Hillary Clinton: “Don’t let anybody tell you that it's corporation (1 Viewer)

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hillary's List of Lies

http://www.creators.com/opinion/****-morris/hillary-s-list-of-lies.html

http://conservativeamerican.org/the-hillary-clinton-lies-list/

really?

http://radaronline.com/photos/bill-clinton-hillary-clinton-secrets-and-lies-gallery/photo/665733/

http://herald-review.com/print-specific/herald-review/letters/hillary-clinton-has-a-long-history-of-lying/article_82db5584-aab3-5a16-9431-71b7714607c7.html

The sniper fire in Bosnia thing, that was a good one...

Walked out the door with White House property, wow, that was good...

The insider trading thing, man...

Forgot about these.

 

[Slapdash]

Always forget how nuts conservatives are over Hillary.

 

[cstu]

no I don't agree with any of this. I don't think she was "in" on Gennifer Flowers. How many wives are in on their husbands cheating around on them? And she didn't lie about Lewinsky, Bill did, Nd for all I know he lied to her as well. And the Rose law firm thing turned out to be nothing. Sorry Saints, I don't think she's proven to be a liar at all.

Arizona Ron.

 

[cstu]

Is this where Tim begins the "I am not voting for Hillary Shtick" while defending her every step of the way?

Nope. Right now I will likely vote for her. I like her a lot. If the Republicans put up a moderate guy who disavows the Tea Party, I might consider otherwise . But as things stand, count me in for Hillary.

I will vote for any Democrat simply to put liberals on the Supreme Court.

 

[cstu]

Is this where Tim begins the "I am not voting for Hillary Shtick" while defending her every step of the way?

Nope. Right now I will likely vote for her. I like her a lot. If the Republicans put up a moderate guy who disavows the Tea Party, I might consider otherwise . But as things stand, count me in for Hillary.

Oh, never mind. This has the potential to be an even bigger trainwreck.

why not? She's a centrist. she's strong on foreign policy . She's heavily tied to business . She is Establishment, the farthest thing from a populist. She's pro free trade. She's socially liberal.She's pretty much everything I want in a candidate.

Other than being socially liberal, she's a Republican.

 

[cstu]

at Republicans having to endure 16 years of a black man and white woman as President.

 

[timschochet]

Is this where Tim begins the "I am not voting for Hillary Shtick" while defending her every step of the way?

Nope. Right now I will likely vote for her. I like her a lot. If the Republicans put up a moderate guy who disavows the Tea Party, I might consider otherwise . But as things stand, count me in for Hillary.

Oh, never mind. This has the potential to be an even bigger trainwreck.

why not? She's a centrist. she's strong on foreign policy . She's heavily tied to business . She is Establishment, the farthest thing from a populist. She's pro free trade. She's socially liberal.She's pretty much everything I want in a candidate.

Other than being socially liberal, she's a Republican.

Exactly. But she's not a Tea Party Republican, or a Rand Paul isolationist.

 

[Boston]

at Republicans having to endure 16 years of a black man and white woman as President.

I just wish the GOP treated Barry with the same respect the dems have Clarence Thomas or (insert conservative female name here)...

 

[squistion]

Always forget how nuts conservatives are over Hillary.

And they show the same degree of arrogance regarding her winning the democratic nomination and the general election as they did with Romney over Obama. If the GOP's best arguments against her are Benghazi. a 22 year old 60 Minutes interview and Bill's infidelities, they are in serious trouble

 

[timschochet]

Please don't play the woman card. Republicans would vote for a woman they loved in a heartbeat. Or a black candidate is well.

In terms of Presidential politics, the days of gender and are discrimination are over. That being said, I still doubt there will be an openly gay or atheist President in my children's lifetimes, and that makes me kinda sad.

 

[Boston]

Please don't play the woman card. Republicans would vote for a woman they loved in a heartbeat. Or a black candidate is well.

In terms of Presidential politics, the days of gender and are discrimination are over. That being said, I still doubt there will be an openly gay or atheist President in my children's lifetimes, and that makes me kinda sad.

No one wants to see an oval office decorated in pink...

