Hillary Clinton's official kickoff speech at the Roosevelt Island Rally, 06/13/2015

[Papageorgio]

What I find interesting about this thread is that it is progressing pretty much as I thought it would.

A LOT of material was presented in the OP and very little of it is actually being debated.

Instead, a great many Righties are frothing at the mouth and are showing a complete lack of ability to focus on anything. Lots of growling, flaming, trolling, and very little attention to actual content.

Oh, and before you frothers accuse me of partisanship, I will remind that I invested a HUGE amount of time on the Rand Paul announcement speech OP:

Rand Paul s platform within his speech 15 points worth debating US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And in case you all have forgotten, Rand Paul is a Republican.

To recapitulate, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton told her public at her first public rally that there are four fights that she wants to fight for the American people as the 45th president, should she be elected. She went through a long list of policy proposals. There is plenty of material to sift through, analyse and then criticize, if you want to, and the vast majority of it is quoted in the OP. Calling her names or just saying that she sucks only serves to make Righties look like utter fools. And your behaviour proves what Lefties often say about Conservatives not being able to think, that all they do is to froth at the mouth.

I give Righties the good advice to learn to actually debate like real adults. Really, the slime you spread all over USMB - just because you are perpetually butthurt - has gone from shameful for you to embarrassing for all of us. Truly, truly, truly.

-Stat

Her policy proposals consist of giving out free shit and promising to punish the very people who have enriched her over the years. I.e. she completely lacks credibility.
Only a fake poseur like you could possibly take anything she says seriously. Hell, she admitted to Obama her support for Iraq was based on political polling. But so is every other position she takes. And she will abandon them in a heartbeat if the polls tell her otherwise.

Interesting that you find it wrong and a negative when a politician goes against the interest of a financial contributor. Somehow the Republican mindset has come to agree with the kleptocrats that large financial contributions should equate to automatic support for the special interest of the donor. To not do so makes the politician bad.

Interesting that you think she would actually go against the financial interests of her financial contributors. She has a history of lying, what would make you believe she is telling the truth at this point and time?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Wasting 30, 40 minutes listening to pre-programmed talking points isn't something I will do. It's all blither blather from an idiot.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Wasting 30, 40 minutes listening to pre-programmed talking points isn't something I will do. It's all blither blather from an idiot.

Which proves my point once again.

 

[Camp]

What I find interesting about this thread is that it is progressing pretty much as I thought it would.

A LOT of material was presented in the OP and very little of it is actually being debated.

Instead, a great many Righties are frothing at the mouth and are showing a complete lack of ability to focus on anything. Lots of growling, flaming, trolling, and very little attention to actual content.

Oh, and before you frothers accuse me of partisanship, I will remind that I invested a HUGE amount of time on the Rand Paul announcement speech OP:

Rand Paul s platform within his speech 15 points worth debating US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And in case you all have forgotten, Rand Paul is a Republican.

To recapitulate, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton told her public at her first public rally that there are four fights that she wants to fight for the American people as the 45th president, should she be elected. She went through a long list of policy proposals. There is plenty of material to sift through, analyse and then criticize, if you want to, and the vast majority of it is quoted in the OP. Calling her names or just saying that she sucks only serves to make Righties look like utter fools. And your behaviour proves what Lefties often say about Conservatives not being able to think, that all they do is to froth at the mouth.

I give Righties the good advice to learn to actually debate like real adults. Really, the slime you spread all over USMB - just because you are perpetually butthurt - has gone from shameful for you to embarrassing for all of us. Truly, truly, truly.

-Stat

Her policy proposals consist of giving out free shit and promising to punish the very people who have enriched her over the years. I.e. she completely lacks credibility.
Only a fake poseur like you could possibly take anything she says seriously. Hell, she admitted to Obama her support for Iraq was based on political polling. But so is every other position she takes. And she will abandon them in a heartbeat if the polls tell her otherwise.

Interesting that you find it wrong and a negative when a politician goes against the interest of a financial contributor. Somehow the Republican mindset has come to agree with the kleptocrats that large financial contributions should equate to automatic support for the special interest of the donor. To not do so makes the politician bad.

Interesting that you think she would actually go against the financial interests of her financial contributors. She has a history of lying, what would make you believe she is telling the truth at this point and time?

