The Right is truly, truly terrified of Hillary Clinton

[Gadawg73]

Wall Street freely throws out how much cash to leftists, rightists and everyone in between?
Come on folks, under the current cash and carry system of campaigning everyone loves Wall Street.
Obama is as left an administration since Roosevelt and how many Wall Street crooks has his Justice Department prosecuted?
Real world folks. Come join us that live in it.

 

[peach174]

Why would anyone want to vote for Hillary and have Bill running around with the interns again?

 

[Uncensored2008]

The only thing scary about Hillary, or any other far left politician, is the policies they support. I bet Chris Stevens and the others thought she was pretty scary about the time the terrorists showed up and they realized that no one had their backs.

The woman deserves NO quarter. She is a criminal...and started early...


Counsel confirms Hillary?s ?fraudulent? Watergate brief


Politics: Watergate-era Judiciary chief of staff: Hillary Clinton fired for lies, unethical behavior | Best of Cain

This is one of many reasons that Hillary won't run.

democrats have no ethics or integrity, but the baggage of a career criminal like her is enough to scare populists away.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Hitting the spray paint pretty hard, aren't you?




Hillary is a mindless hack - but I don't see anyone fearing her. I strongly doubt she will run - Obama fucked her (metaphorically - he'd never actually **** a woman!) out of the presidency. She's damaged goods, old, and in questionable health. She will bow out.

Jon Stewart contrasted praise for the "sensitivity" of the tearfulness of Boehner and other male pols vs. the criticism heaped on female pols like Hillary for getting misty eyed in public..
Jon said something like: "You can only be a "*****" in politics if you have a dick..."
Hilarious, but Oh so true...
However...the sexism ridiculed by Stewart pales in contrast with this post and others in this thread...with all those references to Hillary "being fucked"..."damaged goods"..."old hag", "criminal" etc...
I don't recall any male pol running for prez in his late 6O's disparaged in such gender nasty and sexually explicit ways..and it's also not unusual for previously defeated candidate to run again and win.
So...I guess some of the rightwing boys in the forum must not only be TRULY INTIMIDATED BY HILLARY, but suffering from a severe case of clit/vagina envy....


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Nixon and Reagan spring to mind. What is more pertinent is that politicians often run in primaries for name recognition never expecting to actually become the nominee for that election. They do so because 4 or 8 years later that gives them a head start in those primaries and makes them a front runner.

 

[Derideo_Te]

winning an ellection often has a lot to do with being the right person at the right time. Carter won because of that. Even Reagan won because of that. Obama won because of that. Hillary had she run in 2008 would have won because of that. but in 2016, i don' think the stars ar going to be aligned for her.

I agree with the right person at the right time concept and it was certainly true for Carter in 1976. But what I think overrides that is charisma. FDR, JFK, Reagan and Bill Clinton all had charisma. The thing about charisma is that it transmits confidence to the people.

FDR said that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself and people believed him and went back to work. JFK had a vision for putting a man on the moon and people believed him and made it happen. Reagan communicated a vision for a new morning in America and people believed him and the economy recovered. Clinton put 100,000 new cops on the beat and teachers in classrooms and the economy boomed.

Whether or not you like the individual presidents themselves the ability to communicate a vision and inspire and motivate the people to reach it is what matters. When I look at the potential field of candidates for 2016 I am looking for someone who can do that. Christie has it but he is handicapped by the GWB scandal. Rand Paul has a vision but it isn't one that will go down well with the majority of voters in my opinion. Jeb Bush might have one but I haven't seen it yet. Hilary has one and that is what makes her a viable contender for 2016 in my opinion.

hillary also has benghazi and that is as real as the GWB scandal. hillary also had a bloody battle with obama in 2008. a lot of that dirt wil resurface again too. I also see a lot of people who were strong hillary supporters taking a step back and questioning if she is the best choice. especially in NY. in 2008 i would have agreed she was a lock to win. in 2016, i think the door is open. A lot depends on who the republicans put forward. A lot depends how brutal the republican primaries are.

I agree with your analysis that a lot does depend upon how much dirt resurfaces and how much information turns up about Benghazi. The RNC chair alluded to that happening. As far as 2008 supporters vs 2016 supporters are concerned I think that what she might have lost to attrition will be replaced by changing demographics. In that respect I see that as a wash.

You are absolutely right that the Republican nominee will be critical. Given the 2012 primaries I am anticipating a "kinder and gentler" approach this time around. It won't be a repeat. If anything it will be a model of decorum and respect because the damage done to the eventual nominee in 2012 was a handicapping factor in the election. At least that will be the desired approach by the establishment and I can see Jeb Bush and Rand Paul playing by those rules. When it comes to some of the other candidates I am not as sure. If Christie overcomes the GWB hurdle he will be up there too and be a serious contender.