 

[avoiding injuries]

Please don't play the woman card. Republicans would vote for a woman they loved in a heartbeat. Or a black candidate is well.

In terms of Presidential politics, the days of gender and are discrimination are over. That being said, I still doubt there will be an openly gay or atheist President in my children's lifetimes, and that makes me kinda sad.

Pick one, a minority lesbian athiest who is pro-deportation or a white male christian who wants to open up the borders?

 

[timschochet]

Please don't play the woman card. Republicans would vote for a woman they loved in a heartbeat. Or a black candidate is well.

In terms of Presidential politics, the days of gender and are discrimination are over. That being said, I still doubt there will be an openly gay or atheist President in my children's lifetimes, and that makes me kinda sad.

Pick one, a minority lesbian athiest who is pro-deportation or a white male christian who wants to open up the borders?

the Christian of course.

 

[Widbil83]

Wildbill, we've discussed this before, but there the main problem with your analysis is that there's no Barack Obama on the horizon this time out. I urge you and everyone else to read the book Game Change, which explains the 2008 nomination. Hillary didn't lose that nomination; Obama won it. He was a once in a lifetime, charismatic figure who beat out the establishment candidate, which almost never happens. (The last time it happened was Ronald Reagan in 1980.)

As a result of that election, there's seems to be this feeling that Hillary can't win the nomination. It's absolutely untrue. The chances of another non-establishment candidate bucking the odds and coming from nowhere to beat her is very low indeed. And this time around it would be even more difficult than before, since by November of 2006 Obama was already a famous face, pushing his book, and being spoken of as a possible opponent of Hillary and John Edwards. No one like that has risen.

If Hillary decides to run (and that is not for sure), she will win the nomination, and probably she will be our next President.

Why is she the favorite to become President? Because she's most widely known? Maybe that's enough, but if she's running as a 3rd term of President Obama's policies, that's a tough battle to win. If you haven't noticed, Obama is in the low 40's in approval ratings, I just don't see defending his policies as particularly helpful in winning.

I tried telling Tim the worst thing Hillary ever did was join the Obama administration and he laughed it off. Democrats running for the US Senate won't even admit voting for Obama, let alone be seen with him campaigning. In 2 years the 2016 Democrat field will pretend to not even know the guy. Yet somehow Hillary is supposedly just going to skate to the nomination having been a part of all that.

 

[timschochet]

Wildbill, we've discussed this before, but there the main problem with your analysis is that there's no Barack Obama on the horizon this time out. I urge you and everyone else to read the book Game Change, which explains the 2008 nomination. Hillary didn't lose that nomination; Obama won it. He was a once in a lifetime, charismatic figure who beat out the establishment candidate, which almost never happens. (The last time it happened was Ronald Reagan in 1980.)

As a result of that election, there's seems to be this feeling that Hillary can't win the nomination. It's absolutely untrue. The chances of another non-establishment candidate bucking the odds and coming from nowhere to beat her is very low indeed. And this time around it would be even more difficult than before, since by November of 2006 Obama was already a famous face, pushing his book, and being spoken of as a possible opponent of Hillary and John Edwards. No one like that has risen.

If Hillary decides to run (and that is not for sure), she will win the nomination, and probably she will be our next President.

Why is she the favorite to become President? Because she's most widely known? Maybe that's enough, but if she's running as a 3rd term of President Obama's policies, that's a tough battle to win. If you haven't noticed, Obama is in the low 40's in approval ratings, I just don't see defending his policies as particularly helpful in winning.

I tried telling Tim the worst thing Hillary ever did was join the Obama administration and he laughed it off. Democrats running for the US Senate won't even admit voting for Obama, let alone be seen with him campaigning. In 2 years the 2016 Democrat field will pretend to not even know the guy. Yet somehow Hillary is supposedly just going to skate to the nomination having been a part of all that.

Yeah, we have a major disagreement on that too. What you're seeing right now in 2014 are Democrats struggling to hold on in some red states which are VERY anti-Obama (Louisiana, for instance.) Of course those Democrats are going to distance themselves from Obama if they think it will help them win. But from those examples you seem to believe that there will be a national distancing from Obama by the Dems, the way the Republicans shunned George W. Bush in 2008 and 2012. And I think that's a really big stretch; I don't think it will happen.

