The Right is truly, truly terrified of Hillary Clinton

[Derideo_Te]

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.

You are wrong again, (as usual), It was 1998, Clinton was President, he pushed repeal of Glass-Steagall and even got some Republicans to go along with him. So much for working with Democrats, they always 'backstab' the Republicans when the Repubicans 'cross the aisle'.

Repeal of Glass-Steagall Caused the Financial Crisis - US News

Are you now alleging that deregulation was a Dem idea?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If you want an America on food stamps, unemployment with the world's number 2 or 3 economy and with no influence abroad, then keep a Dem in the White House

 

[Derideo_Te]

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

an article; a collection of somebody elses opinions; is an example of "irrefutable facts" to left-wing idiot


lmao

The quotes of Bush jr and other Republicans are all on the record. That you couldn't refute a single one of them means that you have conceded this point. Have a nice day.

 

[Edgetho]

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 are simply a joke in my humble opinion. if you are a monitor do what you have to do. everybody here knows i cleaned your clock

He's not a mod. No way.

In fact, maybe somebody should report him as pretending to be a mod.

And if he IS a mod (doubtful) then isn't 'ghosting' a violation of the rules?

I think he's just threatening you with a sternly worded report to an ACTUAL Mod.

As soon as mommy feeds him breakfast

 

[Wildman]

Hillary will get the female, moderate, minority and Democrat vote, what's left for the far right? Hmmmm, let me think.

Bullshit---------women are fed up with the incompetence and lies of dems and libs, women do not respect a woman who looks the other way while her husband commits rape and sex with juveniles. Moderates are also fed up with the failures of liberalism. She may get the black vote, but asians, hispanics, and other minority groups do not like her or her politics.

the next two elections will return control to republicans and others who are dedicated to the constitution, effective govt, stopping the waste, creating real jobs, protecting americans at home and abroad, and returning the country to sanity.

you lefties had your chance--and you failed----you elected the worst president in history and he has destroyed your party and your philosophy-------------congratulations, idiots.

clicking on the "thanks" icon just isn't enough my friend, you have said what many of us patriots are thinking on a daily basis.

as far as her getting the nomination, i would love to see her being beaten out (and "up") by Biden........, now there is a real challenge for us the liberats need to nominate good ol Joe ! .....

 

[Redfish]

Hillary will get the female, moderate, minority and Democrat vote, what's left for the far right? Hmmmm, let me think.

Bullshit---------women are fed up with the incompetence and lies of dems and libs, women do not respect a woman who looks the other way while her husband commits rape and sex with juveniles. Moderates are also fed up with the failures of liberalism. She may get the black vote, but asians, hispanics, and other minority groups do not like her or her politics.

the next two elections will return control to republicans and others who are dedicated to the constitution, effective govt, stopping the waste, creating real jobs, protecting americans at home and abroad, and returning the country to sanity.

you lefties had your chance--and you failed----you elected the worst president in history and he has destroyed your party and your philosophy-------------congratulations, idiots.

clicking on the "thanks" icon just isn't enough my friend, you have said what many of us patriots are thinking on a daily basis.

as far as her getting the nomination, i would love to see her being beaten out (and "up") by Biden........, now there is a real challenge for us the liberats need to nominate good ol Joe ! .....

I would love for them to run crazy Joe, but he has no chance if HRC decides to run, its her turn and the black guy stepped in front of her last time.

I truly do not think the country is stupid enough to elect this female fraud, but it might be, and if it does, the USA is over as a free democratic republic. We will become a bankrupt version of France, and Russia and China will run the world.

"fundamental change"--------------its what the stupid libs claim they want. pathetic mentally diseased fools.

 

[bodecea]

Ginnifer Flowers (did threesomes with Bill and Hill) said, "Hillary gets more pussy than Bill does".

I also have it from an anonymous Hillary aid, an honest one, that Hillary is a 'teabagger'.

For you brain dead Libturds that means she liked to pull the tampax out with her teeth.

And yes, if teabagging a lezzie on a table on National TV would get her in the White House she would definitely do it.

^ talking about "braid dead"....

 

[Iceweasel]

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 are warning a guy for that? If you are a moderator it's unfair to the board to start flexing your muscles if things don't go your way. Moderators should remain neutral.

Most boards I've been on list the moderators on the forum, it would be nice if they did that here.

 

[bedowin62]

Irrefutable facts say otherwise!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/9024901-post95.html

an article; a collection of somebody elses opinions; is an example of "irrefutable facts" to left-wing idiot


lmao

The quotes of Bush jr and other Republicans are all on the record. That you couldn't refute a single one of them means that you have conceded this point. Have a nice day.

quotes are in context. again you are embarrassing yourself.

when obama's pastor of 20 years spewed hate every Sunday; people like you had the gall to try to rationalize it by saying he was being taken out of context.

you're biased interpretations of Bush's quotes are meaningless; you have already proved yourself to be a rabid partisan hack

 

[Edgetho]

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.

