# Are you ready for a Hillary alternative?



## Ralphy1 (Jul 28, 2014)

Martin O'Malley, the governor of Maryland, says that he is running regardless if Hillary does or not.  I am tired of the legacy dynasties in both parties and welcome some new faces other than those already before us.  Surely you do too.


----------



## JustQuinn (Jul 28, 2014)

I  agree.  I  do not think  there  should  be  any  sense  of  entitlement  in politics.


----------



## JustBonee (Jul 28, 2014)

Ralphy1 said:


> Martin O'Malley, the governor of Maryland, says that he is running regardless if Hillary does or not.  I am tired of the legacy dynasties in both parties and welcome some new faces other than those already before us.  *Surely you do too.*



Yes, I would welcome change.  
It seems when people vote though, they go for a familiar name because it's like a 'safe' choice, regardless of party,  ..  so we get the Kennedys, Bushes, Clintons over and over again.
We want new direction and different policies, but don't vote that way.


----------



## Jackie22 (Jul 28, 2014)

I* think Hillary has EARNED the right to run for president, she has the intelligence, determination and experience. 

*


----------



## Ralphy1 (Jul 28, 2014)

Of course she has the right but I would like to see some others who have the courage to run against her "inevitability."


----------



## Jackie22 (Jul 28, 2014)

Well, that is true.....but I don't see Hillary running on a 'sense of entitlement'...she has already proven to have what it takes to be a leader.


----------



## MrJim (Jul 28, 2014)

I wouldn't mind a Hillary alternative if there was a credible one out there with her knowledge, experience & toughness, but there isn't. Certainly not this what'sizname guy, whoever he is.

I'm sticking with Hillary.


----------



## kcvet (Jul 28, 2014)

*Benghazigate. what difference does it make???*


----------



## MrJim (Jul 28, 2014)

Benghzi was not Hillary Clinton's fault. The House of Reps controls the purse strings & in their fervor to cut spending & reduce budgets, also cut back on spending for security at foreign outposts.

And really, after the deaths of four people, what does it matter whether it was initially called or labelled as a "terrorist attack"?

That the Republicans took that tragedy & immediately tried to score political points with it is the true scandal here, not whether Obama correctly or incorrectly labelled it by one name or another.

Funny how these same Repubs never held Bush's feet to the fire to anywhere near that level after he allowed 9/11 to happen on his watch, or after it became clear that the WMD's he based his decision to invade Iraq upon, were nonexistent.

Not a peep out of them.


----------



## Davey Jones (Jul 28, 2014)

RE:Are you ready for a Hillary alternative? 

No more males PLEASE!!! the males have screwed up this country long enough, its time to see what a female President can do.
We have NOTHING to lose and everything to gain by putting one in the White House.
Keep track of this November elections,you're going to see more females in Congress.
and PLEASE...not Hillary Clinton.


----------



## Davey Jones (Jul 28, 2014)

MrJim said:


> Benghzi was not Hillary Clinton's fault.
> QUOTE]
> 
> She was Secretary of State and it was her responsibility. That mean *It is* her fault.


----------



## Denise1952 (Jul 28, 2014)

Ralphy1 said:


> Martin O'Malley, the governor of Maryland, says that he is running regardless if Hillary does or not.  I am tired of the legacy dynasties in both parties and welcome some new faces other than those already before us.  Surely you do too.



I couldn't agree more, I will vote for the one I feel will do the best job, whether I know who they are or not.



JustQuinn said:


> I  agree.  I  do not think  there  should  be  any  sense  of  entitlement  in politics.



That's for sure, can't agree more with this.  The person I will vote for is the one I feel I can trust the most to do a good job.



Bonnie said:


> Yes, I would welcome change.
> It seems when people vote though, they go for a familiar name because it's like a 'safe' choice, regardless of party,  ..  so we get the Kennedys, Bushes, Clintons over and over again.
> We want new direction and different policies, but don't vote that way.