I was responding to Rabbi's negativity to a politicians going against the interest of a donor. I assume this sentiment has something to do with her attitude towards hedge fund folks, including her son in law. It has caused a bit of attention in the news that she has received donations from that sector and is not doing such a good job of towing the line for them.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Wasting 30, 40 minutes listening to pre-programmed talking points isn't something I will do. It's all blither blather from an idiot.

Which proves my point once again.

No, it doesn't. I stated as much about how excited I am of jeb announcing: .000000000000000000000000000000.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Wasting 30, 40 minutes listening to pre-programmed talking points isn't something I will do. It's all blither blather from an idiot.

Which proves my point once again.

No, it doesn't. I stated as much about how excited I am of jeb announcing: .000000000000000000000000000000.

Well, uh, ok, uhm, carry on.

That however, has nothing to do with your lack of ability to actually concentrate on the content of an OP, whether you like the content or not. After all, you showed up on the thread, right?

Gotcha.

 

[Papageorgio]

What I find interesting about this thread is that it is progressing pretty much as I thought it would.

A LOT of material was presented in the OP and very little of it is actually being debated.

Instead, a great many Righties are frothing at the mouth and are showing a complete lack of ability to focus on anything. Lots of growling, flaming, trolling, and very little attention to actual content.

Oh, and before you frothers accuse me of partisanship, I will remind that I invested a HUGE amount of time on the Rand Paul announcement speech OP:

Rand Paul s platform within his speech 15 points worth debating US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And in case you all have forgotten, Rand Paul is a Republican.

To recapitulate, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton told her public at her first public rally that there are four fights that she wants to fight for the American people as the 45th president, should she be elected. She went through a long list of policy proposals. There is plenty of material to sift through, analyse and then criticize, if you want to, and the vast majority of it is quoted in the OP. Calling her names or just saying that she sucks only serves to make Righties look like utter fools. And your behaviour proves what Lefties often say about Conservatives not being able to think, that all they do is to froth at the mouth.

I give Righties the good advice to learn to actually debate like real adults. Really, the slime you spread all over USMB - just because you are perpetually butthurt - has gone from shameful for you to embarrassing for all of us. Truly, truly, truly.

-Stat

Her policy proposals consist of giving out free shit and promising to punish the very people who have enriched her over the years. I.e. she completely lacks credibility.
Only a fake poseur like you could possibly take anything she says seriously. Hell, she admitted to Obama her support for Iraq was based on political polling. But so is every other position she takes. And she will abandon them in a heartbeat if the polls tell her otherwise.

Interesting that you find it wrong and a negative when a politician goes against the interest of a financial contributor. Somehow the Republican mindset has come to agree with the kleptocrats that large financial contributions should equate to automatic support for the special interest of the donor. To not do so makes the politician bad.

Interesting that you think she would actually go against the financial interests of her financial contributors. She has a history of lying, what would make you believe she is telling the truth at this point and time?

I was responding to Rabbi's negativity to a politicians going against the interest of a donor. I assume this sentiment has something to do with her attitude towards hedge fund folks, including her son in law. It has caused a bit of attention in the news that she has received donations from that sector and is not doing such a good job of towing the line for them.

Words, not actions. Her words will say one thing, her actions shows she loves the money of Wall St.

 

[Zander]

Historians will not remember this speech, except as a footnote in a second failed campaign for the DNC nod........

 

[Papageorgio]

Wasting 30, 40 minutes listening to pre-programmed talking points isn't something I will do. It's all blither blather from an idiot.

Which proves my point once again.

No, it doesn't. I stated as much about how excited I am of jeb announcing: .000000000000000000000000000000.

Well, uh, ok, uhm, carry on.

That however, has nothing to do with your lack of ability to actually concentrate on the content of an OP, whether you like the content or not. After all, you showed up on the thread, right?

Gotcha.

You sure have control issues.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Wasting 30, 40 minutes listening to pre-programmed talking points isn't something I will do. It's all blither blather from an idiot.

Which proves my point once again.

No, it doesn't. I stated as much about how excited I am of jeb announcing: .000000000000000000000000000000.

Well, uh, ok, uhm, carry on.

That however, has nothing to do with your lack of ability to actually concentrate on the content of an OP, whether you like the content or not. After all, you showed up on the thread, right?

Gotcha.

You sure have control issues.

