Just Say No to a Bush or a Clinton in 2016.



  1. Mr Diesel says:

    I sure as hell wouldn’t vote for her or Jeb bush UNLESS Jeb is the only R running and then I would hold my ass and vote for him. Both suck.

    • ± says:

      Then you would be part of the problem (continue to be?). Why not vote a third party or write in, then you are not responsible for the continued destruction. They don’t hire themselves. When enough people start to do this, then we can get real change.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist lefty enough to recognize Obama's biggiest fault is he is too far right says:

        If you don’t know why, you depth of knowledge is as shallow as your repeated posts on the issue.

        If you do know why, then you are a …… poser.

        • ± says:

          Did you register ask-bobbo-who-to-vote-for.com yet?

          You clearly are one of the vast majority of the electorate who doesn’t want to take responsibility for the person they try to hire.

          You (along with just about every other American) refuse to admit that when you hire R/Ds YOU are the problem. You also refuse to acknowledge that when enough people stop trying to hire D/Rs, then it may be possible for true change to occur.

          And your response to your own behavior is to blame someone else.

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist lefty enough to recognize Obama's biggiest fault is he is too far right says:

            Like most movements, third party movements, lost causes…and anyone who cannot answer direct questions……you are irrelevant.

            I take responsibility for everyone I voted against….just like most people.

            What have I ever said except: vote your OWN self interest? ………….If I were in the top .1%, I definitely would vote R because I would want to keep as much $$ as the system would allow.

            But I wouldn’t lie about it.

          • ± says:

            Not irrelevant. Innocent. Only the electorate is responsible for the governance of the people they hire. You help hire them, I don’t (even tho I always vote).

            And your most damning statement of all is that you vote your self interest instead of what would be the most good for the most people. Pretty amazing that you would admit that even tho it figures.

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist lefty enough to recognize Obama's biggiest fault is he is too far right says:

            Well PM==you certainly post as if you have never read deeply into political theory. There are more than comic books.

            Linguistically you fail as well.

            I never said what I “should” do, only what I probably “would” do. You might recognize the difference when underlined for you, but you don’t think with such discrimination and insight without prompting.

            ….. and I say “probably” because indeed after the minimum requirements of life, then a good life, then an outrageous life, then an unbelievable life, then a life only available in a society tilted to the SUPER RICH, I do hope I would recognize the wider society I live in and what it needs for the better of all rather than just myself.

            Sucks to be you.

  2. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist lefty enough to recognize Obama's biggiest fault is he is too far right says:

    I propose that when two candidates are about as equally bad for many of the same reasons, but then for some different reasons too, the thing to do is vote the Party that usually performs better for your interests.

    What has the Republican Party done for the 99.8 percent in the last 20 years?

    • Mr Diesel says:

      Then I would have to vote Republican because 99.8% of the time I have done better with them. Present idiot Congress is an exception.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist lefty enough to recognize Obama's biggiest fault is he is too far right says:

        What has the republican party done for you?

        You know….. specifically?????

        Not words, but deeds?

        Just curious……. because I don’t see it. Most “claims” of a general nature prove out to be false: like control the debt.

        So….. just wondering.

        • Ed U Kate says:

          Specifically?

          How about the “BUSH TAX CUTS” that the last round of dumb-asses have purposefully gutted in order to pay for all those O-Bummer programs and entitlements? (Which those of you who voted for the jerk should have EXPECTED with him being from the “tax and spend” party.)

          Oh! But I’m SURE you didn’t enjoy a tax cut, seeing as how YOU and 43-percent of ALL Americans DIDN’T PAY INCOME TAXES! There’s no way you could possibly know WHO actually pays for all your WELFARE!

          Try educating yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnEe4oaSC88

          Or how about how the DEMOCRATS and President fucking WOODROW WILSON who in 1913 signed into law those now infamous institutions? — The IRS and the Federal Reserve! I admit it was a little before my time, but I see NO DIFFERENCE between those ancient dumb-asses and our current herd of (cough) benevolent power mongers.

