Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
I agree, she is too old, two tired, and has too much baggage. I also think she has some non-disclosed medical issues.
maybe the dems can run Charlie Rangel, with Farrakhan as his VP
You left out she is fat and ugly.
A 2 bagger.
3 but not quite coyote, yet
How does me posting on this forum about him make him richer?
because you energize the other side.
how is ranting about Beck going to make Hillary's record not one of failure?
no kidding, are we suppose to give a shit what Beck says...my gawd the brainless and stupid around here
The extreme right was branding everyone who did not support the warmongering as "unamerican". Your revisionism of history doesn't alter the facts.
that is simply not true--------encouraging americans to support our kids in uniform is not support of warmongering. What was said is that even though you may not support the conflict, you should support our troops-------unlike what was done to our military during and after viet nam.
its your kind of revisionist history that is dividing this country, try dealing with the truth, it might make you sleep better.
Irrefutable facts say otherwise!
http://www.usmessageboard.com/9024901-post95.html
Hillary will get the female, moderate, minority and Democrat vote, what's left for the far right? Hmmmm, let me think.
if their emotions and feeeeelings counted this country would be twice as fucked up as it is now 
and by continually focusing on him, you fools make him richer and give him a bigger voice, just like you do with Sarah Palin.
you are so stupid that you don't realize that you are helping those that you disagree with------------in short, liberals are mental midgits.
How does me posting on this forum about him make him richer?
because you energize the other side.
how is ranting about Beck going to make Hillary's record not one of failure?
The extreme right was branding everyone who did not support the warmongering as "unamerican". Your revisionism of history doesn't alter the facts.
Link?
Republican attacks on dissent since 9/11 - Brendan Nyhan
December 2001: In response to Democratic plans to question parts of the USA Patriot Act during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, John Ashcroft suggests that people who disagree with the administration's anti-terrorism policies are on the side of the terrorists. "To those who pit Americans against immigrants, and citizens against non-citizens; to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil."
February 2002: Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle expresses mild disagreement with US anti-terror policies, saying US success in the war on terror "is still somewhat in doubt." In response, Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) says that Daschle's "divisive comments have the effect of giving aid and comfort to our enemies by allowing them to exploit divisions in our country."
May 2002: After the disclosure that President Bush received a general warning about possible Al Qaeda hijackings prior to 9/11, Democrats demand to know what other information the administration had before the attacks. In response, White House communications director Dan Bartlett says that the Democratic statements "are exactly what our opponents, our enemies, want us to do."
June 2002: Republican Senate candidate Saxby Chambliss issued a press release accusing Senator Max Cleland (D-GA) of "breaking his oath to protect and defend the Constitution" because he voted for a successful 1997 amendment to the chemical weapons treaty that removed language barring inspectors from certain countries from being part of United Nations inspection teams in Iraq.
September 2002: Campaigning against Democrats who did not support his legislation to create the Department of Homeland Security (a department whose creation he had previously opposed), President Bush said that "the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people." After a speech by Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle criticizing the Bush administration and the GOP for politicizing the war on terror, Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX), the House Majority Whip, criticized those in Congress who are "questioning the president's leadership, that are constantly throwing up hurdles to keep us from doing what we have to do to protect the American people." He added, "These are people that don't want to protect the American people... [T]hey will do anything, spend all the time and resources they can, to avoid confronting evil."
May 2004: After Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) said "the direction [in Iraq] has got be changed or it is unwinnable," Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) said Democrats are "basically giving aid and comfort to the enemy." Similarly, when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called President Bush an "incompetent leader," House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) said Pelosi "apparently is so caught up in partisan hatred for President Bush that her words are putting American lives at risk."
September 2004: As John Kerry steps up his criticism of the Bush administration's handling of Iraq and the war on terror, Republicans repeatedly suggest that he is emboldening the enemy. Senator Zell Miller (D-GA) says that "while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats' manic obsession to bring down our Commander in Chief." President Bush says, "You can embolden an enemy by sending a mixed message... You send the wrong message to our troops by sending mixed messages." And Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) claims that terrorists "are going to throw everything they can between now and the election to try and elect Kerry," adding that Democrats are "consistently saying things that I think undermine our young men and women who are serving over there."
In addition, South Dakota GOP chair Randy Frederick attacked Senator Tom Daschle, saying "Daschle's three years as Complainer in Chief have brought shame to the honor of his office, concern to our men and women in uniform, and comfort to America's enemies." When asked about this comment, John Thune, Daschle's opponent, cited Daschle's statement that President Bush "failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to war" before the invasion of Iraq, saying "What it does is emboldens our enemies and undermines the morale of our troops," adding, "His words embolden the enemy."
July 2005: Senator Dick Durbin states that a description of US interrogation procedures at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility sounds like something "done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others." Presidential adviser Karl Rove responds by suggesting that Durbin and other liberals seek to put US troops in danger, saying that "Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals."
November/December 2005: With critics of the war in Iraq growing increasingly vocal, Republicans lash out, suggesting that Democrats are encouraging the enemy and want to surrender to terrorists. President Bush says that "These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will." Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ) states that "Many on the Democratic side have revealed their exit strategy: surrender" and Rep. Geoff Davis (R-KY) says that "[T]he liberal leadership have put politics ahead of sound fiscal and national security policy. And what they have done is cooperated with our enemies and are emboldening our enemies."
After DNC chairman Howard Dean says "The idea that we're going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong," Republicans reiterate the same line of attack. House Speaker Dennis Hastert says Dean "made it clear the Democratic Party sides with those who wish to surrender" and GOP chairman Ken Mehlman says Dean's statement "sends the wrong message to our troops, the wrong message to the enemy, the wrong message to the Iraqi people."
And you notice how Righties never really pay any attention to the actual content of the OP.