I've been guilty of this because I used to not know for sure what had been going on, so I voted for the one that seemed "popular".  Forget that now, I am paying attention.  Of course I have to do a lot of sifting through what is truth, and what is not.  But I'll do my best, and really hope my vote will count.


----------



## MrJim (Jul 28, 2014)

Davey Jones said:


> MrJim said:
> 
> 
> > Benghzi was not Hillary Clinton's fault.
> ...



9/11 happened on Bush/Cheney's watch. That mean *It is* their fault.

Republicans controlled both houses of congress at the time. That mean *It is* their fault too.

So then why did we never see them holding Congressional hearings on their own screw up or screaming to impeach themselves???

"Benghazigate" is just more sleazy, rightwing gutter politics.


----------



## kcvet (Jul 28, 2014)

MrJim said:


> Benghzi was not Hillary Clinton's fault. The House of Reps controls the purse strings & in their fervor to cut spending & reduce budgets, also cut back on spending for security at foreign outposts.
> 
> And really, after the deaths of four people, what does it matter whether it was initially called or labelled as a "terrorist attack"?
> 
> ...





> And really, after the deaths of four people, what does it matter whether it was initially called or labelled as a "terrorist attack"?



you need to smell what your shoveling

*BENGHAZI WAS PREVENTABLE: Hillary Clinton cited for major security lapses*


link

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/06/17/Hillary-Benghazi-criminal


who was on watch in the 93 WTC attack??? and what did he do do about it??? ever hear of the USS Cole??







Benghazi was staged by Obama to bolster his terrible sagging numbers back here. stage an attack send in a rescue and he looks like a hero.


----------



## kcvet (Jul 28, 2014)

MrJim said:


> 9/11 happened on Bush/Cheney's watch. That mean *It is* their fault.
> 
> Republicans controlled both houses of congress at the time. That mean *It is* their fault too.
> 
> ...



can you prove it or just the hairs standing up on your neck???


----------



## MrJim (Jul 28, 2014)

kcvet said:


> you need to smell what your shoveling
> 
> *BENGHAZI WAS PREVENTABLE: Hillary Clinton cited for major security lapses*
> 
> ...



9/11 was preventable too!!! If Rice & her gang had paid attention to the warnings given to them by Richard Clarke rather than playing political games & ignoring them because Clarke had been part of the Clinton admin, 9/11 may well have never happened.

BTW, how many people did we lose, combined in the '93 WTC attack & the USS Cole attack combined, compared to 9/11???

Which of all those "major security lapses" was the worst one?

How about the Marine barracks attack under Reagan? Did the Republicans hold Congressional hearings about that???

And re: your linked source, I wouldn't wipe my rear with anything that came from Breitbart.

So take a little whiff of your own shovel there, mister.


----------



## MrJim (Jul 28, 2014)

> Benghazi was staged by Obama to bolster his terrible sagging numbers back here. stage an attack send in a rescue and he looks like a hero.




Only a severely mentally challenged lunatic would take such nonsense seriously.


I'm going to assume that you don't fall into that category & that you only posted it for some kind of amusement.


----------



## kcvet (Jul 28, 2014)

MrJim said:


> 9/11 was preventable too!!! If Rice & her gang had paid attention to the warnings given to them by Richard Clarke rather than playing political games & ignoring them because Clarke had been part of the Clinton admin, 9/11 may well have never happened.
> 
> BTW, how many people did we lose, combined in the '93 WTC attack & the USS Cole attack combined, compared to 9/11???
> 
> ...



wrong as usual. who had the only chance to kill Bin Laden??  hint. it wasn't Rice

the security lapse. the death count has to be high for you. I hope you face the families 



> How about the Marine barracks attack under Reagan? Did the Republicans hold Congressional hearings about that???