          Not that the Republican’s don’t have their problems. DON’T MISUNDERSTAND!!! The “choice” is really which is the lesser of two evils. I say it’s NOT the DUMB-ASSES. And HISTORY has now PROVEN IT!!!

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist lefty enough to recognize Obama's biggiest fault is he is too far right says:

            you lack credibility.

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist lefty enough to recognize Obama's biggiest fault is he is too far right says:

            http://youtube.com/watch?v=DnEe4oaSC88

            I stopped watching at 1:40.

            the basis for progressive income tax rates is well grounded. If you don’t understand why flat tax based on gross income is highly regressive, or what that even means, then you will link to that video===just as you have.

            Look at historical charts: the Pukes tax and spend creating LARGER DEFICITS than the Dems. Obama was an exception having to take action to save the (World) economy from BushtheRetards World Wide Financial Meltdown.

            I do fault Obama for not putting Wallstreet fraudsters in jail.

          • Ed U Kate says:

            So, let me understand this. YOU! BOOB!!! Are more knowledgeable and credible than a professor of economics at UCLA? More knowledgeable than the entire Prager University which documents the evidence they use?

            WE DON’T EVEN KNOW YOUR REAL NAME! Let alone any CREDENTIALS you might claim to have.

            You’re just some loud mouth know-nothing on an insignificant little blog who’s PROVEN how WRONG you are over and over again. Or don’t you remember how you used to praise Obama as if he were the second coming of Christ? And now, your latest posts seem to be much more critical of YOUR OWN CHOICE now that you have been forced to look at his direction and actions. (Ain’t history a bitch when you can’t even remember your OWN?!)

            So if you want to be critical of all the shit we’re all in (economy, war, etc.) you might want to examine what motivates YOU and the BELIEFS you have. Watch the video — if you dare! It has those all important facts you’re always whining about. It’s only about 5 minutes long.

            I’m not even going to bring up Hillary with you. You probably think her asshole of a husband did us all a favor by signing the NAFTA “decree” — a little piece of legislation that all the “pukes” at the time said was the sucking sound of our economy and jobs going away (they just didn’t know how long it would take).

            Yes, the ass is a perfect mascot for you — stubborn, stinking, STUPID!

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist lefty enough to recognize Obama's biggiest fault is he is too far right says:

            Ed===PROVE ME WRONG: I have never praised Obama other than being better than McCain or Romney. Copy and paste anything other.

            Like too many here–your arguments are made up. Just like your politics.

  3. McCullough says:

    Enabler: one who enables another to persist in self-destructive behavior (as substance abuse) by providing excuses or by making it possible to avoid the consequences of such behavior.

    • Cephus says:

      So essentially, everything the Democrats have done for decades?

      • Ed U Kate says:

        Not exactly. I’m sure the Democrats have done some wonderful things.

        … Unfortunately, I can’t seem to think of any.

  4. spsffan says:

    Please…..the woman doesn’t even have enough sense to get a divorce!

  5. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist lefty enough to recognize Obama's biggiest fault is he is too far right says:

    C’mon boys. The Clinton marriage is about money, power, and politics–and the pleasure they get in bamboozling the public==voting and otherwise.

    Get real.

    • NewFormatSux says:

      In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women.

    • You've Got Mail says:

      It amazes me how much “bamboozling” the Clinton’s have gotten away with.

      Nothing sticks. Why?

      a. Not enough people care about what they do.
      b. Accountability is not popular.
      c. Politicians are expected to lie and do immoral things.
      d. The Clinton’s have “dirt” on those who oppose them.
      e. All of the above.

      “What difference does it make?”

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist lefty enough to recognize Obama's biggiest fault is he is too far right says:

        Well, they ((but including all the other politico’s as well)) haven’t gotten away with it from Me and others posting here not as party hacks.

        But yeah==too many people buy the lie. Old aphorism: “Most people think of politicians as dull witted but trying to do their best, whereas the truth is just the opposite.”

        For Emphasis: “all” of them.