 

[The Rabbi]

Old has-beens like Reagan didn't win elections?

Hate to tell you this but Hilary is a great communicator, she can connect with people on a personal level (much like Bush jr could and Romney couldn't) and she has the contacts, organization and fundraising to do it all. As the first viable female presidential candidate she appeals to the largest demographic voting bloc of all.

In essence the presidency is hers to decline at the present time.

BTW it looks like Jeb is running too so 2016 could be the ultimate showdown.

Reagan was a one off. Tick off all the losers in presidential elections after that and every one of them was someone who had been around forever.
Hillary cannot communicate. She can lie pretty effectively, which is a positive in the Democrat party these days. She hardly connects with people who aren't already angry and ill informed. My wife and mother can't stand her. My mother a life long Democrat, btw.

Coming from someone who is both angry and ill informed I suspect that you got that backwards.

I know you're angry and ill informed. That's why you support Hillary.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The only thing scary about Hillary, or any other far left politician, is the policies they support. I bet Chris Stevens and the others thought she was pretty scary about the time the terrorists showed up and they realized that no one had their backs.

The woman deserves NO quarter. She is a criminal...and started early...


Counsel confirms Hillary?s ?fraudulent? Watergate brief


Politics: Watergate-era Judiciary chief of staff: Hillary Clinton fired for lies, unethical behavior | Best of Cain

This is one of many reasons that Hillary won't run.

democrats have no ethics or integrity, but the baggage of a career criminal like her is enough to scare populists away.

Seriously?

All you have are allegations about something a neophyte lawyer wrote back in the 1970's. She wasn't in charge. She was doing what she was told to do by those who were leading the investigation. Trying to claim that establishes a "pattern of behavior" when all you actually have is the word of one person making a claim with no substantive corroboration (quite the opposite in fact) is a very thin gruel.

But if that is all you have then best of luck. My prediction is that if you try to use that it will be seen as an act of desperation on the part of the Republicans. You honestly stand a much better chance of digging up something on Benghazi via the FOI act.

 

[emilynghiem]

I believe in God, and believe in the teachings in Christianity and all other religions that I believe are all necessary for universal salvation, peace and justice for all humanity,

Humans are allowed to be what you are, contradictory, confused, and misinformed.

And there's no Universalism in Christianity, not a single bit of it. It's Jesus or Hell, pick one? What you believe in isn't Christianity. I'd start with that.

Hi PaintMyHouse
Thanks for your response and honest points.

YES there is a big problem with how Christianity is taught and not taught.

The closest I have found to someone teaching Universalism (but excludes hell, which I include) is Carlton Pearson "Gospel of Inclusion" who left behind his church because they did not agree with his interpretation of the Bible as God saving ALL people regardless of faith.

He is still condemned as teaching a false gospel by other Christian leaders.

Instead, I will stick to what can be scientifically proven so it doesn't exclude nontheists.

Dr. Francis MacNutt has been teaching the process of "spiritual healing" as natural and consistent with science and medicine.

The approach he takes is about helping ALL people to receive healing by FORGIVENESS.

Secular studies on Forgiveness have shown that it does affect people's mental and physical health, as well as the stability and health of relationships.

That part is universal, it applies to both believers and nonbelievers.

You are right, most Christians are not taught to be "inclusive" of gentiles, nontheists, or other beliefs or people with no faith.

The problem is the lack of forgiveness that causes rejection and division.

Ironic that "lack of forgiveness" contradicts Christianity, so this explains why the fractured church body has fallen to the state of division, corruption and abuses it is in.

As in the Bible symbolism, the temple is torn down before it is rebuilt.

Both the church and the state are going through tearing down and rebuilding.
Both have been corrupted by losing the spirit of the laws, and abusing authority for greed.
Neither has been consistent in practicing the true teachings of "forgiveness and salvation for all" or "equal protection and inclusion of the laws." Both have fallen short of these laws.

Both have huge messes to clean up, and that is what we are facing now.

 

[The T]

The woman deserves NO quarter. She is a criminal...and started early...


Counsel confirms Hillary?s ?fraudulent? Watergate brief


Politics: Watergate-era Judiciary chief of staff: Hillary Clinton fired for lies, unethical behavior | Best of Cain

This is one of many reasons that Hillary won't run.

democrats have no ethics or integrity, but the baggage of a career criminal like her is enough to scare populists away.

Seriously?