1993 – The first World Trade Center bombing 
1995 – Attempted crashing of plane on White House 
1995 – Oklahoma City bombing 
1996 – Khobar Towers bombing – Saudi Arabia 
1998 – U.S. Embassy bombings Kenya/Tanzania 
2000 – USS Cole Bombing - Yemen
congressional hearings here?? how many attacks on Bush's watch except Clinton's???

the Washington post?? yeah a bad source to since its liberal

the 911 attack was already planned and finalized on Bubba's watch

why did bin laden pick the 911 date???

keep shovelin' there........mister


----------



## kcvet (Jul 28, 2014)

MrJim said:


> Only a severely mentally challenged lunatic would take such nonsense seriously.
> 
> 
> I'm going to assume that you don't fall into that category & that you only posted it for some kind of amusement.



yeah letting people die for your own amusment is really funny. its called October surpise


----------



## MrJim (Jul 28, 2014)

kcvet said:


> wrong as usual. who had the only chance to kill Bin Laden??  hint. it wasn't Rice
> 
> the security lapse. the death count has to be high for you. I hope you face the families
> 
> ...



Blah blah blah....

It continues to be worthwhile underlining, moreover, that far more embassy attacks occurred under Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush than have under Obama, and that Republicans in Congress never investigated Reagan or Bush for their failures. To wit:

1. The US embassy in Athens, Greece, was attacked in 2007.
2. The US embassy in Serbia was burned down early in 2008
3. The US embassy in Sanaa, Yemen, were attacked in September 2008
4. A suicide bombing at the US consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, in 2006 killed a US diplomat.
5. In 2006, a car bomb was set off outside the US embassy in Damascus.
6. Assailants set off bombs outside the US embassy in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, in 2004, at a time when the Uzbek government was allied with Bush in the ‘war on terror’ and was trying 15 persons it accused of al-Qaeda ties. Bush should have known.
7. The US consulate in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia, was attacked in 2004.
8. Anti-American Iraqis were regularly shelling the Green Zone in Baghdad where the US embassy is, in 2008.
9. In April 1983, radical Shiite suicide bombers blew up the US embassy in Beirut, killing 63. Reagan did nothing to prevent this attack, and his ultimate response to it and a later deadly attack on US Marines in Beirut was to quietly withdraw from Lebanon (he called it “redeploying offshore”). Democrats at the time controlled Congress but they didn’t have endless hearings on how Reagan failed our diplomats by not being prepared, not about whether it was wise for Reagan to shell Lebanese villages from the sea and kill 1,000 people.
10. The American embassy in Kuwait was attacked under Reagan in 1983 by radical members of the Da`wa (Islamic Mission) Party. George W. Bush later presided over the election of one of the bombers to the Iraqi parliament. The Da`wa Party, which has since given up terrorism and become a democratic party, has ruled Iraq since 2005, courtesy of Bush.

And let's not forget the *5,000 American service personnel who died in Iraq for NOTHING thanks to Bush/Cheney/Rumdumb!!!*

Bush invaded Iraq & sacrificed all those lives knowing there were no WMD's, but he figured starting a war with a bunch of "ragheads" (as your ilk calls them) would enhance his image like his daddy's during the first Gulf War & make him a rightwing hero amongst conservative voters.

And BTW, let's not forget that the OKC bombing was committed by a white, American CONSERVATIVE... IOW, one of yours.

So keep sniffin' that shovel, mister.


----------



## kcvet (Jul 28, 2014)

MrJim said:


> Blah blah blah....
> 
> It continues to be worthwhile underlining, moreover, that far more embassy attacks occurred under Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush than have under Obama, and that Republicans in Congress never investigated Reagan or Bush for their failures. To wit:
> 
> ...



*Sorry, you've reached a page that doesn't exist. great links there

​*Blah blah blah....thanks for not answering my Q's. great deflection there*
​*
*

​**Five terrorist attacks succeeded under Obama, but none succeeded under Bush after 9/11*

you just don't get it







and since your archiving..............






your serve bubba


----------



## ClassicRockr (Jul 28, 2014)

From reading this Thread, I now know why the young and old don't discuss politics! 