  6. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist lefty enough to recognize Obama's biggiest fault is he is too far right says:

    Secret email account?????

    No.

    Each email she sent was clearly from her own gmail. So….that is actually why I dont think she should be Pres: everyone in fact did know she was using her own private email—-AND NOBODY DID NOTHING===>because they are all afraid of retribution.

    Power mad and petty.

    Just look.

    Now—having your own server in your home is a nice little touch. Did I read Jeb did too? doesn’t matter.

    VOTE ALL INCUMBENTS OUT OF OFFICE!!!!!!! When both are incumbents, vote your general self interest. Should work out on average…… should you live long enough.

    Ha, ha.

    • NewFormatSux says:

      >VOTE ALL INCUMBENTS OUT OF OFFICE!!!!!!!

      So did you vote against Obama?

  7. NewFormatSux says:

    So why is the email id hdr22?
    She has divorced bill with hdr instead of hrc, but why 22?

  8. scandihoovian says:

    I’d vote if it came with a politician’s kickbacks.

  9. NewFormatSux says:

    >Just Say No to a Bush or a Clinton in 2016

    How about a Cuomo? How about a Romney, ran for president in 1962, 1964, 1966, 1968, 1970(Mitt’s mom), 1994, 2002, 2008, and 2012.

  10. Tom says:

    Actually, I think Hillary would make one of the best Presidents that we have had in quite some time!

    Oh, and by the way, Powell also used a private email address when he was Joint Chief and Secretary of State… He said he considered it to be no big deal for him or Hillary and no one has jumped all over him…

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist lefty enough to recognize Obama's biggiest fault is he is too far right says:

      Actually, I think Hillary would make one of the best Presidents that we have had in quite some time! /// …. and your reasoning is?

      Oh, and by the way, Powell also used a private email address when he was Joint Chief and Secretary of State… He said he considered it to be no big deal for him or Hillary and no one has jumped all over him… //// The rules changed after Powell. …. and more relevantly, he DID USE the official gubment servers whereas Hillary used only and exclusively her own private email and server.

      You apparently are a stooge.

    • McCullough says:

      When you resort to the other side does it too rationale, you’ve lost the argument by default.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist lefty enough to recognize Obama's biggiest fault is he is too far right says:

        I don’t think that is by default. It is by unintentional admission against self interest?

        A small picky quibble…….. my forte!

      • Phydeau says:

        When your side has done it many times, and you indignantly accuse the other side of doing it, you’ve lost the argument by default.

        When both sides do it, don’t even bother bringing it up. 🙄

    • ± says:

      You’ll have to change your name now “Tom” because you belong to one of the categories below.

      Anyone who thinks Hillary is releasing 100% percent of the emails instead of a carefully selected subset, is either a media stooge, a young naive person, or an old retarded person or someone who will support Clinton lies no matter what.

  11. observer says:

    Nothing will change while corporations have stronger rights than human beings.

  12. AdmFubar says:

    these emails arent secret as far as the NSA is concerned..

  13. LibertyLover says:

    And now Obama is saying he didn’t learn about her hosting her own email server until he saw it in the news.

    He’s either lying or incompetent.

    • Mr Diesel says:

      Every time something bad breaks he claims he’s hearing about it the same time as the rest of us.

      That means we have the worst intelligent agencies in the world or he is a lying asshole. I opt for the lying asshole part.

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist lefty enough to recognize Obama's biggiest fault is he is too far right says:

      All Politicians lie. They think they are managing history that rises above the concerns of the moment.

      Heh, heh….even Liberal MSNBC is ripping The Clintons for their lack of transparency and self defeating actions with respect to public trust.

      Too bad elections aren’t based on trust, but rather…..alll those other things.

      Bill was very smooth, Hilary…a hanger on. I do love what Fiorinna said about her: “Unlike Hillary–I know that flying (and visiting all those foreign countries) is an acitivity and not an accomplishment.”

      Most of what politicians do is………………. activity.
      ……….and most of that is fund raising (aka barely conceealed bribes).