They just see the headline and start to salivate...... and grunt.....
Doubt she will run.
I agree, she is too old, two tired, and has too much baggage. I also think she has some non-disclosed medical issues.
maybe the dems can run Charlie Rangel, with Farrakhan as his VP
i adore how the same people commenting on Hillary's appearance drool lovingly over the oldest president we ever had. lmao....
by the way, you're ugly and your mother dresses you funny.
nah nah nah nah nah
And you notice how Righties never really pay any attention to the actual content of the OP.
They just see the headline and start to salivate...... and grunt.....
The content of the OP is a side show. just where you liberals want it, because you have nothing else to run on
i pray that hillary is nominated.
How does me posting on this forum about him make him richer?
because you energize the other side.
how is ranting about Beck going to make Hillary's record not one of failure?
lmao.... one of the top 100 lawyers in the country when she was practicing, one of the strongest first ladies we ever had, one of the best and most respected secretaries of state (despite the rightwingnut rants about benghaaaaaaaaaaaaaaazzzzzzzzzzzzziiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii that no one cares about except other rightiwngnut loons)
America is far more divided now than it was under Bush.
That's not true. in 2000 the nation was split about 50 - 50 in the POTUS election.
In 2004 the split was 51 to 48 Bush.
That's pretty sharply divided.
Post Bush the 2008 election was 53% to 46%
and 2012 was 51 - 47
Sothe numbers indicate the country is LESS divided than it was during Bush's administration.
Of course, I guess you could credit Bush with bringing the country together because when he left office, 78% of Americans were united in their belief that he sucked.
yea and these message boards indicate American is less divided under obama too huh idiot?
Deflection indicates that you cannot support your fallacious position. The point raised by Stephanie was representation of all of the people by the president. Deflecting to congress demonstrates that you have no valid rebuttal to the low approval ratings by the electorate of Bush jr and his policies. Therefore you are conceding that he never even TRIED to represent everyone.
Pres Bush had the highest approval rating of any president ever.
WHen Truman left office his ratings were among the lowest. Did Truman not represent all Americans?
Your arguments are typically ignorant bullshit.
Bush jr's high approval rating was a response to the people rallying around following the 9/11 attack. Immediately prior to 9/11 his approval ratings had been dropping fast and were about to dip below 50%. He subsequently left office with the lowest approval rating of any president, even Truman. A one time blip does not eradicate the overall failure of his policies.
That's not true. in 2000 the nation was split about 50 - 50 in the POTUS election.
In 2004 the split was 51 to 48 Bush.
That's pretty sharply divided.
Post Bush the 2008 election was 53% to 46%
and 2012 was 51 - 47
Sothe numbers indicate the country is LESS divided than it was during Bush's administration.
Of course, I guess you could credit Bush with bringing the country together because when he left office, 78% of Americans were united in their belief that he sucked.
yea and these message boards indicate American is less divided under obama too huh idiot?
1) are you suggesting that these message boards are representative of all America?
2) Just because you REALLY hate someone doesn't mean the country is more divided.
The numbers don't lie
btw, to the poster who said Bush's average is better than Obama's current approval rating, nice cherry picking. Just keep repeating to your self "apples to apples"
Obama's approval rating at this point in his administration is higher than Bush's was at this point in his administration.
Two bad's do not equal one good, but if you keep your observations fact-based, I will help your credibility.
the only one deflecting is you; and it's laughable. were Bush's rating static?
no they werent. in fact his approval rating about NOW where obama is right now was comparable to where obama's is RIGHT NOW at this point.
people were tired of war; and that explains the approval rating toward the end
the only one deflecting is you. you're a joke
You deflected to congress and away from the electorate.
Bush jr's defining policy was warmongering. However his abysmal rating when he left office was because of the abject failure of the GOP deregulation of the economy that resulted in the 2008 collapse.
Obama's defining policy is the ACA and while his ratings are currently low the ACA is gaining approval amongst the electorate. By 2016 it should be well above 50% and that will be reflected in Obama's ratings too in all likelihood.
YAWN
the "electrate" as you see them AT ONE POINT in time.
like i said obama is at about the same place bush was at this point.
you losers demand the right to frame every debate in your own terms; then cry when you are called on it
You deflected to congress and away from the electorate.
Bush jr's defining policy was warmongering. However his abysmal rating when he left office was because of the abject failure of the GOP deregulation of the economy that resulted in the 2008 collapse.
Obama's defining policy is the ACA and while his ratings are currently low the ACA is gaining approval amongst the electorate. By 2016 it should be well above 50% and that will be reflected in Obama's ratings too in all likelihood.
YAWN
the "electrate" as you see them AT ONE POINT in time.
like i said obama is at about the same place bush was at this point.
you losers demand the right to frame every debate in your own terms; then cry when you are called on it
This is your first and only warning to remain civil.
The terms of this point were defined by Stephanie. Since you cannot refute the facts, your deflections have failed and you have resorted to name calling you are tacitly conceding this point. Have a nice day.
You deflected to congress and away from the electorate.
Bush jr's defining policy was warmongering. However his abysmal rating when he left office was because of the abject failure of the GOP deregulation of the economy that resulted in the 2008 collapse.
Obama's defining policy is the ACA and while his ratings are currently low the ACA is gaining approval amongst the electorate. By 2016 it should be well above 50% and that will be reflected in Obama's ratings too in all likelihood.
YAWN
the "electrate" as you see them AT ONE POINT in time.
like i said obama is at about the same place bush was at this point.
you losers demand the right to frame every debate in your own terms; then cry when you are called on it
This is your first and only warning to remain civil.
The terms of this point were defined by Stephanie. Since you cannot refute the facts, your deflections have failed and you have resorted to name calling you are tacitly conceding this point. Have a nice day.