All you have are allegations about something a neophyte lawyer wrote back in the 1970's. She wasn't in charge. She was doing what she was told to do by those who were leading the investigation. Trying to claim that establishes a "pattern of behavior" when all you actually have is the word of one person making a claim with no substantive corroboration (quite the opposite in fact) is a very thin gruel.

But if that is all you have then best of luck. My prediction is that if you try to use that it will be seen as an act of desperation on the part of the Republicans. You honestly stand a much better chance of digging up something on Benghazi via the FOI act.

It doesn't matter if she was in charge. FACT she broke the law, was fired over it. Deal with it.

 

[Derideo_Te]

This is one of many reasons that Hillary won't run.

democrats have no ethics or integrity, but the baggage of a career criminal like her is enough to scare populists away.

Seriously?

All you have are allegations about something a neophyte lawyer wrote back in the 1970's. She wasn't in charge. She was doing what she was told to do by those who were leading the investigation. Trying to claim that establishes a "pattern of behavior" when all you actually have is the word of one person making a claim with no substantive corroboration (quite the opposite in fact) is a very thin gruel.

But if that is all you have then best of luck. My prediction is that if you try to use that it will be seen as an act of desperation on the part of the Republicans. You honestly stand a much better chance of digging up something on Benghazi via the FOI act.

It doesn't matter if she was in charge. FACT she broke the law, was fired over it. Deal with it.

What law did she break?

Where is the independent corroboration that was the reason that she was allegedly "fired"?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Hillary did run in 2008. She flopped.
John Kerry, Al Gore, Bob Dole, Walter Mondale--all of them old has beens who couldn't inspire anyone. Put Ted Cruz up against Hillary and it's no contest.

ONLY if the right plays as dirty as the demagogues. The demagogue party will say anything - no slander or libel are off the table for them. The Republicans so far have been unwilling to even use legitimate points.

Hillary is a career criminal, IF she ran, the idiot Republicans would have to actually hold her accountable, in order to prevail.

BUT I have faith in the Republicans, they'll probably nominate Jeb and accept a nice defeat again.

 

[nodoginnafight]

ONLY if the right plays as dirty as the demagogues. The demagogue party will say anything - no slander or libel are off the table for them. The Republicans so far have been unwilling to even use legitimate points.

Maybe they'll accuse him of being a member of "Friends of Hamas"

I wonder if they are low enough ... dishonest enough ... to do that?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Wait a minute? Isn't it the Dems/Left that has demonized Wall Street?

Obama has done more for the Wolves of Wall Street than any other president in history.

He can SAY whatever he wants, as long as he continues his war on the middle class and the shift of all wealth to the elite.

 

[buckeye45_73]

I judge people based on the truth. In this case it's been proven, time and again. Stupid people are conservative. Rich people tend to be as well, and both groups fear change.

complete bullshit.....most liberals dont knowmshit, even the dupes in college. They cant name basic information let alone have complex thought. It explains why liberals make stupid arguements.

I mean liberals tnink a video caused the ben ghazi incident.
They are for killing children, but not criminals,
they said republicans back putin but are now sending aid to ukraine, huh?

yeah real genius on the libtard side

[MENTION=46168]Statistikhengst[/MENTION] Deceleration Alert!

**** off, some of us use tablets and if you cant figure out the context, its on you

 

[buckeye45_73]

complete bullshit.....most liberals dont knowmshit, even the dupes in college. They cant name basic information let alone have complex thought. It explains why liberals make stupid arguements.

I mean liberals tnink a video caused the ben ghazi incident.
They are for killing children, but not criminals,
they said republicans back putin but are now sending aid to ukraine, huh?

yeah real genius on the libtard side

[MENTION=46168]Statistikhengst[/MENTION] Deceleration Alert!

OMG, call the 911 of spelling and grammar. That was one helluva deceleration.

Now, let's see if Buckeye's posting has anything at all to do with the OP....checking, checking....


So, the title of the OP is:

The Right is truly, truly terrified of Hillary Clinton

Ok, Buckeye doesn't mention Hillary Clinton at all. And doesn't mention Glenn Beck at all, in spite of the fact that the OP is virtually all about him (Glenn Beck) accusing Hillary Clinton of being a lesbian, yadayadayada....

So, that's strike 1! vis-a-vis relevance to the OP.

Now, to those wonderfully spelled words:

dont knowmshit - sorry, intergalactic translator came up totally blank.

arguements. - intergalactic translator says: "olde englische way of saying 'bar fight' after 12 pints of ale"

tnink - hmmmm...