      Just Look.

      THEN: VOTE ALL INCUMBENTS OUT OF OFFICE….and don’t let them back in.

  14. Jeremiah's Johnson says:

    As usual everyone is talking about trivialities and irrelevancies. Making sure the Americans live better than everyone else on Earth is so much more important than everything else that noting else should even be discussed. The worst crime you can commit is to suggest that Americans should live in smaller houses or drive smaller vehicles. Since Democrats say these obscenities all the time, they cannot be voted for, ever.

    Now the other parties mis-prioritize also, but at least their suckage is not 100%.

    Nothing is more important than trying to get to the point where every single adult american drives a full size 4×4 and lives in a house with at least a 3 car garage. It’s a crime against humanity to settle for anything less.

    Besides, I have forged documents that prove Bill and Hillary practice cannibalism. (Yes, they’re fake, the the charges are so serious that they need to be investigated by Brian Williams.)

  15. Phydeau says:

    I got bad news for y’all… as soon as you vote all those evil INCUMBENTS out of office… the new guys who defeated them… they become (dramatic pause) INCUMBENTS!

    Americans don’t want to do the work of a citizen of a democratic republic. We’ve gotten too lazy.

    If a congressman who represents 700,000 people gets 100 letters on a subject, it’s considered a landslide of public opinion.

    We are their bosses. But if we don’t supervise them, they’ll run wild and do all kinds of damage.

    If all the people who bitched about politics actually wrote emails or letters to their representatives, things might be different.

    But what you’re doing here… just a big circle jerk, guys. :/

    Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to write emails to the president, my senators, and my rep, expressing my opinion that the TPP is just a big secret giveaway to multinational corporations.

    When was the last time you wrote an email to a politician?

    • Jeremiah's Johnson says:

      ” the new guys who defeated them… they become (dramatic pause) INCUMBENTS!”

      If we had term limits, we’d be self limiting incumbents. If the term limits were set to 1 there’s be no incumbents.

      • Phydeau says:

        Thanks for having the cojones to answer, JJ… looks like everyone else just ran.

        The problem with one-term politicians is that you would have to limit all aides from working for more than one politician. Otherwise, all the power in Washington would go to the unelected aides, because they would be the only ones who know what is going on and how the system works. An elected representative who’s only there for one term will only be coming up to speed just as he’s leaving office.

        And you’d have to ban lobbyists from being in DC for more than one Congressional term. Same problem: the lobbyists will know far more than the elected representatives and will be much more influential.

        It helps to have elected representatives who know how the system works. That’s why I’m against explicit term limits. We already have implicit term limits: we can always vote the guy out.

        But everyone wants the other guy to vote their representative out, while keeping their experienced guy in who knows how to bring home the pork. :/

  16. Eddie says:

    She’s as good as elected for two terms. Cruz saw to that. The only thing that can change that is Obama. He’s trying to get the Republicans elected, just like they did for him.

  17. Ed U Kate says:

    Please! This Hillary-gate is nothing new. The press probably long forgot about Whitewater and how her husband was IMPEACHED for lying to Congress. (Can’t say as ol dub-ya would get a pass like that.)

    It’s not as though the Hillary never did anything wrong like deny deployment of troops to defend an attack that everyone said was coming. She had her PHONE! And knowing how smart she is, it was probably serviced by Verizon or AT&T — the 2 most corrupt of all cell service providers.

    … Watch how the Benghazi scandal somehow gets blamed on Hillary’s phone. Anyone taking bets?

  18. Sheesh says:

    I wonder if the media will ever deeply delve into Bill’s relationship with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

    Google Epstein, Clinton and Little St. James.

    Not that I think Bill would ever engage in such behavior.

    Sheesh.

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist lefty enough to recognize Obama's biggiest fault is he is too far right says:

      THAT interested in little kiddies. huh?

      Sheesh!

  19. Kent says:

    Nobody 2016!

