The Right is truly, truly terrified of Hillary Clinton

[bedowin62]

No, there aren't. Educated people, and smart people, tend towards Liberalism. It's been known for a very long time. Stupid people usually have God and their prejudices, that's all they need or want.

And you're normally blind and foolish. You people judge people based on race and make protected groups.

Who is clean? Asshole???

He made not a single mention of race. YOU did.

judging people based on race is a tried and true practice of "you people" which is the term he used

try again

 

[Statistikhengst]

And you're normally blind and foolish. You people judge people based on race and make protected groups.

Who is clean? Asshole???

He made not a single mention of race. YOU did.

judging people based on race is a tried and true practice of "you people" which is the term he used

try again

I see people use the term "you people" all the time and it has absolutely nothing to do with race.

So, no, he didn't mention race, but YOU did.

 

[ScienceRocks]

No, there aren't. Educated people, and smart people, tend towards Liberalism. It's been known for a very long time. Stupid people usually have God and their prejudices, that's all they need or want.

And you're normally blind and foolish. You people judge people based on race and make protected groups.

Who is clean? Asshole???

He made not a single mention of race. YOU did.

You do know what, prejudices mean?

 

[bedowin62]

record welfare and food stamps in Year 8 of Progrssive Majority rule in the USA.
that's what happens when you vote for "change" for the sake of change; and in year 6 of a community activist who never actually brought "change" to ANYBODY, ANYWHERE, EVER


iditos and hypocrites

 

[Derideo_Te]

That's incorrect. The better educated you are, the more liberal you are. The opposite is also true.

That is not true.
There are just as many well educated Conservatives as there are Liberals.

If the Liberals are so much more educated, then I should think that they would not want to elect another liar as President like they did with Obama.

Time to elect someone that doesn't make half of our country want to have a revolution. Makes sense.

Got a credible link substantiating that "half of our country want to have a revolution"?

 

[emilynghiem]

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!1

b-b-0b-b-b-b-b-b-ut obama is "brilliant"!!!

so i have to pretend he's not been a failure!!!!!

sniff!

He may be a smarter politician.

But what we need are smarter business people in charge,
who know how to manage working relations not destroy them,
solve conflicts to stop waste not exploit them for political gain,
and invest resources where EVERYONE benefits and agrees the solutions work,
NOT compromising the rights and beliefs of half the nation for political expediency,
and certainly not sacrifice Constitutional process to undermine govt integrity.

You can be effective in what you set out to do "by your own political agenda",
but still be destructive and exclude people the government is supposed to represent.

So it is only relatively effective, and leaves "other people"
to address the problems ignored; it is not taking full responsibility.

BP can be very effective in their oil business in the Gulf,
while leaving behind immeasurable damages to other businesses, communities,
people, and environment for "other people" to suffer without compensating all these costs over time.

So if the full costs are conveniently "left out of the equation,"
the profits and successes of BP as a business are skewed.

All politicians will focus on the points that help their balance look good.
They conveniently leave out anything else, and blame that on "other people."

 

[bedowin62]

He made not a single mention of race. YOU did.

judging people based on race is a tried and true practice of "you people" which is the term he used

try again

I see people use the term "you people" all the time and it has absolutely nothing to do with race.

So, no, he didn't mention race, but YOU did.

um well he meant it that way; he even used the word race

try again

 

[PaintMyHouse]

There are just as many well educated Conservatives as there are Liberals.

No, there aren't. Educated people, and smart people, tend towards Liberalism. It's been known for a very long time. Stupid people usually have God and their prejudices, that's all they need or want.

You will find out just how wrong you are when you die and you are standing before God.

Which God, of the many thousands mankind has had, is that? Do you know why the First Commandment reads as it does? Because the God the Jews now pray to was just one of many at that time. It's why he has names other than just God. He eventually became the top dog and caught on, obviously.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

BTW, if it wasn't open to the public, Hillary would run on a "I got people killed at Benghazi and got totally away with it" platform to get the Dem nomination.

 

[bedowin62]

judging people based on race is a tried and true practice of "you people" which is the term he used

try again

I see people use the term "you people" all the time and it has absolutely nothing to do with race.

So, no, he didn't mention race, but YOU did.

um well he meant it that way; he even used the word race

try again

merely mentioning race isnt a problem leftard. patronnizing and pandering in the name of race is. and using race to deflect attention away from your leader's failres is wrong too

try again

 

[Statistikhengst]

BTW, if it wasn't open to the public, Hillary would run on a "I got people killed at Benghazi and got totally away with it" platform to get the Dem nomination.

Do you have a link for that information, since you put it in quotes?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

We don't need another divider that will harm this country. Hillitary will run on her hatred of males. How sad.

WTF are you talking about? Hatred of males?

 

[Statistikhengst]

judging people based on race is a tried and true practice of "you people" which is the term he used

try again

I see people use the term "you people" all the time and it has absolutely nothing to do with race.