Chuckle, chuckle.

Uhm, no.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Wasting 30, 40 minutes listening to pre-programmed talking points isn't something I will do. It's all blither blather from an idiot.

Which proves my point once again.

No, it doesn't. I stated as much about how excited I am of jeb announcing: .000000000000000000000000000000.

Well, uh, ok, uhm, carry on.

That however, has nothing to do with your lack of ability to actually concentrate on the content of an OP, whether you like the content or not. After all, you showed up on the thread, right?

Gotcha.

Well alright!

 

[Papageorgio]

Wasting 30, 40 minutes listening to pre-programmed talking points isn't something I will do. It's all blither blather from an idiot.

Which proves my point once again.

No, it doesn't. I stated as much about how excited I am of jeb announcing: .000000000000000000000000000000.

Well, uh, ok, uhm, carry on.

That however, has nothing to do with your lack of ability to actually concentrate on the content of an OP, whether you like the content or not. After all, you showed up on the thread, right?

Gotcha.

You sure have control issues.

Chuckle, chuckle.

Uhm, no.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

Then why do you feel a need to control every thread you start. It is obvious that you have issues. It is seen in your posts.

Carry on.

 

[The Rabbi]

What I find interesting about this thread is that it is progressing pretty much as I thought it would.

A LOT of material was presented in the OP and very little of it is actually being debated.

Instead, a great many Righties are frothing at the mouth and are showing a complete lack of ability to focus on anything. Lots of growling, flaming, trolling, and very little attention to actual content.

Oh, and before you frothers accuse me of partisanship, I will remind that I invested a HUGE amount of time on the Rand Paul announcement speech OP:

Rand Paul s platform within his speech 15 points worth debating US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And in case you all have forgotten, Rand Paul is a Republican.

To recapitulate, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton told her public at her first public rally that there are four fights that she wants to fight for the American people as the 45th president, should she be elected. She went through a long list of policy proposals. There is plenty of material to sift through, analyse and then criticize, if you want to, and the vast majority of it is quoted in the OP. Calling her names or just saying that she sucks only serves to make Righties look like utter fools. And your behaviour proves what Lefties often say about Conservatives not being able to think, that all they do is to froth at the mouth.

I give Righties the good advice to learn to actually debate like real adults. Really, the slime you spread all over USMB - just because you are perpetually butthurt - has gone from shameful for you to embarrassing for all of us. Truly, truly, truly.

-Stat

Her policy proposals consist of giving out free shit and promising to punish the very people who have enriched her over the years. I.e. she completely lacks credibility.
Only a fake poseur like you could possibly take anything she says seriously. Hell, she admitted to Obama her support for Iraq was based on political polling. But so is every other position she takes. And she will abandon them in a heartbeat if the polls tell her otherwise.

Interesting that you find it wrong and a negative when a politician goes against the interest of a financial contributor. Somehow the Republican mindset has come to agree with the kleptocrats that large financial contributions should equate to automatic support for the special interest of the donor. To not do so makes the politician bad.

Interesting that you dont mind playing the patsy.
Clinton has never gone against the interest of a contributor That's kind of the point. SHe might say she will. But when it comes to brass tacks you can bet your bottom dollar she will not. SHe has a long history of being for Hillary ahead of anything else.
Rubes like you just dont want to believe that.

 

[The Rabbi]

Wasting 30, 40 minutes listening to pre-programmed talking points isn't something I will do. It's all blither blather from an idiot.

Which proves my point once again.

No, it doesn't. I stated as much about how excited I am of jeb announcing: .000000000000000000000000000000.

Well, uh, ok, uhm, carry on.

That however, has nothing to do with your lack of ability to actually concentrate on the content of an OP, whether you like the content or not. After all, you showed up on the thread, right?

Gotcha.

There's your problem right there: You think the OP had content.
Carry on.

 

[Camp]

What I find interesting about this thread is that it is progressing pretty much as I thought it would.

A LOT of material was presented in the OP and very little of it is actually being debated.

Instead, a great many Righties are frothing at the mouth and are showing a complete lack of ability to focus on anything. Lots of growling, flaming, trolling, and very little attention to actual content.

Oh, and before you frothers accuse me of partisanship, I will remind that I invested a HUGE amount of time on the Rand Paul announcement speech OP:

Rand Paul s platform within his speech 15 points worth debating US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And in case you all have forgotten, Rand Paul is a Republican.