  20. jpfitz says:

    Rush Limbaugh gives an idea to the 1%. Right, the presidential elections consisting of the “smarter” shrub and the wife of a former philandering president. Both contenders are hawks so who knows what could happen.

    • Mr Diesel says:

      I think you meant to say “philandering former president” did you? The is no way that he has stopped dipping his bent wick everywhere that has a vagina, be that vagina of age or not.

  21. Phydeau says:

    If reality was somehow bent and a libertarian or green party politician was elected to a national office, the lobbyists and the flood of money would immediately hit them. They would be corrupted just as much as any Democrat or Republican.

    The problem isn’t the parties, it’s the campaign financing. Level the playing field and get your libertarian/green candidate elected on their own merits, not because they have the most money.

    • Mr Diesel says:

      Limit it to $1,000,000 per candidate per race and they can’t spend any of their own money. Period.

      Screw all of them. I’d love to be in Congress but the chance of me raising enough money to run are zero because I won’t ass kiss or suck up to anyone. I don’t accept stuff from y very wealthy friends either. Well, maybe dinner if they are cooking at their house but when we are out we pay our own way. Fucking slimy assed politicians take favors from everyone offering.

      Vote for me

      • Phydeau says:

        Limiting the amount to spend is a good idea. I’d also say it should come from the government (i.e. our tax dollars) because as the saying goes in Texas, you dance with who brung ya…

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist lefty enough to recognize Obama's biggiest fault is he is too far right says:

      I dunno. Right now, the most likely libertarian or green candidate would be Rand Paul and he’s doing everything he can to run…getting the rules of Republican Party to change to allow him to keep his congressional seat when he loses and all.

      The most recent “possible” TP candidate with 3% of the vote was Ralph Nader?

      I don’t think either of those two would be as swayed by $$ as you suggest. Its their ideology that drives them…and in the world of money…. why neither are successful..IN POLITICS.

      You have the parts correctly identified, but you are playing Mr Potato Face with them.

      Read this in my email: “A full belly to the labourer is, in my opinion, the foundation of public morals and the only source of real public peace.”-William Cobbett, journalist, pamphleteer, and farmer (9 Mar 1763-1835)

      Its deep man!

      • NewFormatSux says:

        That’s why the bourgeoisie are the first enemy of Communists. They don’t want workers to be comfortable, but instead to be in a revolutionary state. The Worse, The Better

  22. John E. Quantum, the cunning linguist says:

    “Just Say No to a Bush or a Clinton in 2016”

    No Clinton ever said no to a bush

  23. Peppeddu says:

    I know many people are nostalgic of the Clinton era but keep this in mind.

    Hillary is not Bill.

    • Greg Allen says:

      But Jeb sure seems to be GW.

      What policies distinguish them from each other?

    • Ed-U-Kate says:

      Agreed! Hillary is WORSE!!!

      Hillary has at least TWO SCANDALS OF HER OWN — WHITEWATER and BENGHAZI! Seems the public is all too willing to forget it too. That is, unless she were on the other side of the isle. Or it could be the PRESS?!

      I seem to also recall way back in Bills first term where SHE decided to propose legislation regarding health care too. A very complicated convoluted proposal that eventually went away. But rather than focusing on how an UNELECTED person with ties to the President was creating legislation proposals, the focus was all about her benevolent attempts to fix a problem that less than 2-percent of the population was dealing with (then — not now). I think Bill Burr said it best when he said, when you have a plumbing problem and the plumber shows up, do you really want to hear from his WIFE?!

      Anyway, now she seems to think she’s above the law or at least the rules when she decides what email accounts she gets to use for PUBLIC OFFICE. And ya, it’s nit picking. But it’s just one more illustration of her mindset and how she either thinks she’s better than everyone else or how INCOMPETENT she is. Or did you already forget about WHITEWATER?!

      … We’ll just ignore that little piece of history regarding her husband Bill and how he was IMPEACHED for lying to Congress. Seems everyone is too bamboozled over WHAT he was lying about — not the fact that he would LIE! But I will say she stayed married to it.

