patrick.net

Hillary is scarier than the main character of jeepers creepers. I recommend her for next sequel, that hag would be perfect for butchering the broken down school bus full of students on a deserted highway.

dublin hillz says

Hillary is scarier than the main character of jeepers creepers. I recommend her for next sequel, that hag would be perfect for butchering the broken down school bus full of students on a deserted highway.

Hillary has her army of supporters willing to defend her and mock anyone who has the audacity to criticize her.

wtf ?

Hilary's okay.

And tell me that it's not kind of cool to imagine Bill CLinton back in the Whte House, but as the first gentleman.

marcus says

Hilary's okay.

And tell me that it's not kind of cool to imagine Bill CLinton back in the Whte House, but as the first gentleman.

The "lesser" of two evils is rapidly becoming less and less "Less".

double L dumbbell....

marcus says

Hilary's okay.

marcus says

Hilary's okay.

And tell me that it's not kind of cool to imagine Bill CLinton back in the Whte House, but as the first gentleman.

Folks who would rather vote to kill people than to be seen to be weak on defense deserve scorn, not votes.

Hillary pleased:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/17/hillary-clinton-benghazi_n_5504978.html?1403039685&icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl5|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D489911

As an aside, looks like Hillary finally found someone who won't womanize behind her back.

As usual, the dems are the biggest of hypocrits

"Oh noes, can't vote mccain cuz he's too old!"

So now let's vote this old menopausal cretin, one foot in the grave. You people make me sick

errc says

As usual, the dems are the biggest of hypocrits

politics is 90% hypocrisy-the party that does it best wins-feign outrage, blame others, measure your ill deeds by the ill deeds of others.
Dems are no worse than Reps at the game

Hillary on gun control last night. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTKDNu7CcT8

I half expected her to talk about her gun ownership and hunting days when she was so poor she had to shoot rabbits for food.

The Dream Dies- Hillary says immigrant kids have to go home http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/17/hillary-illegal-immigrant-children-must-be-sent-ho/#.U6Hie1RCZXk.twitter but adds she remembers when her family crossed the border.

Poor, Arkansas/Chicago white trash, and cheated upon. The next President of the USA, and hit country song.

smaulgld says

errc says

As usual, the dems are the biggest of hypocrits

politics is 90% hypocrisy-the party that does it best wins-feign outrage, blame others, measure your ill deeds by the ill deeds of others.

Dems are no worse than Reps at the game

I don't know about that. Many of us right-leaners are okay with saying that W wasn't our finest moment. I cannot recall a post where a right-leaner tried to justify a Bush admin. action by saying that it's okay because Clinton did something worse. However, if you attack Obama, you get a lot of "well, Bush did this and Reagan did that and Nixon did the other thing..." Because saying that someone else might have made a poor decision once somehow absolves Obama of any wrongdoing.

turtledove says

I cannot recall a post where a right-leaner tried to justify a Bush admin. action by saying that it's okay because Clinton did something worse.

I'm in the Milky Way (Orion Arm), Virgo Supercluster.

Are you out in the Virgo Cluster, or within the M81 Group?

turtledove says

I cannot recall a post where a right-leaner tried to justify a Bush admin. action by saying that it's okay because Clinton did something worse. However, if you attack Obama, you get a lot of "well, Bush did this and Reagan did that and Nixon did the other thing..." Because saying that someone else might have made a poor decision once somehow absolves Obama of any wrongdoing.

It does seem to be a type of argumentation that is more prevalent on the left but the right is not immune. It is also akin to two kids who get caught with their hands in the cookie jar defending themselves on the basis that the other one took a cookie. I make the point in the original post/podcast

Blurtman says

Folks who would rather vote to kill people than to be seen to be weak on defense deserve scorn, not votes.

That's the Stop Sign for me - no way I vote for her.

She took her sweet time admitting she was wrong about Iraq - as in, years - because she knew when she voted for it that it was shit.

I really have no idea what I'll do come next election.

She needs to disappear and live out the rest of her life in shame and disgrace.

turtledove says

I cannot recall a post where a right-leaner tried to justify a Bush admin. action by saying that it's okay because Clinton did something worse.