In fact, I predict just the opposite. Democrats are just beginning their idolization of Barack Obama. His weaknesses will either be forgotten in coming years or blamed on his partisan opponents. He will be seen, by Dems and liberals, as one of the great Presidents. Mark my words, he will be their Ronald Reagan. He will be a HUGE force at the next Dem convention. And in 20 years Democrats will say to each other, "If only we had another Obama running."

I know you don't believe this, but I think it's true. Obama will NOT become a pariah.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Please don't play the woman card. Republicans would vote for a woman they loved in a heartbeat. Or a black candidate is well.

In terms of Presidential politics, the days of gender and are discrimination are over. That being said, I still doubt there will be an openly gay or atheist President in my children's lifetimes, and that makes me kinda sad.

Pick one, a minority lesbian athiest who is pro-deportation or a white male christian who wants to open up the borders?

Hillary might be 1-2 of these, and she's Welsh.... so...

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Wildbill, we've discussed this before, but there the main problem with your analysis is that there's no Barack Obama on the horizon this time out. I urge you and everyone else to read the book Game Change, which explains the 2008 nomination. Hillary didn't lose that nomination; Obama won it. He was a once in a lifetime, charismatic figure who beat out the establishment candidate, which almost never happens. (The last time it happened was Ronald Reagan in 1980.)

As a result of that election, there's seems to be this feeling that Hillary can't win the nomination. It's absolutely untrue. The chances of another non-establishment candidate bucking the odds and coming from nowhere to beat her is very low indeed. And this time around it would be even more difficult than before, since by November of 2006 Obama was already a famous face, pushing his book, and being spoken of as a possible opponent of Hillary and John Edwards. No one like that has risen.

If Hillary decides to run (and that is not for sure), she will win the nomination, and probably she will be our next President.

Why is she the favorite to become President? Because she's most widely known? Maybe that's enough, but if she's running as a 3rd term of President Obama's policies, that's a tough battle to win. If you haven't noticed, Obama is in the low 40's in approval ratings, I just don't see defending his policies as particularly helpful in winning.

I tried telling Tim the worst thing Hillary ever did was join the Obama administration and he laughed it off. Democrats running for the US Senate won't even admit voting for Obama, let alone be seen with him campaigning. In 2 years the 2016 Democrat field will pretend to not even know the guy. Yet somehow Hillary is supposedly just going to skate to the nomination having been a part of all that.

This is a great point. Have you seen Grimes and Landrieu squirm in their seats when asked whom they even voted for?

 

[dparker713]

Is this where Tim begins the "I am not voting for Hillary Shtick" while defending her every step of the way?

Nope. Right now I will likely vote for her. I like her a lot. If the Republicans put up a moderate guy who disavows the Tea Party, I might consider otherwise . But as things stand, count me in for Hillary.

Has Hillary disavowed the George Soros/movon wing of the dem party?

i hope not. Don't know about move on, but I like George Soros a lot. A true hero in my book.

It just amazes me how you can be so appalled by the tactics from the right but yet embrace the same tactics from the left. It gives you zero credibility on the issue.

can you be a little more specific? What tactics am I embracing?

For instance, you hate right-wing 527 type organizations like the Swift-boaters were, but Sorro's gave around $40 million to these same type of 527 organizations on the left to run smear campaigns to try to beat Bush.

the Swift Boaters lied, and I thought it was shameful to disgrace a veteran like that. I think Move On called General Petraeus a coward, and that was disgraceful as well . But I don't believe that either the Koch brothers or George Soros do anything more than contribute money to some of these groups; they don't plan the campaigns. You can criticize them for not paying close enough attention or endorsing sleaziness, but I haven't. As Saints notes (thanks, BTW) I have been very consistent in not critiquing these types of donors.So, I'm still waiting to learn where my double standard is.

I have pointed it out on numerous threads. You have completely different standards for how you respond to things about Fox News, Tea Party, and Republicans vs. MSNBC, Moveon, and Democrats. Democrats twist every rule in the book so Obamacare gets passed, you see no issue. Republicans use tactics to stop and bill, and you throw a hissy fit. Republicans run a campaign base on spun up facts and you throw a hissy fit. Democrats misconstrue facts and its just politics. If I have time I will dig up specific examples, but it is quite common.