So, no, he didn't mention race, but YOU did.

um well he meant it that way; he even used the word race

try again

No, he didn't. You just lied and you also conveniently deleted the first quote that is at the center of your confusion, so here, let me help you there. Here is the original quote:

No, there aren't. Educated people, and smart people, tend towards Liberalism. It's been known for a very long time. Stupid people usually have God and their prejudices, that's all they need or want.

There is not even one mention of race in that quote.

You lied.

 

[ScienceRocks]

We don't need another divider that will harm this country. Hillitary will run on her hatred of males. How sad.

WTF are you talking about? Hatred of males?

How sad...All the left does is spray hatred all over the place. You know as well as I do that she hates men.

 

[emilynghiem]

That is not true.
There are just as many well educated Conservatives as there are Liberals.

If the Liberals are so much more educated, then I should think that they would not want to elect another liar as President like they did with Obama.

Time to elect someone that doesn't make half of our country want to have a revolution. Makes sense.

Got a credible link substantiating that "half of our country want to have a revolution"?

Hi DT
You can look at the votes of the two terms of Bush
and the two terms of Obama to see the nation is almost evenly divided 50/50 by party,
left and right.

With Bush, half the nation, leaning left demanded complete reform
because the govt was abused to push Bush's agenda and skirt responsibility
to taxpayers for corporate abuses at our expense (mostly focused on War costs).

With Obama, again half the nation, leaning right oppose his policies and demand reform,
especially with ACA*, because the govt is abused to push health care mandates
on the public under federal penalty of law, which favors the Democrat Party agenda.

You can look at the votes in Congress to see that it was divided by Party lines.

Whether you favor right or left approaches, it is clear that the policy of
"one party wins all by majority rule" excludes people of the other party,
almost equally divided as 50/50, which is technically govt abuse to DISCRIMINATE
against people by CREED. This is NOT Constitutional "equal protection of the laws."
Clearly it demands reform to prevent this pattern of one side imposing on the other,
and abusing govt to do so.

Unfortunately people are still content to use this system to take turns bullying,
instead of demanding equal representation AT ALL TIMES (not alternating by "taking turns"
dominating by party through the Presidency or Congress) by having a mixed ticket
or parliamentary type coalition of party leaders who ARE capable of working together
and representing ALL people of ALL parties at ALL times. Not just one side while the other suffers.

You can see the pattern of voting with the past two Presidents and 4 terms each,
and see the nation has been divided and denied of equal representation while the
other Party pushed their agenda biased toward one side and excluding the other.

That shows a fairly even 50/50 split.

* PS as for ACA, the demand for reform may be even higher than 50/50.
The left/liberals I work with with the Democrat and Green party want
Singlepayer or something other than insurance lobbies getting in the middle.
So besides just the rightwing wanting freedom and not forced mandates and fines,
the liberals I know want health care paid for another way where it covers costs
and doesn't cause the problems under ACA. I would say it is at LEAST 50/50.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

WHAT did Shrillary accomplish as Secretary of State?

Liberal reply (from the laughable likes of carby): "Oh yeah? Well, well, well -- <<splutter>> -- what did any Republican Secretary of State ever 'accomplish?' "



FIRST of all, what carby imagines his rejoinder does is to deflect. Nobody's nibbling though. Deflection effort = a fail. Why? Because there ARE accomplishments by SOME secretaries of State in our history.* If any Sec'y of State (Republican, Democrat or Whig) ever accomplished anything, that's far more than Shrillary managed to do.

SECONDLY, even if carby was right and if no Sec'y of State had ever accomplished diddly dog, then that would only amount to an admission that Shrillary hadn't "accomplished" anything either. So stop touting her stint as Sec'y of State as some kind of "record" upon which she should be able to run for President, you lummox.

_________________
John Adams outlined the Monroe Doctrine. Not a bad accomplishment.
Seward committed the "folly" of BUYING Alaska. Not a bad accomplishment.
George Marshall developed the Marshall plan. I thought liberals in particular just ADORED that accomplishment. HELL, even some conservatives see some virtue in it.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Time to elect someone that doesn't make half of our country want to have a revolution. Makes sense.

Got a credible link substantiating that "half of our country want to have a revolution"?

Hi DT
You can look at the votes of the two terms of Bush
and the two terms of Obama to see the nation is almost evenly divided 50/50 by party,
left and right.

With Bush, half the nation, leaning left demanded complete reform
because the govt was abused to push Bush's agenda and skirt responsibility
to taxpayers for corporate abuses at our expense (mostly focused on War costs).

With Obama, again half the nation, leaning right oppose his policies and demand reform,
especially with ACA, because the govt is abused to push health care mandates
on the public under federal penalty of law, which favors the Democrat Party agenda.

You can look at the votes in Congress to see that it was divided by Party lines.

Whether you favor right or left approaches, it is clear that the policy of
"one party wins all by majority rule" excludes people of the other party,
almost equally divided as 50/50, which is technically govt abuse to DISCRIMINATE
against people by CREED. This is NOT Constitutional "equal protection of the laws."
Clearly it demands reform to prevent this pattern of one side imposing on the other,
and abusing govt to do so.