Doesn't really matter if someone made a post that said that, because I've certainly heard that before. Politicians have made comparisons like that. In addition, Congress certainly does things like that -- e.g. filibustering, where each party insists its practices are consistent with what the other party did the last time they were in power (both parties definitely do this). Trying to make this a partisan thing is misguided.

turtledove says

Because saying that someone else might have made a poor decision once somehow absolves Obama of any wrongdoing.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. There are plenty of legitimate things to criticize the Obama administration for, but I never underestimate the ability of certain people at Patnet to pick the stupidest examples. You are correct that it would be better of everyone to discuss issues on their merits rather than trying to make it about ideology or partisanship.

I would guess that if there's any tendency to do this on behalf of Obama it's because Obama has continued several Bush administration policies (or other Republican-proposed policies) that it's an easy comparison to make (even to the point of having some cabinet members stay on, obviously). When that's the case, I don't see why it'd be incorrect to say, "you weren't complaining then; why are you so vocal now?"

As an example, it seems a perfectly reasonable thing to say, "hey, you fat fuck Orrin Hatch, you were for Obamacare in the 90s when the Heritage Foundation proposed it. Why are you against it now, you cheap hack?" The whole reason the Affordable Care Act mimicked the Heritage Foundation proposal was because Blue Dog-types drafted it and because the Obama administration thought a Republican proposal from the 90s would get Republican support during his presidency. The Obama administration got that one wrong. In fact, the Obama administration has always gotten it wrong whenever they've tried "prenegotiate" legislation by adopting Republican proposals -- the Republicans still say no.

smaulgld says

but the right is not immune

I know I have said this several times here: sometime in 2006, after Bush had definitively been shown to be a grade-A tool, most (80%) conservatives ceased to acknowledge his existence.

The office libertarians (by the water cooler, dying to talk to anyone who won't run away) and hard-ass neocons talked about nothing but Hillary, assumed to be the next president, and how badly she was going to screw the country.

HuggyBumbers McLovkins says

Blurtman says

Folks who would rather vote to kill people than to be seen to be weak on defense deserve scorn, not votes.

That's the Stop Sign for me - no way I vote for her.

She took her sweet time admitting she was wrong about Iraq - as in, years - because she knew when she voted for it that it was shit.

I really have no idea what I'll do come next election.

She needs to disappear and live out the rest of her life in shame and disgrace.

(Obama) Hillary is afterall, a politician.

Vote for William K. Black -write in.

HuggyBumbers McLovkins says

I know I have said this several times here: sometime in 2006, after Bush had definitively been shown to be a grade-A tool, most (80%) conservatives ceased to acknowledge his existence

It's about the same time for liberals who are also now realizing
the same about O. 16 years of tools is too much

corntrollio says

When that's the case, I don't see why it'd be incorrect to say, "you weren't complaining then; why are you so vocal now?"

the problem with that type of argumentation is it merely perpetuates that two wrongs do make a right

corntrollio says

As an example, it seems a perfectly reasonable thing to say, "hey, you fat fuck Orrin Hatch, you were for Obamacare in the 90s when the Heritage Foundation proposed it. Why are you against it now, you cheap hack?"

Actually it's ok to point out the hypocrisy.

In that case if you are in favor of Obama care and you point out that Orrin Hatch was also in favor of Obama style healthcare but is against it now merely because Obama is president then it is a perfectly reasonable charge to make.

What I object to is when you are against something and your guy does it and you defend it not because you belief what he did was right and your excuse is your opponent did the same thing.

corntrollio says

I never underestimate the ability of certain people at Patnet to pick the stupidest examples.

They got played, both in 2000, and in 2004. By someone who railed against nation-building in the debates, then got us attacked on 9-11, and then spent $3.5 billion, plus at least one dead service member, for every death on 9-11, and accomplished nothing.

They're embarrassed (and who wouldn't be?).

So they have been desperate since '06 for some Democrat to come in and be at least as bad, because at least it would prove that the other side is idiots, too.

Many of them literally believe that the economy was just fine on January 20, 2009.

In spite of Obama's mediocrity (B-), these people need, need, need him to be god-awful. That's why they were busy anticipating Hillary as a disaster in '06.