To recapitulate, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton told her public at her first public rally that there are four fights that she wants to fight for the American people as the 45th president, should she be elected. She went through a long list of policy proposals. There is plenty of material to sift through, analyse and then criticize, if you want to, and the vast majority of it is quoted in the OP. Calling her names or just saying that she sucks only serves to make Righties look like utter fools. And your behaviour proves what Lefties often say about Conservatives not being able to think, that all they do is to froth at the mouth.

I give Righties the good advice to learn to actually debate like real adults. Really, the slime you spread all over USMB - just because you are perpetually butthurt - has gone from shameful for you to embarrassing for all of us. Truly, truly, truly.

-Stat

Her policy proposals consist of giving out free shit and promising to punish the very people who have enriched her over the years. I.e. she completely lacks credibility.
Only a fake poseur like you could possibly take anything she says seriously. Hell, she admitted to Obama her support for Iraq was based on political polling. But so is every other position she takes. And she will abandon them in a heartbeat if the polls tell her otherwise.

Interesting that you find it wrong and a negative when a politician goes against the interest of a financial contributor. Somehow the Republican mindset has come to agree with the kleptocrats that large financial contributions should equate to automatic support for the special interest of the donor. To not do so makes the politician bad.

Interesting that you dont mind playing the patsy.
Clinton has never gone against the interest of a contributor That's kind of the point. SHe might say she will. But when it comes to brass tacks you can bet your bottom dollar she will not. SHe has a long history of being for Hillary ahead of anything else.
Rubes like you just dont want to believe that.

You go ahead and bet your bottom dollar. I think every word and thought in her speech was well planned and had a purpose. In this case I believe her handlers see a fair trade. Dump on the hedge fund guys and a few others and benefit from the Warren and Sanders supporters who will be enticed into jumping on the Hillary bandwagon.

 

[The Rabbi]

What I find interesting about this thread is that it is progressing pretty much as I thought it would.

A LOT of material was presented in the OP and very little of it is actually being debated.

Instead, a great many Righties are frothing at the mouth and are showing a complete lack of ability to focus on anything. Lots of growling, flaming, trolling, and very little attention to actual content.

Oh, and before you frothers accuse me of partisanship, I will remind that I invested a HUGE amount of time on the Rand Paul announcement speech OP:

Rand Paul s platform within his speech 15 points worth debating US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And in case you all have forgotten, Rand Paul is a Republican.

To recapitulate, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton told her public at her first public rally that there are four fights that she wants to fight for the American people as the 45th president, should she be elected. She went through a long list of policy proposals. There is plenty of material to sift through, analyse and then criticize, if you want to, and the vast majority of it is quoted in the OP. Calling her names or just saying that she sucks only serves to make Righties look like utter fools. And your behaviour proves what Lefties often say about Conservatives not being able to think, that all they do is to froth at the mouth.

I give Righties the good advice to learn to actually debate like real adults. Really, the slime you spread all over USMB - just because you are perpetually butthurt - has gone from shameful for you to embarrassing for all of us. Truly, truly, truly.

-Stat

Her policy proposals consist of giving out free shit and promising to punish the very people who have enriched her over the years. I.e. she completely lacks credibility.
Only a fake poseur like you could possibly take anything she says seriously. Hell, she admitted to Obama her support for Iraq was based on political polling. But so is every other position she takes. And she will abandon them in a heartbeat if the polls tell her otherwise.

Interesting that you find it wrong and a negative when a politician goes against the interest of a financial contributor. Somehow the Republican mindset has come to agree with the kleptocrats that large financial contributions should equate to automatic support for the special interest of the donor. To not do so makes the politician bad.

Interesting that you dont mind playing the patsy.
Clinton has never gone against the interest of a contributor That's kind of the point. SHe might say she will. But when it comes to brass tacks you can bet your bottom dollar she will not. SHe has a long history of being for Hillary ahead of anything else.
Rubes like you just dont want to believe that.

You go ahead and bet your bottom dollar. I think every word and thought in her speech was well planned and had a purpose. In this case I believe her handlers see a fair trade. Dump on the hedge fund guys and a few others and benefit from the Warren and Sanders supporters who will be enticed into jumping on the Hillary bandwagon.