####### with the debt ceiling isn't tactics. Its either insanity or idiocy.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Is this where Tim begins the "I am not voting for Hillary Shtick" while defending her every step of the way?

Nope. Right now I will likely vote for her. I like her a lot. If the Republicans put up a moderate guy who disavows the Tea Party, I might consider otherwise . But as things stand, count me in for Hillary.

Oh, never mind. This has the potential to be an even bigger trainwreck.

why not? She's a centrist. she's strong on foreign policy . She's heavily tied to business . She is Establishment, the farthest thing from a populist. She's pro free trade. She's socially liberal.She's pretty much everything I want in a candidate.

Other than being socially liberal, she's a Republican.

I said the same thing earlier.

 

[dparker713]

Wildbill, we've discussed this before, but there the main problem with your analysis is that there's no Barack Obama on the horizon this time out. I urge you and everyone else to read the book Game Change, which explains the 2008 nomination. Hillary didn't lose that nomination; Obama won it. He was a once in a lifetime, charismatic figure who beat out the establishment candidate, which almost never happens. (The last time it happened was Ronald Reagan in 1980.)

As a result of that election, there's seems to be this feeling that Hillary can't win the nomination. It's absolutely untrue. The chances of another non-establishment candidate bucking the odds and coming from nowhere to beat her is very low indeed. And this time around it would be even more difficult than before, since by November of 2006 Obama was already a famous face, pushing his book, and being spoken of as a possible opponent of Hillary and John Edwards. No one like that has risen.

If Hillary decides to run (and that is not for sure), she will win the nomination, and probably she will be our next President.

Why is she the favorite to become President? Because she's most widely known? Maybe that's enough, but if she's running as a 3rd term of President Obama's policies, that's a tough battle to win. If you haven't noticed, Obama is in the low 40's in approval ratings, I just don't see defending his policies as particularly helpful in winning.

I tried telling Tim the worst thing Hillary ever did was join the Obama administration and he laughed it off. Democrats running for the US Senate won't even admit voting for Obama, let alone be seen with him campaigning. In 2 years the 2016 Democrat field will pretend to not even know the guy. Yet somehow Hillary is supposedly just going to skate to the nomination having been a part of all that.

This is a great point. Have you seen Grimes and Landrieu squirm in their seats when asked whom they even voted for?

Won't much matter if the Republican candidate tries to run on tax cuts again.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Wildbill, we've discussed this before, but there the main problem with your analysis is that there's no Barack Obama on the horizon this time out. I urge you and everyone else to read the book Game Change, which explains the 2008 nomination. Hillary didn't lose that nomination; Obama won it. He was a once in a lifetime, charismatic figure who beat out the establishment candidate, which almost never happens. (The last time it happened was Ronald Reagan in 1980.)

As a result of that election, there's seems to be this feeling that Hillary can't win the nomination. It's absolutely untrue. The chances of another non-establishment candidate bucking the odds and coming from nowhere to beat her is very low indeed. And this time around it would be even more difficult than before, since by November of 2006 Obama was already a famous face, pushing his book, and being spoken of as a possible opponent of Hillary and John Edwards. No one like that has risen.

If Hillary decides to run (and that is not for sure), she will win the nomination, and probably she will be our next President.

Why is she the favorite to become President? Because she's most widely known? Maybe that's enough, but if she's running as a 3rd term of President Obama's policies, that's a tough battle to win. If you haven't noticed, Obama is in the low 40's in approval ratings, I just don't see defending his policies as particularly helpful in winning.

I tried telling Tim the worst thing Hillary ever did was join the Obama administration and he laughed it off. Democrats running for the US Senate won't even admit voting for Obama, let alone be seen with him campaigning. In 2 years the 2016 Democrat field will pretend to not even know the guy. Yet somehow Hillary is supposedly just going to skate to the nomination having been a part of all that.

This is a great point. Have you seen Grimes and Landrieu squirm in their seats when asked whom they even voted for?