Obama must be seen as a miserable failure, or at least a demonstration that "both sides are the same," so that the conservatives who got played as buck-toothed rubes twice can feel better about themselves.

That's all this is. We're talking about the same folks who needed Clinton's impeachment, 24 years later, to balance Nixon's stain on the Republican Party.

That's all this is.

What Obama is or isn't - that's got nothin' to do with it.

HuggyBumbers McLovkins says

That's all this is. We're talking about the same folks who needed Clinton's impeachment, 24 years later, to balance Nixon's stain on the Republican Party.

That's all this is.

What Obama is or isn't - that's got nothin' to do with it.

I would agree that the attack on Clinton was payback.
The attack on Obama by Reps has less to do with the failure of George Bush-his part of the party still controls it and more to do with some of the real failures of the O administration.

Sure there is always politics but Obama is far less competent than Clinton (as a politician and policymaker) and he, is for better or worse, presiding over a much more troubled nation than Clinton was and not providing the right perceived tone.

Obama is not taking his case to the American people because he is not sure what his message is. Many of the platitudes he campaigned on or against he has taken the opposing side.

smaulgld says

Actually it's ok to point out the hypocrisy.
...
What I object to is when you are against something and your guy does it and you defend it not because you belief what he did was right and your excuse is your opponent did the same thing.

Right, I'm talking about the hypocrisy issue, which was (and still is) very common with similar policies between Bush and Obama (e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan, financial crisis, tax policy, etc.).

Its also hypocrisy to drop opposition to something once your own guy does it

She must think we all have short term memories.
I remember distinctly the Republicans being in an uproar, that he was slated to make millions in a Speaker engagement tour.

That's what he did for a few years, before moving to NYC to focus on Hilbillarie's political career.

One thing for sure, you don't run a federal political campaign while broke.

sbh says

I'd vote for Lewis Black. The guy is a riot.

I bet you would, you're like the guys at the race track who picks horses based on the color of the leggings and blinders.

I wonder if Hillary still "services" Bill?

This is definitely of interest re Hillary and Obama's ability to keep track of paper work
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWRtlPas4ko#t=56

"I've instructed my office and my staff "never ever give me a piece of paper until 2 seconds before I need it."" - Obama

So basically everything this Asshole has said in the last 5 years, he just learned about 2 seconds before. On the piece of paper that his producers(Corporate Donors) instructing him to say.

like...

"NO! NO! You Big Dummy, tell them they will get healthcare and "EVERYBODY" will pay their fair share!"

"Good good good"

"Now make a funny!"

"You're doing great, now field a question."

"Oh that's a tough one, obscure your lack of knowledge by injecting Race into your answer. Nobody can debate race, it's just the rules. "

"Now wave and run away..." "RUN YOU DAMN FOOL!"

errc says

As usual, the dems are the biggest of hypocrits

"Oh noes, can't vote mccain cuz he's too old!"

So now let's vote this old menopausal cretin, one foot in the grave. You people make me sick

I've been thinking the exact same thing.

Diane Reem has more wits about her than this Early Bird dinner reject.

errc says

"Oh noes, can't vote mccain cuz he's too old!"

McCain's age was only an issue for one reason.

HuggyBumbers McLovkins says

errc says

"Oh noes, can't vote mccain cuz he's too old!"

McCain's age was only an issue for one reason.

Correct. Because, sarah palin is dumb lol.

And then you turned around and voted in a president who choose joe biden as his VP. And we all know dumb can't get any dumber then joe biden

errc says

Correct. Because, sarah palin is dumb lol.

I had trouble thinking of Sarah Palin's stupidity as funny during the election.

smaulgld says

Its also hypocrisy to drop opposition to something once your own guy does it

As I said, I don't disagree. That's why I suggest debating ideas for what they are and how they improve things, rather than who said them.

Daily Show’s’ Jon Stewart celebrates Hillary Clinton ‘exclusive’ sessions on Fox News, CNN

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/06/19/daily-shows-jon-stewart-celebrates-hillary-clinton-exclusive-sessions-on-fox-news-cnn/