patrick.net

Think long and hard about that....... what that says is the "sheep" accept liars and dishonest politicians to represent them in government...

I find it staggering what people are willing to overlook in support of their "team." There are so many examples of serious dishonesty among so many people associated with this administration. Hillary's history of thwarting the law is quite long. This email scandal is just her most recent stunt. Most of us are over 30, right? Maybe some of you are just too young to remember.

14

turtledove 2015 Mar 13, 10:30pm

CL says

So if you sniff around a Clinton taint, you'll usually smell the GOP

The GOP involved Hillary in cattle futures and Whitewater? It was actually the New York Times (again! Those right-wing bastards!) who first did the story on her questionable cattle futures investments.

15

marcus 2015 Mar 14, 12:15am

I find it staggering what people are willing to overlook in support of their "team."

I agree. Or for that matter, what kind of nonsense people are willing to buy, if it somehow tarnishes the images of politicians of the other team.

Politicians on both sides have huge ambitions and egos, and are willing to behave in what seems to be very manipulative and questionable ways. There is an element of "the end justifies the means" that comes up in ppolitics and in many corners of the business world too.

Ultimately we each have to decide which politicians have the greater good, and the better interests of us all at heart. Your beliefs about economics, and government, and even your basic intelligence come in to play in your ability to figure out which one really has our best interests at heart.

CL says

So if you sniff around a Clinton taint, you'll usually smell the GOP.

Not sure what you mean by this. But if you mean that in all intent and purposes, the CLintons are very middle of the road, which these days means leaning strongly in the interests of big business, big oil, the 1%, and against investing in the people, the nI agree.. I'm not saying she's a right wing wacko. But as a democrat in 2015 she's probably more conservative than either Nixon or about half the republicans in congress were in the 70s.

16

CL 2015 Mar 14, 10:19am

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/01/22/infiltration_of_files_seen_as_extensive/?page=full

The GOP involved Hillary in cattle futures and Whitewater? It was actually the New York Times (again! Those right-wing bastards!) who first did the story on her questionable cattle futures investments.

Without Google I'd wager you can't remember all the fake scandals or their faux import.

Travelgate? They fired the previous administration's travel staff?!?

A failed land deal? Troopergate? Scaife fueled bs. The public was happy to go along with the new soap opera and the GOP was happy to write the script, facts be damned.

Marcus: taint is the operative word. When I think of taint, the GOP comes to mind. They're somewhere between anuses and genitals.

17

Shaman 2015 Mar 14, 10:36am

I think if more of our presidents could get a decent hummer in the White House, we'd have a more stable government. Maybe a Presidential Fluffer job should be posted?

18

Bellingham Bill 2015 Mar 14, 10:45am

^ now *that's* a real scandal, LOL

19

indigenous 2015 Mar 14, 10:45am

Remember a few months ago when Hillary hurt her head?

20

Tenpoundbass 2015 Mar 14, 11:08am

indigenous says

Remember a few months ago when Hillary hurt her head?

You mean when she teabagged Harry and poked out his eye?

21 humanity 2015 Mar 14, 1:28pm

Bellingham Bill says

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/01/22/infiltration_of_files_seen_as_extensive/?page=full

^ now *that's* a real scandal, LOL

Yep.

And it's also the reason why Hillary will get respect in some circles, for having the good sense to have her own email server while secretary of state.

OR if not respect, at least understanding for being paranoid about whether her email account could more easily be hacked in to, or otherwise accessed
by prying eyes, if she used servers run by the federal government.

22 humanity 2015 Mar 14, 1:37pm

humanity says

Does that mean sheâ€™ll get off relatively easy for things that would torpedo a different politicianâ€™s candidacy? It could. But right or wrong, there will be an awfully high bar to clear before a controversy has a real impact on what the voters think of her.

Think long and hard about that....... what that says is the "sheep" accept liars and dishonest politicians to represent them in government...

Have you ever once read a point of view that's opposed to yours where you thought, hmmm, interesting point ?

That is instead of spinning it through your twisted prism of ignorance and hate ? Only a total liar such as yourself is so laughably incapable of ever understanding the other persons point of view. Or you do understand, but in your dirtbag world, a lie is the proper response.

The context of your quote:
humanity says

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/03/13/why-the-email-controversy-probably-hasnt-dented-hillary-clintons-public-image/

But in fact, thereâ€™s another narrative at work. Itâ€™s a narrative in which she or her husband get accused of something, it gets a lot of coverage, Republicans express outrage, and then in the end it turns out to be somewhere between unimportant and completely meaningless, both substantively and politically. The public is quite familiar with that narrative, too.

Does that mean sheâ€™ll get off relatively easy for things that would torpedo a different politicianâ€™s candidacy? It could. But right or wrong, there will be an awfully high bar to clear before a controversy has a real impact on what the voters think of her.