I think we need [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION] 's help with that one. "tnink", "tnink". That might be the sound of squid fighting underwater.

ben ghazi - ahhh, finally, an easy one. Ben Ghazi is the newest creme on the market for the alleviation of butthurt symptoms.

Now, let's call Crayola and get those TP posters rolling with this good stuff, folks!!

Oh, and Buckeye, just in case you lost your way, here is the OP:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...truly-truly-terrified-of-hillary-clinton.html

Hope that helps!

check another post, i mentioned both beck and clinton.

this post was in reference to paintmyfaces post....where he never mentioned those two

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well, given all the condolances for the Liberals that were goiing to commit suicide by the 'Conservatives' on this board on 5Nov12, I would say that their reaction is an indictation of how 2016 is going to go for them. Hillary runs, she may well get it. Right now, there is no unifying factor for the GOP, and many, many divisions in their ranks.

Yeah, and the way you Communists took control of the house and made solid gains in the Senate underscored that yours truly IS the thousand year Reich you claim...

 

[The T]

Wait a minute? Isn't it the Dems/Left that has demonized Wall Street?

Obama has done more for the Wolves of Wall Street than any other president in history.

He can SAY whatever he wants, as long as he continues his war on the middle class and the shift of all wealth to the elite.

So in effect? He is bolstering his legacy of the biggest LIAR to ever occupy the White House.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Jon Stewart contrasted praise for the "sensitivity" of the tearfulness of Boehner and other male pols vs. the criticism heaped on female pols like Hillary for getting misty eyed in public..

Stewart, Maddow, Olbermann, etc. do the thinking for leftists. No one outside of leftist hacks gives a flying **** what they have to say.

Jon said something like: "You can only be a "*****" in politics if you have a dick..."
Hilarious, but Oh so true...

Stewart is a lot of things, funny is not one of them.

However...the sexism ridiculed by Stewart pales in contrast with this post and others in this thread...with all those references to Hillary "being fucked"..."damaged goods"..."old hag", "criminal" etc...

Of course, criticism of Obama - no matter how legitimate, is RACIST, so naturally criticism of Hillary is sexism.

Y'all might be stupid as a ******* doorpost - but you are at least CONSISTENTLY stupid.

Problem is, I don't give a **** about you little Goebbels - Hillary is a crook - not because she is a woman, but because she is an utter ******* scumbag. Oh, and she WAS fucked over by Obama and the party - I don't mind - both of those two are scumbags - I think Hillary would have been just as bad as Obama - both of them are just monkeys dancing on the Leash of George Soros.

I don't recall any male pol running for prez in his late 6O's disparaged in such gender nasty and sexually explicit ways..and it's also not unusual for previously defeated candidate to run again and win.

Yes, but you're a partisan hack and not terribly bright - so what you "remember" is only that which serves your shameful party, not reality.

So...I guess some of the rightwing boys in the forum must not only be TRULY INTIMIDATED BY HILLARY, but suffering from a severe case of clit/vagina envy....

That must be it, you've got it all figured out...

 

[Uncensored2008]

Seriously?

All you have are allegations about something a neophyte lawyer wrote back in the 1970's.

BWAHAHAHAHA

Yeah, and the Rose Law Firm, fraudulent SBA loans on Lot 17 of the Rio Grande Estate development with James McDougal - who went to prison for the act. Whitewater fraud, firing civil service employees and replacing them with family members in Travel Gate.

Dude, Hillary is a life-long criminal - she'll be torn to shreds.

She wasn't in charge. She was doing what she was told to do by those who were leading the investigation. Trying to claim that establishes a "pattern of behavior" when all you actually have is the word of one person making a claim with no substantive corroboration (quite the opposite in fact) is a very thin gruel.

But if that is all you have then best of luck. My prediction is that if you try to use that it will be seen as an act of desperation on the part of the Republicans. You honestly stand a much better chance of digging up something on Benghazi via the FOI act.

She's criminal, always has been. While party hacks will do or say anything to promote the party, she is damaged goods. IF she ran, the GOP will tear her to shreds and shine a light on the mile long list of felonies tied to her neck.

She knows it well, so will not run.

 

[Derideo_Te]

complete bullshit.....most liberals dont knowmshit, even the dupes in college. They cant name basic information let alone have complex thought. It explains why liberals make stupid arguements.

I mean liberals tnink a video caused the ben ghazi incident.
They are for killing children, but not criminals,
they said republicans back putin but are now sending aid to ukraine, huh?

yeah real genius on the libtard side

[MENTION=46168]Statistikhengst[/MENTION] Deceleration Alert!

**** off, some of us use tablets and if you cant figure out the context, its on you

A poor workman blames his tools!