Won't much matter if the Republican candidate tries to run on tax cuts again.

Didn't Obama cut taxes as part of the stimulus? And who's complaining?

 

[cstu]

Yeah, we have a major disagreement on that too. What you're seeing right now in 2014 are Democrats struggling to hold on in some red states which are VERY anti-Obama (Louisiana, for instance.) Of course those Democrats are going to distance themselves from Obama if they think it will help them win. But from those examples you seem to believe that there will be a national distancing from Obama by the Dems, the way the Republicans shunned George W. Bush in 2008 and 2012. And I think that's a really big stretch; I don't think it will happen.

In fact, I predict just the opposite. Democrats are just beginning their idolization of Barack Obama. His weaknesses will either be forgotten in coming years or blamed on his partisan opponents. He will be seen, by Dems and liberals, as one of the great Presidents. Mark my words, he will be their Ronald Reagan. He will be a HUGE force at the next Dem convention. And in 20 years Democrats will say to each other, "If only we had another Obama running."

I know you don't believe this, but I think it's true. Obama will NOT become a pariah.

I, for one, can't wait for more speeches and the ensuing thrills up my leg.

 

[timschochet]

Hillary Clinton has a 50 point lead among self-identified liberals . She's a lock.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Hillary Clinton has a 50 point lead among self-identified liberals . She's a lock.

Lead over who? Nobody even knows the other candidates.

 

[timschochet]

Hillary Clinton has a 50 point lead among self-identified liberals . She's a lock.

Lead over who? Nobody even knows the other candidates.

Warren .

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Maybe someone with a better memory, or stronger incentive to remember than me, can help me out here. I'm thinking back to GWB. He was advocating a tax cut, or perhaps some tax rebate. It seemed to me to be right before Christmas. Folks were going to get a few hundred dollars, give or take, depending on payments and brackets and such. GWB had some hope about stimulating the economy through Christmas spending. I remember, or seem to remember, Hilary coming out, first at some $10,000 fundraiser for Barbara Boxer or Maxine Waters, and then at some after speech explaining her faux pas in clearly speaking her mind at the fundraiser, and saying in a few different iterations that we Americans should not be given rebates on our overpayments of taxes because we could not be trusted to spend our own money wisely and that government should keep it because they would make better use of it. Basically that we could not be trusted with the fruits of our own labors and that the collectivist government is entitled, through its status as arbiter of all that is fair in filling the needs of its unproductive voters, to redistribute wealth. Does this ring a bell, or am I suffering from Hilary Induced Derangement Syndrome.

 

[Road Warriors]

Maybe someone with a better memory, or stronger incentive to remember than me, can help me out here. I'm thinking back to GWB. He was advocating a tax cut, or perhaps some tax rebate. It seemed to me to be right before Christmas. Folks were going to get a few hundred dollars, give or take, depending on payments and brackets and such. GWB had some hope about stimulating the economy through Christmas spending. I remember, or seem to remember, Hilary coming out, first at some $10,000 fundraiser for Barbara Boxer or Maxine Waters, and then at some after speech explaining her faux pas in clearly speaking her mind at the fundraiser, and saying in a few different iterations that we Americans should not be given rebates on our overpayments of taxes because we could not be trusted to spend our own money wisely and that government should keep it because they would make better use of it. Basically that we could not be trusted with the fruits of our own labors and that the collectivist government is entitled, through its status as arbiter of all that is fair in filling the needs of its unproductive voters, to redistribute wealth. Does this ring a bell, or am I suffering from Hilary Induced Derangement Syndrome.

It was a speak-o

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Wildbill, we've discussed this before, but there the main problem with your analysis is that there's no Barack Obama on the horizon this time out. I urge you and everyone else to read the book Game Change, which explains the 2008 nomination. Hillary didn't lose that nomination; Obama won it. He was a once in a lifetime, charismatic figure who beat out the establishment candidate, which almost never happens. (The last time it happened was Ronald Reagan in 1980.)