      • NewFormatSux says:

        He was impeached for lying to a grand jury, a civil jury, and for obstruction of justice. They passed on impeaching him for claiming executive privilege to avoid answering their questions, in my opinion the strongest charge.

  24. Greg Allen says:

    If H. Clinton gives us the peace, prosperity and blanced budgets of B. Clinton — GREAT!

    If J. Bush gives us the needless wars, record deficits and collapsed economy of GW Bush — DISASTER!

    • LibertyLover says:

      I’m not a GOP fan either, but Clinton did nothing more than sign a balanced budget created by a GOP congress. Remember, Congress is responsible for the budget, not the president.

      Clinton also gave us Bosnia/Herzegovina.

      The war would have ended much sooner had Clinton not violated international law kept them fighting.

      The Bosnian government lobbied to have the arms embargo lifted, but that was opposed by the United Kingdom, France and Russia. US proposals to pursue this policy were known as lift and strike. The US congress passed two resolutions calling for the embargo to be lifted but both were vetoed by President Bill Clinton for fear of creating a rift between the US and the aforementioned countries. Nonetheless, the United States used both “black” C-130 transports and back channels, including Islamist groups, to smuggle weapons to Bosnian-Muslim forces, as well as allowed Iranian-supplied arms to transit through Croatia to Bosnia.[58][59][60] However, in the light of widespread NATO opposition to US (and possibly Turkish) endeavors in coordinating the “black flights of Tuzla,” governments such as those of the United Kingdom and Norway expressed disapproval of these measures and their counterproductive effects on NATO enforcement of the arms embargo.[61] Inter Services Intelligence also played an active role during 1992–1995 and secretly supplied the Muslim fighters with arms, ammunition and guided anti tank missiles to give them a fighting chance against the aggression.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_War

      Don’t for a minute think that Clinton was a peacenik.

      • Phydeau says:

        It’s always cute when libertarians try to pretend they’re anything but Republican stooges. 🙂

        • Sheesh says:

          That’s always your fallback argument when you can’t respond intelligently.

          We get it.

        • LibertyLover says:

          Funny. The republicans say the same thing about us supporting democrats.

          • Sheesh says:

            Yep.

          • Phydeau says:

            Well you haven’t done it here, LL. So I guess I’ll just have to take your word for it. 😉

          • Phydeau says:

            And the fact is, the nutty libertarian aversion to government regulation plays right into the hands of the plutocrats who (still, so far) control the Republican party. That’s why they keep the libertarian movement alive, as a useful tool. It can’t survive on its own (nonexistent) merits.

            How does it feel to be a tool, LL?

          • Sheesh says:

            “How does it feel to be a tool, LL?”

            Har, right back at ya.

            Blind as a bat.

          • LibertyLover says:

            Wait, you mean you don’t remember me bashing Bush II for the medicaid?

            How convenient!

        • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist lefty enough to recognize Obama's biggiest fault is he is too far right says:

          LL gave a relevant analysis of one relevant piece of history with quotes and the supporting link.

          I do think he deserves more than a non-responsive knee jerk rubber stamp response?

          I don’t have to time to recall the Bosnian ethnic cleansing or why Nato supported the racist regime of the Philosophy major, but I have a memory that “in general” Clinton gets credit for “intervening” in that conflict?

          Details do totall escape me…but it sounds like Clinton did the right thing?

          You’re getting lazy Phydeau, committing the same error you righteously complain about.

          Do better.

          • Phydeau says:

            bobbo, the right-wingers are arguing in black-and-white terms, I’m not. I’m on the record as having plenty of criticisms of Democrats. I don’t think Clinton was perfect, I’m not arguing that. But the black-and-white guys, any fault whatsoever in a public figure makes him completely evil. They hate Clinton. And look at how they turned their backs on Dubya, after worshiping him for years.