The point is this: It may just be that Fox news, Rush Limbaugh etc, (AND YOU) because of their (your) lack of intellectual honesty, and their relentless pushing of fake scandals, that the result is to increase the public's tolerance for potentially real scandals. Because the public aren't going to listen when it just seems like it's just a continuation of your constant stream of bullshit.

23

indigenous 2015 Mar 14, 3:02pm

Hillary will be the next President

Is that what the polls show?

That sucks big time, god fucking dammit.

24

indigenous 2015 Mar 14, 3:23pm

Don't you find it interesting, the next election is over 1-1/2 years away, yet the talking heads can't stop talking about Hillary, even though she hasn't "officially" announced that she is running?

What started with Edward Bernays must be Frankenstein's monster by now. I look at what comes out of Hollywood and they the actors think they are so smart telling everyone about this and that. It is laughable how they come across so educated and pompous. Yet the sheep suck it up, like I said FUBAR

25 bob2356 2015 Mar 14, 8:52pm

bob2356 says

Yea, that would be like all the people still defending Bush for the Iraq war.

There it is, I knew it wouldn't take long for the Bush/Iraq reference to show up... I'm surprised it took two hours to get that response...

Ahhh, the old "Two wrongs don't make a right" believe... That's why I said:

Not two wrongs make a right. Just pointing out the right wingnut sheeple like you are just as bad as the leftwingnut sheeple like humanity.

26

turtledove 2015 Mar 14, 9:11pm

Barring a tragic plane accident, Hillary will be the next President

Elizabeth would be a better choice, IMHO.... Assuming that the only option is a woman leaning to the left.

Why are all OUR women nuts? I cringe whenever Sarah speaks. Christine was an embarrassment. They seem so desperate to appeal to the fringes of our party. WTF? Is this just another example of something I have to do myself? Turtledove for president! (kidding)

27

Y 2015 Mar 15, 6:27am

not only that...but that HP wench whatshername has the personality of a summons...

Why are all OUR women nuts? I cringe whenever Sarah speaks. Christine was an embarrassment. They seem so desperate to appeal to the fringes of our party. WTF? Is this just another example of something I have to do myself? Turtledove for president! (kidding)

28

marcus 2015 Mar 15, 9:38am

bob2356 says

just as bad as the leftwingnut sheeple like humanity

MY tolerance or lack of hate for Hillary make me a left wing nut ? Right.

This only shows how far to the right this country has slipped, when some idiots think the Clintons are representative of the "left."

Elizabeth would be a better choice

I agree, in some ways, although with HIllary you get BIll, and their experience is huge. But I'm surprised to hear you say it. Warren is more liberal than Hillary.

One of the reasons HIllary is such a strong contender is that a lot of people, even some republicans, are intrigued with the idea of an experienced and successful two term president, in the role of "first gentleman."

29 bob2356 2015 Mar 15, 10:25am

bob2356 says

just as bad as the leftwingnut sheeple like humanity

MY tolerance or lack of hate for Hillary make me a left wing nut ? Right.

Are you logging on as humanity also? If so then yes. It's not a fake scandal. She full well knew what she was doing, it shows how arrogant and contemptuous of rules that apply to everyone else hillary is. Why do you think a secretary of state the deliberatly evades the freedom of information act and the federal records act would be a good choice for president?

Did you catch hillary's press conference on the emails? I've never seen such a skillful tap dance around the truth. Truly masterful. I really liked the part about "I never sent emails except to people with a .gov address so all my emails were backed up by the recepient" Brilliant. Really brilliant. If you're going to lie to the press go big. Notice the lack of the word received. Does anyone really believe the secretary of state never sent to or received from anyone who didn't have a US government email address.

I agree, in some ways, although with HIllary you get BIll, and their experience is huge. But I'm surprised to hear you say it. Warren is more liberal than Hillary.

No one is discussing how liberal or not liberal hillary is. This all about her character and if she's fit for the office of president.

This only shows how far to the right this country has slipped, when some idiots think the Clintons are representative of the "left."

The clintons are only about the clintons and have zero moral compass or real convictions. It's the left and far left that are refusing to condemn their manifest character flaws and hold them accountable for their actions.

30

indigenous 2015 Mar 15, 12:32pm

George Will said nicely, paraphrase: It reinforces a preexisting negative perception, which is well documented, the Clintons come trailing clouds of entitlement and concealment, Using legalistic jesuitic reasoning who could find a loophole in a stop sign, Clearly this was to conceal in order to control this is literally Orwellian in which there is an axiom "he who controls the past will control the present, he who control the present will control the past, IOW what the citizens will know about will be controlled by such a person as Hillary.

But what really blows my mind is that the avg Joe can not see this, WTF totally FUBAR

31

turtledove 2015 Mar 15, 2:20pm

I agree, in some ways, although with HIllary you get BIll, and their experience is huge. But I'm surprised to hear you say it. Warren is more liberal than Hillary.