You are wrong again, (as usual), It was 1998, Clinton was President, he pushed repeal of Glass-Steagall and even got some Republicans to go along with him. So much for working with Democrats, they always 'backstab' the Republicans when the Repubicans 'cross the aisle'.

Repeal of Glass-Steagall Caused the Financial Crisis - US News

Are you now alleging that deregulation was a Dem idea?

Yes, I was there. I watched it happen in slow motion. I was part of the Financial Services Industry. I listened back and forth to the debates about whether Insurance Companies could buy Banks and Banks could sell Insurance and the 'too big to fail' scenario.

Yes, it was a democrat idea....

Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When the two chambers could not agree on a joint version of the bill, the House voted on July 30 by a vote of 241–132 (R 58–131; D 182–1; Ind. 1–0) to instruct its negotiators to work for a law which ensured that consumers enjoyed medical and financial privacy as well as "robust competition and equal and non-discriminatory access to financial services and economic opportunities in their communities" (i.e., protection against exclusionary redlining).[note 3]

The bill then moved to a joint conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. Democrats agreed to support the bill after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the anti-redlining Community Reinvestment Act and address certain privacy concerns; the conference committee then finished its work by the beginning of November.[12][15] On November 4, the final bill resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90–8,[16][note 4] and by the House 362–57.[17][note 5] The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.[18]

And note that the CRA was knee-deep in that fucking bill. Which is what dimocraps wanted and what REALLY caused the Financial Meltdown.

That and the fact that dimocraps, especially you, are terminally stupid.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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.

1. yes i think they are as representative as other indicators
2.who do i hate? just because you make an allegation doenst mean you arent a lying loser who cant back it up. i do hate lying losers making allegations they cant back up though
3.what "numbers dont lie"?
4. how is the comparison not apples to apples?
bush at this moment was about as popular as obama; and you dont have a crystal ball to predict obama's approval rating from this point forward

youre a joke dude

LOL - Now, I see the source of your confusion, you think these boards are a representative cross-section of the United States.
2) You hate Obama. I'm not fond of him, but your posts indicate "hate."
3) The numbers I posted
4) Because you used Bush's average to Obama's current. Obama's are higher now than Bush's were at this point. I sincerely doubt that Obama's will sink as low as Bush's did - but that (just like your prediction) is just speculation. We will see.

 

[bedowin62]

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.

1. yes i think they are as representative as other indicators
2.who do i hate? just because you make an allegation doenst mean you arent a lying loser who cant back it up. i do hate lying losers making allegations they cant back up though
3.what "numbers dont lie"?
4. how is the comparison not apples to apples?
bush at this moment was about as popular as obama; and you dont have a crystal ball to predict obama's approval rating from this point forward

youre a joke dude

LOL - Now, I see the source of your confusion, you think these boards are a representative cross-section of the United States.
2) You hate Obama. I'm not fond of him, but your posts indicate "hate."
3) The numbers I posted
4) Because you used Bush's average to Obama's current. Obama's are higher now than Bush's were at this point. I sincerely doubt that Obama's will sink as low as Bush's did - but that (just like your prediction) is just speculation. We will see.

i dont hate obama; you're a joke; making accusatins and trying to put words and thoughts in the heads of others; implying motives you cant back up

why dont you go cry/

 

[Derideo_Te]

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."

\
you clearly cant think for yourself; but hey you got lots of other people's thoughts to copy and paste

how much do you get paid to embarrass yourself here?

Your failure to refute any of the facts provided is duly noted.

 

[bedowin62]

what was bush's approval rating at this point where obama is now?
you dont say. you say obama's is higher? how much higher?

you're a joke.
i used bush's average because it is just that; an average.

you and the other idiot want to use his lowest. so even if bush's rating at this point was lower than obama's; the ONLY accurate picture is an average; and so far bush's average is better

 

[Derideo_Te]

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 are simply a joke in my humble opinion. if you are a monitor do what you have to do. everybody here knows i cleaned your clock

He's not a mod. No way.

In fact, maybe somebody should report him as pretending to be a mod.

And if he IS a mod (doubtful) then isn't 'ghosting' a violation of the rules?

I think he's just threatening you with a sternly worded report to an ACTUAL Mod.

As soon as mommy feeds him breakfast

Not claiming to be a moderator at all. I always warn people before I neg them for gratuitously insulting me. Gives them the opportunity to remain civil and avoid being negged.

 

[bedowin62]

Republican attacks on dissent since 9/11 - Brendan Nyhan

\
you clearly cant think for yourself; but hey you got lots of other people's thoughts to copy and paste

how much do you get paid to embarrass yourself here?