As a result of that election, there's seems to be this feeling that Hillary can't win the nomination. It's absolutely untrue. The chances of another non-establishment candidate bucking the odds and coming from nowhere to beat her is very low indeed. And this time around it would be even more difficult than before, since by November of 2006 Obama was already a famous face, pushing his book, and being spoken of as a possible opponent of Hillary and John Edwards. No one like that has risen.

If Hillary decides to run (and that is not for sure), she will win the nomination, and probably she will be our next President.

Why is she the favorite to become President? Because she's most widely known? Maybe that's enough, but if she's running as a 3rd term of President Obama's policies, that's a tough battle to win. If you haven't noticed, Obama is in the low 40's in approval ratings, I just don't see defending his policies as particularly helpful in winning.

I tried telling Tim the worst thing Hillary ever did was join the Obama administration and he laughed it off. Democrats running for the US Senate won't even admit voting for Obama, let alone be seen with him campaigning. In 2 years the 2016 Democrat field will pretend to not even know the guy. Yet somehow Hillary is supposedly just going to skate to the nomination having been a part of all that.

Yeah, we have a major disagreement on that too. What you're seeing right now in 2014 are Democrats struggling to hold on in some red states which are VERY anti-Obama (Louisiana, for instance.) Of course those Democrats are going to distance themselves from Obama if they think it will help them win. But from those examples you seem to believe that there will be a national distancing from Obama by the Dems, the way the Republicans shunned George W. Bush in 2008 and 2012. And I think that's a really big stretch; I don't think it will happen.

In fact, I predict just the opposite. Democrats are just beginning their idolization of Barack Obama. His weaknesses will either be forgotten in coming years or blamed on his partisan opponents. He will be seen, by Dems and liberals, as one of the great Presidents. Mark my words, he will be their Ronald Reagan. He will be a HUGE force at the next Dem convention. And in 20 years Democrats will say to each other, "If only we had another Obama running."

I know you don't believe this, but I think it's true. Obama will NOT become a pariah.

Well if Nixon and Carter can be rehabilitated in some circles the same can happen for Obama (and Bush Jr. for that matter).

 

[FlapJacks]

Is this where Tim begins the "I am not voting for Hillary Shtick" while defending her every step of the way?

Nope. Right now I will likely vote for her. I like her a lot. If the Republicans put up a moderate guy who disavows the Tea Party, I might consider otherwise . But as things stand, count me in for Hillary.

Oh, never mind. This has the potential to be an even bigger trainwreck.

why not? She's a centrist. she's strong on foreign policy . She's heavily tied to business . She is Establishment, the farthest thing from a populist. She's pro free trade. She's socially liberal.She's pretty much everything I want in a candidate.

Other than being socially liberal, she's a Republican.

She certainly checks the boxes for old, fat, white and stupid...

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Wildbill, we've discussed this before, but there the main problem with your analysis is that there's no Barack Obama on the horizon this time out. I urge you and everyone else to read the book Game Change, which explains the 2008 nomination. Hillary didn't lose that nomination; Obama won it. He was a once in a lifetime, charismatic figure who beat out the establishment candidate, which almost never happens. (The last time it happened was Ronald Reagan in 1980.)

As a result of that election, there's seems to be this feeling that Hillary can't win the nomination. It's absolutely untrue. The chances of another non-establishment candidate bucking the odds and coming from nowhere to beat her is very low indeed. And this time around it would be even more difficult than before, since by November of 2006 Obama was already a famous face, pushing his book, and being spoken of as a possible opponent of Hillary and John Edwards. No one like that has risen.

If Hillary decides to run (and that is not for sure), she will win the nomination, and probably she will be our next President.

Why is she the favorite to become President? Because she's most widely known? Maybe that's enough, but if she's running as a 3rd term of President Obama's policies, that's a tough battle to win. If you haven't noticed, Obama is in the low 40's in approval ratings, I just don't see defending his policies as particularly helpful in winning.

I tried telling Tim the worst thing Hillary ever did was join the Obama administration and he laughed it off. Democrats running for the US Senate won't even admit voting for Obama, let alone be seen with him campaigning. In 2 years the 2016 Democrat field will pretend to not even know the guy. Yet somehow Hillary is supposedly just going to skate to the nomination having been a part of all that.