Oh you are correct. Every word was thought out and war gamed before going into the speech. Just like her position on supporting the Iraq War was the result of careful calculation on how many votes she would get for supporting it vs how many she would lose.
But at the end of the day it is meaningless because Hillary's only principle is Hillary. She wont bite the hand that feeds her.

 

[BULLDOG]

Where in your moronic brain do you get this thought that republicans ever offer "new ideas". They are younger and energetic sure, but republicans by definition do not have new ideas. It's more of the same you simpleton: Ridiculous tax cuts for the wealthy that do next to nothing to boost the economy for the lower classes and pointless deregulations. Oh and they'll repeal ObamaCare and replace it with nothing. God you are such a pawn.

LOL! You've been pwned, once again Billy.
By definition they dont have new ideas. WHose definition? Yours? ThinkProgress'?

Uh, no pawn, they are conservative. Do I need spell out the definition for you? Seriously what is Ted Cruz even running on besides repealing ObamaCare? Nothing. He is a scumbag who has billionaires in his pocket.

LOL! Do you even know what Cruz's platform is?
Scumbag with billionaires in the pocket? That must mean Hillary. She's gotten hundreds of millions of dollars from billionaire scumbags.

So you are in favor of getting rid of citizens united and cutting the money out of politics. Great. Hillary is too, but as long as it is legal, she can't let the repubs be the only ones getting all that dark money. That would be stupid.

Bernie Sanders is the only candidate I trust with this issue.

I believe it is more of an issue for Bernie than it is for anybody else, but pretty much all democrats oppose big money in politics. As long as it is legal they all have to take advantage of it though. I'm not aware of any republicans who want it changed though.

 

[BULLDOG]

Where in your moronic brain do you get this thought that republicans ever offer "new ideas". They are younger and energetic sure, but republicans by definition do not have new ideas. It's more of the same you simpleton: Ridiculous tax cuts for the wealthy that do next to nothing to boost the economy for the lower classes and pointless deregulations. Oh and they'll repeal ObamaCare and replace it with nothing. God you are such a pawn.

LOL! You've been pwned, once again Billy.
By definition they dont have new ideas. WHose definition? Yours? ThinkProgress'?

Uh, no pawn, they are conservative. Do I need spell out the definition for you? Seriously what is Ted Cruz even running on besides repealing ObamaCare? Nothing. He is a scumbag who has billionaires in his pocket.

LOL! Do you even know what Cruz's platform is?
Scumbag with billionaires in the pocket? That must mean Hillary. She's gotten hundreds of millions of dollars from billionaire scumbags.

So you are in favor of getting rid of citizens united and cutting the money out of politics. Great. Hillary is too, but as long as it is legal, she can't let the repubs be the only ones getting all that dark money. That would be stupid.

Lol. The hil loves that donor money. Her goal is 2 billion for this campaign. Did you know that she is one of the little people.

Big money in politics is wrong, but as long as it is going to be used by the right, you can't expect the left to not also take advantage of it. There is only one party who wants to change that.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Wasting 30, 40 minutes listening to pre-programmed talking points isn't something I will do. It's all blither blather from an idiot.

Which proves my point once again.

No, it doesn't. I stated as much about how excited I am of jeb announcing: .000000000000000000000000000000.

Well, uh, ok, uhm, carry on.

That however, has nothing to do with your lack of ability to actually concentrate on the content of an OP, whether you like the content or not. After all, you showed up on the thread, right?

Gotcha.

There's your problem right there: You think the OP had content.
Carry on.

It does. Your inability to concentrate on any content is not my problem and your snark only serves to further my point.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[The Rabbi]

Wasting 30, 40 minutes listening to pre-programmed talking points isn't something I will do. It's all blither blather from an idiot.

Which proves my point once again.

No, it doesn't. I stated as much about how excited I am of jeb announcing: .000000000000000000000000000000.

Well, uh, ok, uhm, carry on.

That however, has nothing to do with your lack of ability to actually concentrate on the content of an OP, whether you like the content or not. After all, you showed up on the thread, right?

Gotcha.

There's your problem right there: You think the OP had content.
Carry on.

It does. Your inability to concentrate on any content is not my problem and your snark only serves to further my point.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

Your self importance and arrogance is truly amusing. I doubt I've seen anyone with as little to show and as much pride in it.