OK, I know no one else is going to say it......

[Guest TankerHC]

so I will.

 

Hillary Clinton was in the White House and had a meeting with Obama. Then she came out and gave a speech. She isnt even in Government "at the moment".

 

Dare I say "Hillary Clinton looked and sounded more Presidential than the President"?

 

Hillary Clinton had a look of resolve, No need for a monitor. She reminded me of Margaret Thatcher.

 

Someone better step up to the plate and offer a good reason why Conservatives should vote for them, or this woman left wing liberal is our next President.

 

Now I need to go vomit. 

[Oh Shoot]

I've been saying here since BHO was reelected, that barring health issues or abrupt Very Bad Times that might swing things away from liberalism, she's a lock.

 

Not many rises, most folks want to dwell in denial, seems.

 

Also said she'll drop weight and look 50 by the time she cranks up, and that looks to be underway, too.

 

I've also said there's a chance Christie might wind up being her Veep, though I admit that's a long shot.

 

- OS

Edited September 10, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[austin7.62]

I have no doubt she will be elected 2016. That is, unless something changes substantially.

[Erik88]

God help us.

[Guest ThePunisher]

so I will.

Hillary Clinton was in the White House and had a meeting with Obama. Then she came out and gave a speech. She isnt even in Government "at the moment".

Dare I say "Hillary Clinton looked and sounded more Presidential than the President"?

Hillary Clinton had a look of resolve, No need for a monitor. She reminded me of Margaret Thatcher.

Someone better step up to the plate and offer a good reason why Conservatives should vote for them, or this woman left wing liberal is our next President.


Now I need to go vomit.

Now, you have made me want to go vomit. I knew Margaret Thatcher, and Hilary is no Margaret Thatcher even in her dreams. Edited September 10, 2013 by ThePunisher

[austin7.62]

Now, you have made me want to go vomit. I knew Margaret Thatcher, and Hilary is no Margaret Thatcher even in her dreams.

No, Thatcher literally had balls.

[Guest TankerHC]

I said "She reminded me of Margaret Thatcher". I didn't say she was Margaret Thatcher Part II. And thats all she needs. 

[Guest ThePunisher]

People will get to see 24/7 the plastering of anti-Hilary campaign ads showing her saying "at this point in time, what difference does it make". Bengahzi will likely be her achilles heel. She will win easily the nomination of the Libtard party, but I don't believe she is a shoo-in for POTUS. Plus her connection to the Weiners won't help any.

[Guest TankerHC]

Same thing I thought about Obama. How the hell could he possibly win when the economy is in a mess? 

 

This is how.

 

Check out the comments from that first "College Student"

 

http://youtu.be/F2yT_ROmsrg

Edited September 10, 2013 by TankerHC

[RobertNashville]

At this point I don't see what difference who gets elected in 2016 will make regardless of who it is.

 

By the time Obamacare kicks into full implementation this country is over...there will be no turning back; it will simply be too late to substantially alter the entitlement train wreck that is approaching,

 

ALL elected office holders, regardless of party will really have two and only two choices to make; continue the entitlement gravy train without raising taxes (substantially anyway) until the weight of our enormous debt crashes the economy OR raise taxes to the level necessary to sustain the entitlements which will also ultimately crash the economy...same destination regardless of the decision made.

 

As unpalatable as it was we had a small chance to turn things around in 2012 but no one who actually gave a #### could even agree to vote for Romney…he isn’t conservative enough...libertarian enough...he is just as bad on “gun control” as Obama...he isn't  Ron Paul  and on and on the excuses went.  Well; elections have consequences and the consequences of 2012 will be a decidedly left-wing  SCOTUS, Obamacare, 20 million criminals being rewarded with citizenship (and all the welfare that goes with it) and the 35% of us still working paying the way for the other 60% to sit on their asses all day with a higher lifestyle than most of the rest of us have.

 

And in case anyone is wondering; no... I haven't been drinking tonigt...maybe that's the problem.

[Guest nra37922]

..

 

... As unpalatable as it was we had a small chance to turn things around in 2012 but no one who actually gave a #### could even agree to vote for Romney…he isn’t conservative enough...libertarian enough...he is just as bad on “gun control” as Obama...he isn't  Ron Paul  and on and on the excuses went.  Well; elections have consequences and the consequences of 2012 will be a decidedly left-wing  SCOTUS, Obamacare, 20 million criminals being rewarded with citizenship (and all the welfare that goes with it) and the 35% of us still working paying the way for the other 60% to sit on their asses all day with a higher lifestyle than most of the rest of us have....

NOT voting has consequences.  So the next time you talk to someone who didn't vote, shake their hand and thank them for re-electing Obama.

