy under the Tallapoosa Street bridge is qualified.

Sorry, you aren't qualified.

Of course I am.

By that logic, hell, even you're qualified, Robs! Inorite?

Christie is a poor man's Guiliani. Rand Paul is 2016.

(07-27-2013 07:02 PM)Dak10 Wrote:  Christie is a poor man's Guiliani. Rand Paul is 2016.

I agree! Rand Paul 2016! Here is to another 4 years of Democratic presidency!

(07-27-2013 07:02 PM)Dak10 Wrote:  Christie is a poor man's Guiliani. Rand Paul is 2016.

He's pro-life.

(07-27-2013 05:28 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(07-27-2013 04:57 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(07-27-2013 03:52 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(07-27-2013 03:44 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(07-27-2013 02:44 PM)Smaug Wrote:  I don't think so. I've got history to inform me. If America can't (or won't) come up with someone better, it's going to be a bumpy ride.

So, answer the question. What makes her presidential timber? Don't tell me how electable she is. I already know that. Assume she's elected. Then what?

Look at her career. Take a good, hard, objective look at it. She's abrasive, thin-skinned, and paranoid. She's also ****** up a whole lot of things she's been put in charge of. She's the Democrats' Richard Nixon.

You never know how someone will be as president.

Using that logic, the guy under the Tallapoosa Street bridge is qualified.

Hell, he might be the next George Washington under politcal pressure. Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Reagan were suppose to be bad presidents. Grant, Hoover, and Kennedy were suppose to be great presidents.

So, disregard track records and careers of people who want to be leader of the free world? We have to make choices based on what we know about people. It may not be perfect, but your method does not strike me as an improvement.

We've been electing presidents based off of their track records with mixed results for over 200 years.

Point me to ONE success in sHillary's political career. I'm not talking about getting elected in NY as a carpetbagger. That's not an accomplishment in terms of a track record. Successfully lying and covering up about Benghazi isn't either.

(07-27-2013 07:12 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  Point me to ONE success in sHillary's political career. I'm not talking about getting elected in NY as a carpetbagger. That's not an accomplishment in terms of a track record. Successfully lying and covering up about Benghazi isn't either.

The Clinton legacy.

(07-27-2013 07:12 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  Point me to ONE success in sHillary's political career. I'm not talking about getting elected in NY as a carpetbagger. That's not an accomplishment in terms of a track record. Successfully lying and covering up about Benghazi isn't either.

She pissed you and a lot of tea baggers off. That should be enough!

(07-27-2013 07:24 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-27-2013 07:12 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  Point me to ONE success in sHillary's political career. I'm not talking about getting elected in NY as a carpetbagger. That's not an accomplishment in terms of a track record. Successfully lying and covering up about Benghazi isn't either.

She pissed you and a lot of tea baggers off. That should be enough!

That is pretty funny.

(07-27-2013 07:20 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(07-27-2013 07:12 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  Point me to ONE success in sHillary's political career. I'm not talking about getting elected in NY as a carpetbagger. That's not an accomplishment in terms of a track record. Successfully lying and covering up about Benghazi isn't either.

The Clinton legacy.

Wrong Clinton.

(07-27-2013 07:58 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(07-27-2013 07:20 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(07-27-2013 07:12 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  Point me to ONE success in sHillary's political career. I'm not talking about getting elected in NY as a carpetbagger. That's not an accomplishment in terms of a track record. Successfully lying and covering up about Benghazi isn't either.

The Clinton legacy.

Wrong Clinton.

we will never know how many clintons there are. apparently, the clenis got around.

(07-27-2013 07:25 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-27-2013 07:24 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-27-2013 07:12 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  Point me to ONE success in sHillary's political career. I'm not talking about getting elected in NY as a carpetbagger. That's not an accomplishment in terms of a track record. Successfully lying and covering up about Benghazi isn't either.

She pissed you and a lot of tea baggers off. That should be enough!

That is pretty funny.

That's about as good as it gets.

(07-27-2013 07:58 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(07-27-2013 07:20 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(07-27-2013 07:12 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  Point me to ONE success in sHillary's political career. I'm not talking about getting elected in NY as a carpetbagger. That's not an accomplishment in terms of a track record. Successfully lying and covering up about Benghazi isn't either.

The Clinton legacy.

Wrong Clinton.

She has more experience in the WH than anybody that is eligible besides Carter & Bush 1.

Republicans would now love for her to run !
It would be her last run.

Please run Hillary!

(07-28-2013 01:51 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  
Please run Hillary!

Please run Hillary!

See we agree on something..LOL.

(07-28-2013 11:02 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-28-2013 01:51 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  
Please run Hillary!

Please run Hillary!

See we agree on something..LOL.

Would think it would be interesting to see Bill as First Guy,
but do not think she has that much of a chance to win.
However, the Repubs cannot choose a decent candidate if
our lives depended on it ---which it does!
Not even if their head was on fire!

(07-28-2013 11:58 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Would think it would be interesting to see Bill as First Guy,

Guessing he'd be in charge of the interns.

(07-28-2013 01:45 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(07-27-2013 07:58 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(07-27-2013 07:20 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(07-27-2013 07:12 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  Point me to ONE success in sHillary's political career. I'm not talking about getting elected in NY as a carpetbagger. That's not an accomplishment in terms of a track record. Successfully lying and covering up about Benghazi isn't either.

The Clinton legacy.

Wrong Clinton.

She has more experience in the WH than anybody that is eligible besides Carter & Bush 1.

And zero accountability, not that that seems to matter.

(07-28-2013 12:16 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(07-28-2013 11:58 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Would think it would be interesting to see Bill as First Guy,

Guessing he'd be in charge of the interns.

Bill Clinton isn't in office and isn't running for anything. David Vitter (R-Prostitution) still holds his seat in the Senate, with the support of the GOP.