This comes as no surprise. She is a Clinton after all.
She is smart and she's got brass ones, I'll give her that. And she's also not above using tears to gain the upper hand. A positively brilliant and reptilian politician.
Not above using tears? Except for when she was running for president and perhaps at Ambassador Stevens' memorial service, when has she used tears for wiley purposes?Did you forget: John Boehner, who has cried publicly as SotH more often than Hillary has in her entire life, but it appears only when women tear up does it gain notice and is attributed to being reptilian.Oh dear.
I suspect she will make a run for president in 2016 and the republicans are already scared.
face it..who the hell is the republican equal to hillary...the gop promoted a gigantic airhead...sarah palin...and an equally stupid person...michelle bachmann as presidential material...when given the chance...gopers go for style [looks] over substance [brains and experience]...if a candidate looks good [romney anyone?] or like a beauty contestant...he or she must be brilliant...lol...
I loved a recent article that claimed in its title:"Rand Paul vs. Hillary Clinton, the clash of titans."First off, after 2 years how did Rand Paul get to the same level as Hillary Clinton? A titan?Get real!The writer, an academic who writes only about conservatives and only for right wing rags, paints this picture of Rand Paul and Hillary Clinton that makes you believe that they are on the same level...Of course then at the end he lets a little bit of sunshine into his piece by stating: "One Kentucky poll found that in a head-to-head contest, she'd even beat Rand in his home state of Kentucky."Yep, and her husband was the last democrat to carry the state in both 1992 and 1996.So, Rand Paul wouldn't even carry his own state in 2016. Somebody needs to stop this stupid talk about Rand Paul for President because the little guy might actually try it and just end up embarrassing himself.
Anon: Typical leftwing identity politics thinking.Who in the GOP is equal to Hillary?Bobby Jindal, Jeb Bush, a whole bunch of governors...Shaw: You didn't notice her tearing up and playing the sympathy card in her hearing?I stand by my opinion: A brilliant and reptilian old pol.
I believe you have it right Jerry. Scared? Well, if they run the caliber of "conservatives" they did in 2008 and 2012 they need be.Jindal, Martinez, Christie, Huntsman, and a few others might have a shot.
Jeb Bush? Bobby Jindal? Yeah. A few people here in the US might be able to tell you who they are. Try asking people around the world.Bobby Jindal? Outside of Louisiana and the GOP, who knows who he is? And what has Jindal done besides proposing to cut Medicaid to the poorest and most vulnerable in his state? And also encouraging the teaching of creationism in Louisiana's schools. That's bunk.Hillary is recognized by her first name throughout the world.Bobby? Jeb? Not so much.
Your progressive partisan views aside, whoever decides to make a run at it has 3 years to get a team together, develop "their strategy", get the required name recognition, and sell a skeptical nation as to why they are a better choice. There are viable candidates although I suspect no rEpublican is worth a cup of Piss in your view Shaw.Life and politics simply brings out the worst in folks. Oh, and then there is the other... Religion.It is handy to have had an ex successful president for a husband if you're inclined to office yourself. It does help with the door thingy. Not to say Hilary wouldn't have made it on her own. She is bright, well spoken, feisty, and plays the game very well
And speaking of Jindal, here are some of the things he's accomplished as governor of Louisiana, via ThinkProgress:1. He permits Louisiana schools to teach creationism. Thanks to Jindal’s educational voucher system in Louisiana, students will be attending private or parochial schools on the taxpayer’s dime. But those schools don’t necessarily meet the standards of the state’s public schools, and may teach students creationism instead of standard science curricula.2. He allows state employees to be fired for being gay. During his first few months as governor, Jindal decided not to renew an anti-discrimination executive order protecting LGBT employees who work for the state. Jindal has also said that same sex marriage opens up a path for courts to overturn the Second Amendment.3. He has signed bills to intimidate women seeking abortions. Jindal compared women who have gotten abortions to criminals. But that unpalatable sentiment also came with a policy change — he signed a bill that requires all abortion clinics to post intimidating messages in their waiting rooms, and establishes a website that points women to crisis pregnancy centers instead of abortion-providing facilities. Jindal also signed a measure creating a 24-hour waiting period between a woman’s mandatory ultrasound and the date of her abortion.
4. He seeks to dramatically cut taxes for the wealthy, increase taxes for everyone else. Jindal’s latest tax proposal would raise taxes for 80 percent of Louisianians. The poorest 20 percent — with an average income of $12,000 — would face substantial tax increases, while those in the top one percent would on average get a tax cut of $25,423.5. He refuses to provide health care for Louisiana’s poorest. Louisiana has the third highest uninsured rate in the country. Twenty percent of residents lack insurance of any kind. But as one of the governors vehemently opposed to Obamacare, Jindal turned down the Medicaid expansion offered under the law, ignoring the fact that it would drastically lower the numbers of uninsured and ultimately save the state money on emergency care.
George Bush Sr. is the only republican in Hillary's league Silverdude.
Shaw...1) I see nothing wrong with permitting the teaching of creationism, if it is an elective. Is it? Math and science of course should be mandated. Else we relegate ourselves to 3'rd world status.2) Isn't there Federal Statute, Title VII, that prohibits this type of discrimination?3) Please provide link to your information on this one. MUCH APPRECIATED.4) Need to research this just a bit. Sounds like a person with a blind eye and a magic cube.5) Well, I opposed ObamaCare. It helps the truly indigent perhaps, does little for anyone else except the pharmaceuticals etc. There is a better model. Talk to TAO, he can explain it better than I.Didn't say he was the best, nor that I was working for him if he runs. Simply making the observation he may be a viable alternative to Her Excellency.I'm a bonafide 3'rd or 4'th party kinda man now. As I pointed out somewhere; voting dem or rEp is like voting to select a different gradient (angle of descent) for the same hill.Life is grand in the world of partisan politics. Isn't it?
Joe, perhaps. How about Huntsman?
RN, creationism is a religious concept. It has no place as a subject in public schools. It has no place as an alternative idea to Evolution.On the other questions, I'll have to get back to you. Can't do it just now.Thanks.
Creationism is not an alternative to evolution. They deal with two completely different subjects. Evolution starts with life already "created".
Religions supporting creationsim: most fundamentalist evangelicals, Southern Baptists, fundamentalistMuslims..religions accepting scientific evolution: Catholics, Buddhists, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Hindus, Judaism, Methodists, etc, ..we may guessat the demographics of Louisiana..
@ Shaw... "RN, creationism is a religious concept. It has no place as a subject in public schools. It has no place as an alternative idea to Evolution."I actually said... "1) I see nothing wrong with permitting the teaching of creationism, if it is an elective. Is it?Math and science of course should be mandated. Else we relegate ourselves to 3'rd world status."Frankly if creationism is offered as an optional and strictly voluntary subject to students who desire it, and the school district or town/city can afford to offer it, and the parents are fine with it my Libertarian leanings say so what.Personally I would not sign off on my children taking creationism as I personally believe it to be of minimal value. A course in ethics would be by far more productive IMNHO.In no way should it be considered as important and valuable as the sciences, nor should it be viewed as a replacement subject to the sciences. Including the theory of evolution. Which only a Neanderthal will question the legitimacy of evolution.Besides, It ain't my state, it doesn't affect me in any way.But I see your point and it is a valid one with respect to taxpayer dollars funding exposure to creationism in the public or any tax payer funded schools. It is a sticky wicket.Thanks...
Another jackass gun owner
Post a Comment