            I’m not arguing that Clinton was perfect. He did plenty of unsavory things. I’m just saying overall, he did more good things than bad. That’s a nuanced position the wingnuts (sorry McCullough) seem incapable of understanding. It’s like trying to argue with a child. :/

            I’m not lazy, bobbo, I just don’t want to waste my time. Like trying to teach the pig to sing: it just wastes your time and annoys the pig.

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist lefty enough to recognize Obama's biggiest fault is he is too far right says:

            Well….LL was not in fact arguing a black and white position.

            Just Look.

            His position is about as nuanced as it ever gets around here…and not completely inappropriate “this time” as is your response. I think that does amount to you being lazy…. or a brain fart….but you have been gassey either been gassey the last few days…or lazy.

            I think its lazy….or boring… to actually not respond to what is written and rather default to what you have concluded over the time of review. How can anyone improve if you lock the box?

            I try to look at each post on its own merits, apply my own bias, then try to correct with analysis of the Pros and Cons….then I get tired and lazy, and just make fun of peoples names.

            Ha, ha…..I do crack myself up.

          • Phydeau says:

            meh, bobbo… I could have said “yes, Clinton was not 100% pure, and your point is?”

            No one out here in the real world is arguing that Clinton was a “peacenik” or 100% right on anything. It’s just tiring to keep engaging with these guys and their straw men evil libruls. I get tired of saying “Yes, Clinton did some bad things, but overall did more good things than bad.” They just can’t process that. :/

            And despite LL’s insistence, he’s no different from the run-of-the-mill right-wingers here from what I can see. They agree on pretty much everything. But if it makes him feel better, fine. 🙄

      • NewFormatSux says:

        Aren’t American troops still in Kosovo, 16 years later? Bosnia 20 years later? Ans did they ever leave Haiti?

  25. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist lefty enough to recognize Obama's biggiest fault is he is too far right says:

    As a general appreciation, Liebertards who vote with the Pukes are Republican Stooges….finding common ground for often for opposite reasons in wanting to shrink/defund/neuter gubment regulations of an industry,

    …………while……….

    Liebertards who vote with Dumbos are more often Democratic gad flies irritating them into fulfilling all the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

    Lots of overlap, lots of differences.

    LABELS always a swear word indicating lack of analysis.

    • Phydeau says:

      Libertarians are more socially liberal than Republicans. But I don’t give a rat’s @ss if they’re in favor of gay marriage, because the Republican economic principles they support have turned America into a banana republic: A few incredibly wealthy and the rest of us just scraping by.

  26. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist lefty enough to recognize Obama's biggiest fault is he is too far right says:

    Phydeau says:
    3/10/2015 at 10:47 am

    meh, bobbo… I could have said “yes, Clinton was not 100% pure, and your point is?” //// Correct, you would have been advancing the argument and been directly relevantly on point. A target you miss when going with the generality you did.

    No one out here in the real world is arguing that Clinton was a “peacenik” or 100% right on anything. //// Not true. The Clinton team might agree as a general statement that he wasn’t perfect…..but try to nail them down on any specific thing, and its almost impossible.

    It’s just tiring to keep engaging with these guys and their straw men evil libruls. /// I agree they represent the bottom of the barrel…and I’,m just encouraging you not to lower yourself to their slop.

    I get tired of saying “Yes, Clinton did some bad things, but overall did more good things than bad.” They just can’t process that. ://// Hmmm…Clinton did “a lot” of bad things. The worst in my book: repealing Glass-Steigel which set up the Financial Collapse of 2008. followed closely by NAFTA. Sadly, I don’t think he did more good things than bad….he was as is usual along the political divide rather just not as bad as the Republicans he was contending with.

    And despite LL’s insistence, he’s no different from the run-of-the-mill right-wingers here from what I can see. They agree on pretty much everything. But if it makes him feel better, fine. 🙄 //// As stated….I’m not talking about LL as much as I am about how to be pragmatic, existential, relevant, on point, and avoid classic errors in rhetoric.

  27. ECA says:

    So,
    She made her OWN server for her OWN emails, rather then have the WHOLE of the USA gov. monitor her MAIL??


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 5393 access attempts in the last 7 days.