One of the reasons HIllary is such a strong contender is that a lot of people, even some republicans, are intrigued with the idea of an experienced and successful two term president, in the role of "first gentleman."

Warren seems a bit less morally flexible. Her judgments in the aftermath of the crash were poignant. I can respect that. People made a big deal about her claims of a Native American lineage... Comparing her statements to what she checked off on some application 20 years ago... I thought that was splitting hairs looking for fault. Hillary, on the other hand, is an oily one. Her attempts to deceive are all too common. Even if she said everything right, at this point, she's already demonstrated that there's little she'd NOT do to lie, cheat, or cover-up. When she says things like, "you'll just have to trust me," I think it's funny. If people choose to trust her despite repeated examples of her tendency to deceive then I think we'll all be in for one hell of an entertaining term.

32

marcus 2015 Mar 15, 5:21pm

Even if she said everything right, at this point, she's already demonstrated that there's little she'd NOT do to lie, cheat, or cover-up.

From my perspective, it seems like most of this reputation is due to non stop hate from right wing commentators such as Rush Limbaugh for about 25 years now. I can remember hearing this hate from my oldest brother in 1993 or so when Hillary had the gaul as first lady to actually be doing something as substantive as working on health care policy. How dare she ? She thought just because her husband was President that she should be able to help him ? What an arrogant cunt, right ?

If you're a republican or if you have republican friends, you've heard them whining about her for a very very long time. I've never fully understood the hate. THe thing they hated about BIll the most was his success. A successful democrat is a very dangerous thing. IT could lead to more democrats (the enemy) being elected.

Don't feel bad. We're all susceptible to propaganda. Especially when our friends and loved ones are buying it too.

33

Bellingham Bill 2015 Mar 15, 8:15pm

They seem so desperate to appeal to the fringes of our party. WTF?

That's where the enthusiasm, volunteers, donations, and (primary) votes mostly are.

The conservative worldview is that literally the world is going to hell. A lot more energy there than the middle of the road and less irrational sociopolitical space.

34

turtledove 2015 Mar 15, 9:01pm

From my perspective, it seems like most of this reputation is due to non stop hate from right wing commentators such as Rush Limbaugh for about 25 years now.

So, why her? There are plenty of Democrats out there... Why does the stink always fall on her? Perhaps because she's a women? Well, I'd buy that more if she were the only one. Is it because she aims for the highest offices? She's hardly the first. Two of her criminal investigations (the earliest dating back to 1978) occurred well before she was a contender for president, secretary of state, or a member of Congress. She was just the wife of the state attorney general. As far as I can tell, we have lots of those in this country, which brings me back to, "why her?" They were about to take the Governor's mansion, but Arkansas' governor's wives don't seem particularly target worthy. So, why did the liberal New York Times choose her (above everyone else) to investigate? The Clintons heading for the White House should have been their wet dream. Yet, they chose her and looked at her financials under a microscope. Does Rush control the New York Times? I don't buy that this is an attack on her and her alone. I think that's what she wants you to think. You must admit, If you believe that any accusations against her are just political mud slinging, then she doesn't have to answer any hard questions... She can rest assured in her righteous indignation.

35 bob2356 2015 Mar 15, 9:22pm

From my perspective, it seems like most of this reputation is due to non stop hate from right wing commentators such as Rush Limbaugh for about 25 years now. I can remember hearing this hate from my oldest brother in 1993 or so when Hillary had the gaul as first lady to actually be doing something as substantive as working on health care policy. How dare she ? She thought just because her husband was President that she should be able to help him ? What an arrogant cunt, right ?

If you're a republican or if you have republican friends, you've heard them whining about her for a very very long time. I've never fully understood the hate. THe thing they hated about BIll the most was his success. A successful democrat is a very dangerous thing. IT could lead to more democrats (the enemy) being elected.

Don't feel bad. We're all susceptible to propaganda. Especially when our friends and loved ones are buying it too.

This is just bullshit. Far more people have questioned the clintons over the years than just the right wing commentators. A good deal of what you call propaganda came from liberals and democratics also. Maybe the fact that both the clintons seem to be skirting right on the very edge of the law constantly has more to do with their reputation and people criticizing the clintons than Rush LImbaugh.

36

marcus 2015 Mar 15, 9:40pm

So, why did the liberal New York Times choose her (above everyone else) to investigate?

Only a republican would keep saying "the liberal new york times," as if that means much. The New York times is a national newspaper. IT has a reputation as liberal, mostly because reality has a liberal bias.

But to your point. It was an article written during Clinton's Presidential campaign. Politicians and their spouses are scrutinized to the nth degree when running for office. The fact that such an investigative article appeared in the NY Times doesn't mean anything to me. Who knows (and I mean this) maybe publicists working for CLinton's campaign were behind that article, because they knew that there were going to be attacks based on the story, and they wanted to get in front of it and put their spin on it.