This is a great point. Have you seen Grimes and Landrieu squirm in their seats when asked whom they even voted for?

Won't much matter if the Republican candidate tries to run on tax cuts again.

Well I don't know what the American public wants to hear now. They don't want to hear about tax hikes either.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Is this where Tim begins the "I am not voting for Hillary Shtick" while defending her every step of the way?

Nope. Right now I will likely vote for her. I like her a lot. If the Republicans put up a moderate guy who disavows the Tea Party, I might consider otherwise . But as things stand, count me in for Hillary.

Oh, never mind. This has the potential to be an even bigger trainwreck.

why not? She's a centrist. she's strong on foreign policy . She's heavily tied to business . She is Establishment, the farthest thing from a populist. She's pro free trade. She's socially liberal.She's pretty much everything I want in a candidate.

Other than being socially liberal, she's a Republican.

The apple doesn't fall far from the Hugh Rodham.

Actually I'm not sure it falls far from the Hugh Rodham, Jr. either.

 

[timschochet]

Maybe someone with a better memory, or stronger incentive to remember than me, can help me out here. I'm thinking back to GWB. He was advocating a tax cut, or perhaps some tax rebate. It seemed to me to be right before Christmas. Folks were going to get a few hundred dollars, give or take, depending on payments and brackets and such. GWB had some hope about stimulating the economy through Christmas spending. I remember, or seem to remember, Hilary coming out, first at some $10,000 fundraiser for Barbara Boxer or Maxine Waters, and then at some after speech explaining her faux pas in clearly speaking her mind at the fundraiser, and saying in a few different iterations that we Americans should not be given rebates on our overpayments of taxes because we could not be trusted to spend our own money wisely and that government should keep it because they would make better use of it. Basically that we could not be trusted with the fruits of our own labors and that the collectivist government is entitled, through its status as arbiter of all that is fair in filling the needs of its unproductive voters, to redistribute wealth. Does this ring a bell, or am I suffering from Hilary Induced Derangement Syndrome.

I can just see Hillary saying that, too:

I am opposed to this tax cut because the public can't be trusted with the fruit of their labors! And we as the government are entitled to decide how to redistribute wealth!

Get this bull#### out of here already.

 

[Binky The Doormat]

Maybe someone with a better memory, or stronger incentive to remember than me, can help me out here. I'm thinking back to GWB. He was advocating a tax cut, or perhaps some tax rebate. It seemed to me to be right before Christmas. Folks were going to get a few hundred dollars, give or take, depending on payments and brackets and such. GWB had some hope about stimulating the economy through Christmas spending. I remember, or seem to remember, Hilary coming out, first at some $10,000 fundraiser for Barbara Boxer or Maxine Waters, and then at some after speech explaining her faux pas in clearly speaking her mind at the fundraiser, and saying in a few different iterations that we Americans should not be given rebates on our overpayments of taxes because we could not be trusted to spend our own money wisely and that government should keep it because they would make better use of it. Basically that we could not be trusted with the fruits of our own labors and that the collectivist government is entitled, through its status as arbiter of all that is fair in filling the needs of its unproductive voters, to redistribute wealth. Does this ring a bell, or am I suffering from Hilary Induced Derangement Syndrome.

I can just see Hillary saying that, too:

I am opposed to this tax cut because the public can't be trusted with the fruit of their labors! And we as the government are entitled to decide how to redistribute wealth!

Get this bull#### out of here already.

If she didn't say it publicly - I'll bet she said it privately, believed it and would act upon it if given the opportunity.

 

[Clifford]

Is this where Tim begins the "I am not voting for Hillary Shtick" while defending her every step of the way?

Nope. Right now I will likely vote for her. I like her a lot. If the Republicans put up a moderate guy who disavows the Tea Party, I might consider otherwise . But as things stand, count me in for Hillary.

Oh, never mind. This has the potential to be an even bigger trainwreck.

"You know, I'm really looking for someone that disagrees with me on everything and casts my values in a condescending, disparaging light."

Your daddy issues are through the ####### roof buddy.