Unfortunately people are still content to use this system to take turns bullying,
instead of demanding equal representation AT ALL TIME (not alternating by "taking turns"
dominating by party through the Presidency or Congress) by having a mixed ticket
or parliamentary type coalition of party leaders who ARE capable of working together
and representing ALL people of ALL parties at ALL times. Not just one side while the other suffers.

You can see the pattern of voting with the past two Presidents and 4 terms each,
and see the nation has been divided and denied of equal representation while the
other Party pushed their agenda biased toward one side and excluding the other.

That shows a fairly even 50/50 split.

Our Union has been divided for a much longer time than you realize and although I respect the amount of time and effort you put into what you write, but I hardly call that abuse. In a Republic based on Democratic principles, the majority is supposed to rule, even if it is a small majority.

The GOP under the Bush 43 administration pushed much, much more through per reconcilation than the Obama adminstration.

I can, however, understand your sentiment about the feeling of 50/50.

I enjoy reading your posts.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Time to elect someone that doesn't make half of our country want to have a revolution. Makes sense.

Got a credible link substantiating that "half of our country want to have a revolution"?

Hi DT
You can look at the votes of the two terms of Bush
and the two terms of Obama to see the nation is almost evenly divided 50/50 by party,
left and right.

With Bush, half the nation, leaning left demanded complete reform
because the govt was abused to push Bush's agenda and skirt responsibility
to taxpayers for corporate abuses at our expense (mostly focused on War costs).

With Obama, again half the nation, leaning right oppose his policies and demand reform,
especially with ACA*, because the govt is abused to push health care mandates
on the public under federal penalty of law, which favors the Democrat Party agenda.

You can look at the votes in Congress to see that it was divided by Party lines.

Whether you favor right or left approaches, it is clear that the policy of
"one party wins all by majority rule" excludes people of the other party,
almost equally divided as 50/50, which is technically govt abuse to DISCRIMINATE
against people by CREED. This is NOT Constitutional "equal protection of the laws."
Clearly it demands reform to prevent this pattern of one side imposing on the other,
and abusing govt to do so.

Unfortunately people are still content to use this system to take turns bullying,
instead of demanding equal representation AT ALL TIMES (not alternating by "taking turns"
dominating by party through the Presidency or Congress) by having a mixed ticket
or parliamentary type coalition of party leaders who ARE capable of working together
and representing ALL people of ALL parties at ALL times. Not just one side while the other suffers.

You can see the pattern of voting with the past two Presidents and 4 terms each,
and see the nation has been divided and denied of equal representation while the
other Party pushed their agenda biased toward one side and excluding the other.

That shows a fairly even 50/50 split.

* PS as for ACA, the demand for reform may be even higher than 50/50.
The left/liberals I work with with the Democrat and Green party want
Singlepayer or something other than insurance lobbies getting in the middle.
So besides just the rightwing wanting freedom and not forced mandates and fines,
the liberals I know want health care paid for another way where it covers costs
and doesn't cause the problems under ACA. I would say it is at LEAST 50/50.

Hi Emily,

It isn't that the nation is split that I am questioning. It is the allegation that those who are out of power want a "revolution". I have seen absolutely nothing whatsoever that supports the allegation about a "revolution" that would have "50% support".

 

[Pete7469]

Every lucid person should be terrified of a criminally insane authoritarian socipath with ambitions for the presidency.

There were millions of people who fled the regimes of Stalin, Hitler and Mao before they successfully achieved power.

There is no place for us to go. The reason this country exists was because of people fleeing the shitholes mindless sheep allowed to develop everywhere else on earth.

Now you bed wetters want to destroy the last refugee of freedom, what's left of it that is.

Why can't you cocksucking moonbat parasites take your fat **** hitlary and enjoy the socialist "paradise" of North Korea? They already have everything you want there.

 

[JimH52]

WHAT did Shrillary accomplish as Secretary of State?

Liberal reply (from the laughable likes of carby): "Oh yeah? Well, well, well -- <<splutter>> -- what did any Republican Secretary of State ever 'accomplish?' "



FIRST of all, what carby imagines his rejoinder does is to deflect. Nobody's nibbling though. Deflection effort = a fail. Why? Because there ARE accomplishments by SOME secretaries of State in our history.* If any Sec'y of State (Republican, Democrat or Whig) ever accomplished anything, that's far more than Shrillary managed to do.

SECONDLY, even if carby was right and if no Sec'y of State had ever accomplished diddly dog, then that would only amount to an admission that Shrillary hadn't "accomplished" anything either. So stop touting her stint as Sec'y of State as some kind of "record" upon which she should be able to run for President, you lummox.

_________________
John Adams outlined the Monroe Doctrine. Not a bad accomplishment.
Seward committed the "folly" of BUYING Alaska. Not a bad accomplishment.
George Marshall developed the Marshall plan. I thought liberals in particular just ADORED that accomplishment. HELL, even some conservatives see some virtue in it.

Your intellectual response is just amazing!

Maybe next time you can write it as a Poem?