[Randall53]

she'll be a lock because of the fickleness of so many conservatve voters. Like the ones that stayed at home last election. Edited September 10, 2013 by Randall53

[BJB]

LORD Help :hiding:

[Guest Riciticky]

Same thing I thought about Obama. How the hell could he possibly win when the economy is in a mess? 

 

This is how.

 

Check out the comments from that first "College Student"

 

http://youtu.be/F2yT_ROmsrg

 

 

 

The government schools have done their job well. JMO

Edited September 10, 2013 by Riciticky

[Guest nra37922]

No, Thatcher literally had balls.

Hillary actually has balls also, they're Bills but Hillary has ownership.

Edited September 10, 2013 by nra37922

[TMF]

I'm not convinced that she's any worse than Obama, but then again I thought Obama couldn't be worse than Hillary.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I see a difference every time a liberal like her gets elected to office. The world gets darker, more abortions get done, the

electric rates go up, CARB costs increase, more divisiveness, more restrictions on our liberty, and a lot of other things.

There's a difference, still.

 

There's also a difference when people lump in good people with bad, like calling everyone in DC bad, when there are a

few decent ones trying, but are being smothered out by the others, while we tend to lend no support, because we lumped

them all together.

 

I doubt Hillary will be the next one, but if she does succeed, she will be just as bad as the current one. Takes a team to

oppose the other team. We are too fractured and cynical.

[bersaguy]

I'm not so sure Hillary is as close to shoe in as many folks think. Back in 08 a Black President was actually a novelty and no one really thought he would get elected. They all got a surprise and in 2012 election it took rigging the election with getting people to vote several times and no one trying to stop it or even prosecuting the people that even told the news that they voted several times and still nothing happened to get him re-elected plus far to many Conservatives not going to the polls gave him the election. It has been investigated and proven that people that have been dead for over 100 years voted for Obama in last election. Anyone could win that kind of election. I don't think that will work again with Hillary. Also after trying something new like electing a Black man to the office I think or at least I hope and pray that the American people have learned enough to not experiment again and put a woman in the White House right now. I know ObamaCare is a train wreck coming and coming fast but as most can see he set it up for most of the worst part of the wreck to kick in after he leaves office. The right people put in place can still stop a lot of the damage if we can just get the right people in place in midterms in 2014 elections. If the Conservatives can keep the House and get enough seats in the Senate to strip Harry of his power then there is still a chance. If that happens Hillary may even decide not to run in 2016 because she would possibly be a Lame Duck her first two years..................jmho

[Guest TankerHC]

At this point I don't see what difference who gets elected in 2016 will make regardless of who it is.

 

By the time Obamacare kicks into full implementation this country is over...there will be no turning back; it will simply be too late to substantially alter the entitlement train wreck that is approaching,

 

ALL elected office holders, regardless of party will really have two and only two choices to make; continue the entitlement gravy train without raising taxes (substantially anyway) until the weight of our enormous debt crashes the economy OR raise taxes to the level necessary to sustain the entitlements which will also ultimately crash the economy...same destination regardless of the decision made.

 

As unpalatable as it was we had a small chance to turn things around in 2012 but no one who actually gave a #### could even agree to vote for Romney…he isn’t conservative enough...libertarian enough...he is just as bad on “gun control” as Obama...he isn't  Ron Paul  and on and on the excuses went.  Well; elections have consequences and the consequences of 2012 will be a decidedly left-wing  SCOTUS, Obamacare, 20 million criminals being rewarded with citizenship (and all the welfare that goes with it) and the 35% of us still working paying the way for the other 60% to sit on their asses all day with a higher lifestyle than most of the rest of us have.

 

And in case anyone is wondering; no... I haven't been drinking tonigt...maybe that's the problem.

 

 

The economy needs to crash. Year before last someone lead me to Von Hayek. The guy is an economic genius. So I bought two of his books, The road to Serfdom and The Constitution of Freedom. he predicted every single crash. He explained how it would happen and it happened twice in the US and every single thing he states in his books are happening again. He also explains this is nothing new, It is also when I learned that the 29 crash of Wall Street had little to do with the depression and that crash only lasted about 2 weeks but when it was over financial power lay in the hands of only a few people. No economy that offers handouts is sustainable and an economic collapse is inevitable. So your absolutely right, it isnt a matter of if, but when. Hayek predicted the 29 crash and depression in 1919. He died in 1992 but he predicted this coming crash and collapse before he died, because it is exactly the same circumstances. 

 

It was the American Farmer (not the military industrialization) that saved the globe, most of the rest of the globe was starving, the American Farmer saved their azzes, the rest of the industrialized nations began failing before we failed. We just tipped the scales. 