 

[timschochet]

Maybe someone with a better memory, or stronger incentive to remember than me, can help me out here. I'm thinking back to GWB. He was advocating a tax cut, or perhaps some tax rebate. It seemed to me to be right before Christmas. Folks were going to get a few hundred dollars, give or take, depending on payments and brackets and such. GWB had some hope about stimulating the economy through Christmas spending. I remember, or seem to remember, Hilary coming out, first at some $10,000 fundraiser for Barbara Boxer or Maxine Waters, and then at some after speech explaining her faux pas in clearly speaking her mind at the fundraiser, and saying in a few different iterations that we Americans should not be given rebates on our overpayments of taxes because we could not be trusted to spend our own money wisely and that government should keep it because they would make better use of it. Basically that we could not be trusted with the fruits of our own labors and that the collectivist government is entitled, through its status as arbiter of all that is fair in filling the needs of its unproductive voters, to redistribute wealth. Does this ring a bell, or am I suffering from Hilary Induced Derangement Syndrome.

I can just see Hillary saying that, too:

I am opposed to this tax cut because the public can't be trusted with the fruit of their labors! And we as the government are entitled to decide how to redistribute wealth!

Get this bull#### out of here already.

If she didn't say it publicly - I'll bet she said it privately, believed it and would act upon it if given the opportunity.

Yes, I'm sure you would. But you have to believe me when I tell you this: you guys are creating some mythical "liberal" in your heads which does not exist in real life. Not even Bernie Sanders goes around thinking this way. And certainly not Hillary Clinton, who is heavily tied to some of the biggest financial institutions in this country. Redistribution of wealth? It won't be on her watch.

 

[timschochet]

Is this where Tim begins the "I am not voting for Hillary Shtick" while defending her every step of the way?

Nope. Right now I will likely vote for her. I like her a lot. If the Republicans put up a moderate guy who disavows the Tea Party, I might consider otherwise . But as things stand, count me in for Hillary.

Oh, never mind. This has the potential to be an even bigger trainwreck.

"You know, I'm really looking for someone that disagrees with me on everything and casts my values in a condescending, disparaging light."

Your daddy issues are through the ####### roof buddy.

Is this response intended for me? Because I don't disagree with Hillary on everything- probably not even on a majority of issues.

 

[Sand]

[SIZE=11.8181819915771px]Please don't play the woman card. Republicans would vote for a woman they loved in a heartbeat. [/SIZE]

Nikki Haley - I'd vote for her.

Or a black candidate is well.

I'd vote for Ben Carson, too.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Maybe someone with a better memory, or stronger incentive to remember than me, can help me out here. I'm thinking back to GWB. He was advocating a tax cut, or perhaps some tax rebate. It seemed to me to be right before Christmas. Folks were going to get a few hundred dollars, give or take, depending on payments and brackets and such. GWB had some hope about stimulating the economy through Christmas spending. I remember, or seem to remember, Hilary coming out, first at some $10,000 fundraiser for Barbara Boxer or Maxine Waters, and then at some after speech explaining her faux pas in clearly speaking her mind at the fundraiser, and saying in a few different iterations that we Americans should not be given rebates on our overpayments of taxes because we could not be trusted to spend our own money wisely and that government should keep it because they would make better use of it. Basically that we could not be trusted with the fruits of our own labors and that the collectivist government is entitled, through its status as arbiter of all that is fair in filling the needs of its unproductive voters, to redistribute wealth. Does this ring a bell, or am I suffering from Hilary Induced Derangement Syndrome.

I can just see Hillary saying that, too:I am opposed to this tax cut because the public can't be trusted with the fruit of their labors! And we as the government are entitled to decide how to redistribute wealth!

Get this bull#### out of here already.

I asked because I am unsure, unlike some who state wrong matters as fact. I see no reason to get it out of here, but thanks for the suggestion.

I am not as nimble with google and other searches as some, but even I can go to Snopes and find that this was about half true, which is good for me by memory. I had Boxer correct, a fundraiser correct, and the comment close, though out of context. Of course what I remembered was not that comment, but her explanation of the comment, so I may yet be shown quite correct. I was listening to a radio news broadcast of her speech and at the time I wondered whether I had heard it correctly.

Here's the Snopes link for those that might chase down her actual comment .

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/marxist.asp