Your failure to refute any of the facts provided is duly noted.

you dont post facts; you post opinions
and THAT is duly noted

try again

 

[Derideo_Te]

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 are warning a guy for that? If you are a moderator it's unfair to the board to start flexing your muscles if things don't go your way. Moderators should remain neutral.

Most boards I've been on list the moderators on the forum, it would be nice if they did that here.

Moderators are blue and admins are red in this forum. I warn people before I neg them for failing to remain civil.

 

[Wildman]

Doubt she will run.

i am in the boat.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You are wrong again, (as usual), It was 1998, Clinton was President, he pushed repeal of Glass-Steagall and even got some Republicans to go along with him. So much for working with Democrats, they always 'backstab' the Republicans when the Repubicans 'cross the aisle'.

Repeal of Glass-Steagall Caused the Financial Crisis - US News

Are you now alleging that deregulation was a Dem idea?

Yes, I was there. I watched it happen in slow motion. I was part of the Financial Services Industry. I listened back and forth to the debates about whether Insurance Companies could buy Banks and Banks could sell Insurance and the 'too big to fail' scenario.

Yes, it was a democrat idea....

Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When the two chambers could not agree on a joint version of the bill, the House voted on July 30 by a vote of 241–132 (R 58–131; D 182–1; Ind. 1–0) to instruct its negotiators to work for a law which ensured that consumers enjoyed medical and financial privacy as well as "robust competition and equal and non-discriminatory access to financial services and economic opportunities in their communities" (i.e., protection against exclusionary redlining).[note 3]

The bill then moved to a joint conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. Democrats agreed to support the bill after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the anti-redlining Community Reinvestment Act and address certain privacy concerns; the conference committee then finished its work by the beginning of November.[12][15] On November 4, the final bill resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90–8,[16][note 4] and by the House 362–57.[17][note 5] The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.[18]

And note that the CRA was knee-deep in that fucking bill. Which is what dimocraps wanted and what REALLY caused the Financial Meltdown.

That and the fact that dimocraps, especially you, are terminally stupid.

Too bad you ignored the origins of the deregulation initiative that preceded your quote.

The banking industry had been seeking the repeal of the 1933 Glass–Steagall Act since the 1980s, if not earlier.[4][5] In 1987 the Congressional Research Service prepared a report that explored the cases for and against preserving the Glass–Steagall act.[6]

Respective versions of the legislation were introduced in the U.S. Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the U.S. House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa). The third lawmaker associated with the bill was Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-Virginia), Chairman of the House Commerce Committee from 1995 to 2001.

During debate in the House of Representatives, Rep. John Dingell (Democrat of Michigan) argued that the bill would result in banks becoming "too big to fail." Dingell further argued that this would necessarily result in a bailout by the Federal Government.[7]

The House passed its version of the Financial Services Act of 1999 on July 1, 1999, by a bipartisan vote of 343–86 (Republicans 205–16; Democrats 138–69; Independent 0–1),[8][9][note 1] two months after the Senate had already passed its version of the bill on May 6 by a much-narrower 54–44 vote along basically-partisan lines (53 Republicans and 1 Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed).[11][12][13][note 2]

100% Republican initiative.

 

[bedowin62]

Are you now alleging that deregulation was a Dem idea?

Yes, I was there. I watched it happen in slow motion. I was part of the Financial Services Industry. I listened back and forth to the debates about whether Insurance Companies could buy Banks and Banks could sell Insurance and the 'too big to fail' scenario.

Yes, it was a democrat idea....

Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



And note that the CRA was knee-deep in that fucking bill. Which is what dimocraps wanted and what REALLY caused the Financial Meltdown.

That and the fact that dimocraps, especially you, are terminally stupid.

Too bad you ignored the origins of the deregulation initiative that preceded your quote.

The banking industry had been seeking the repeal of the 1933 Glass–Steagall Act since the 1980s, if not earlier.[4][5] In 1987 the Congressional Research Service prepared a report that explored the cases for and against preserving the Glass–Steagall act.[6]

Respective versions of the legislation were introduced in the U.S. Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the U.S. House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa). The third lawmaker associated with the bill was Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-Virginia), Chairman of the House Commerce Committee from 1995 to 2001.

During debate in the House of Representatives, Rep. John Dingell (Democrat of Michigan) argued that the bill would result in banks becoming "too big to fail." Dingell further argued that this would necessarily result in a bailout by the Federal Government.[7]

The House passed its version of the Financial Services Act of 1999 on July 1, 1999, by a bipartisan vote of 343–86 (Republicans 205–16; Democrats 138–69; Independent 0–1),[8][9][note 1] two months after the Senate had already passed its version of the bill on May 6 by a much-narrower 54–44 vote along basically-partisan lines (53 Republicans and 1 Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed).[11][12][13][note 2]

100% Republican initiative.

you're comical; NOTHING was a 100% Republican initiative.. it was the Left's idea their INITIATIVE to give loans to people that couldnt repay them. loans that were backed by the government. trillions of dollars worth