 

Von Hayek says that it is inevitable, and needed (a collapse) for an economy to recover every few generations. Governments ALWAYS end up giving handouts that the producers cannot afford, it takes a collapse so that you can rebuild the economy.

 

I have said it before, better late than never, all of this worthless money being printed, lets just get on with it. Its going to happen, might as well not prolong the agony. Got money in banks, not safe, got money in tech stocks, safe. Tech Companies are the Farmers. They are going to save the financial industry. 

 

Supply side economics is the only way out, and stop giving handouts which is not going to happen as long as handouts = votes. 

 

Wonder what happens when the Cell companies are no longer getting paid to supply free phones and the grocery stores stop accepting EBT because there is nothing behind it?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

It was always supply side economics until people started thinking up new ways to take, and not produce. Maybe the tech guys

are the leaders, but I doubt it. The farmer is still the farmer. Food is everything for life, plus water.

[daddyo]

http://youtu.be/F2yT_ROmsrg

 

Is this a clip from "Idiocracy"?

[tnguy]

so I will.

 

Hillary Clinton was in the White House and had a meeting with Obama. Then she came out and gave a speech. She isnt even in Government "at the moment".

 

Dare I say "Hillary Clinton looked and sounded more Presidential than the President"?

 

Hillary Clinton had a look of resolve, No need for a monitor. She reminded me of Margaret Thatcher.

 

Someone better step up to the plate and offer a good reason why Conservatives should vote for them, or this woman left wing liberal is our next President.

 

Now I need to go vomit. 

 

I may be a little odd but other than her politics and, as it turned out, her willingness to compromise herself to cling to the ropes of power, I always kinda liked her.

[tnguy]

As unpalatable as it was we had a small chance to turn things around in 2012 but no one who actually gave a #### could even agree to vote for Romney…he isn’t conservative enough...libertarian enough...he is just as bad on “gun control” as Obama...he isn't  Ron Paul  and on and on the excuses went.  Well; elections have consequences and the consequences of 2012 will be a decidedly left-wing  SCOTUS, Obamacare, 20 million criminals being rewarded with citizenship (and all the welfare that goes with it) and the 35% of us still working paying the way for the other 60% to sit on their asses all day with a higher lifestyle than most of the rest of us have.

 

Things *were* in a bad way and in better conditions, Romney would probably have got it and probably not been an awful president. Unfortunately, they weren't better and Romney was a bad candidate to field in the circumstances. The Republican party is lost in the wilderness, kept alive only by the cluelessness of "lesser of two evil" voters.

[RobertNashville]

Things *were* in a bad way and in better conditions, Romney would probably have got it and probably not been an awful president. Unfortunately, they weren't better and Romney was a bad candidate to field in the circumstances. The Republican party is lost in the wilderness, kept alive only by the cluelessness of "lesser of two evil" voters.

There is no doubt in my mind that Obama will get the chance to put two or more extreme liberal justices on the Supreme Court and there is equally no doubt in my mind that Romney would have at least tried to appoint justices who would be extremely better justices...that simple fact alone should have, in my opinion, been enough for ALL conservatives and libertarians (and all the rest who claim to love the Constitution) to put their cynicism aside and vote for Romney (or at least, show up to vote for SOMEONE!).

 

Yet they didn't.

 

Of course, there were probably better candidates that they Republicans could have given had a candidate run but we only get to chose from those who run!  Moreover, that "better candidate" would have had to be the only one running because anytime you have a field of several candidates splitting the vote you'll almost always wind up with the most "middle of road/least objectionable" winning and that's exactly what we got this last cycle (and the cycle before).

That said, given the excuses I was bombarded with on this very forum about why "I won't vote for Romney"...a forum of people who claim to hold our freedoms and our Constitution dear, I doubt ANY candidate that the Republicans could have put forward would have gotten the votes needed because too many "conservatives/libertarians" seem to be totally unconcerned with the danger Obama posed and now is.

 

All water over the bridge at this point anyway...as I said above; we are on a course of collapse that will NOT be altered by anyone and as Tanker pointed out, probably shouldn't be altered anyway...I  just hope people are ready for what's coming.

 

 

 

EDIT:  I do agree that the Republicans are "lost in the wilderness" but so are the Democrats and Libertarians - all political parties are looking for one of two things, either how to GET POWER or how to RETAIN POWER once they get it. Everything else is secondary to power regardless of all the rhetoric to the contrary. Further, we now have a plurality of the population who only seem to care about what they can get from the government.

Edited September 11, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Hershmeister]

Your reaction is precisely why she was invited over to the WH.