Would wife and I vote for Hilary as President.........in one single, simple word, *YES*!! Now, do we think she would get the vote into the White House? Real tough question. Another tough question is: Is America ready, or even want, a lady President or even Vice President? Very, very good question. We need change, but does that "change" have a ladies name there? I know another thing, I'd take Hilary over Palin any day! Palin was just too good-looking. LOL


----------



## kcvet (Jul 28, 2014)

ClassicRockr said:


> From reading this Thread, I now know why the young and old don't discuss politics!
> 
> Would wife and I vote for Hilary as President.........in one single, simple word, *YES*!! Now, do we think she would get the vote into the White House? Real tough question. Another tough question is: Is America ready, or even want, a lady President or even Vice President? Very, very good question. We need change, but does that "change" have a ladies name there? I know another thing, I'd take Hilary over Palin any day! Palin was just too good-looking. LOL



yeah liberals hate palin. but for a roll in the hay..........................


----------



## MrJim (Jul 28, 2014)

kcvet said:


> *Sorry, you've reached a page that doesn't exist. great links there
> 
> ​*Blah blah blah....thanks for not answering my Q's. great deflection there*
> ​*
> ...



Only one of those links didn't work, but feel free to Google it & find the same info on another site.

Nice deflection.

Re: Clinton & Bin Laden... Clinton went after Bin Laden but they just barely missed him. That was not Clinton's fault. At least he recognized the threat & made the attempt. Maybe if the Republicans hadn't been busy sniffing Monica Lewinski's panties after coming up empty on Whitewater, he might not have been distracted.



> the 911 attack was already planned and finalized on Bubba's watch



So what??? Are you saying it was Clinton's responsibility to know every detail of what was going on behind closed doors on the other side of the world??? That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard!!! I could say the same thing about Bush or Reagan. 



> why did bin laden pick the 911 date???



He obviously waited until he knew there was an IDIOT in the WH who he knew would not be on the ball or paying attention.



> *Five terrorist attacks succeeded under Obama, but none succeeded under Bush after 9/11*



Right... *AFTER 9/11!!!*...aka THE WORST TERRORIST ATTACK IN AMERICAN HISTORY!!! But 9/11 still happened & Bush & the Republicans who controlled Congress LET IT HAPPEN.

Looks to me like YOU are the one who doesn't get it.

You can keep trying to spin it until you turn blue, but the fact (& my point) is, that there have been plenty of terrorist attacks under Republican Presidents, many more than under Obama, but the Repubs have never lifted a finger to investigate them.

And let's not forget one more thing... who was it who GOT Bin Laden???

Bush??? No, of course not. Bush gave up on it. Let him go. 






http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o

I guess it was because the two families were old friends.


----------



## kcvet (Jul 28, 2014)

MrJim said:


> Only one of those links didn't work, but feel free to Google it & find the same info on another site.
> 
> Nice deflection.
> 
> ...



you video links out. and so are you.



> Re: Clinton & Bin Laden... Clinton went after Bin Laden but they just barely missed him. That was not Clinton's fault. At least he recognized the threat & made the attempt. Maybe if the Republicans hadn't been busy sniffing Monica Lewinski's panties after coming up empty on Whitewater, he might not have been distracted.



3 times?? he fired a missle into afghan and killed a camel. to keep attention away form Monica baby



> He obviously waited until he knew there was an IDIOT in the WH who he knew would not be on the ball or paying attention.



wrong again



> _So what??? Are you saying it was Clinton's responsibility to know every detail of what was going on behind closed doors on the other side of the world??? That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard!!! I could say the same thing about Bush or Reagan. _



ever hear of intell?? didn't think so



> _Right... _*AFTER 9/11!!!...aka THE WORST TERRORIST ATTACK IN AMERICAN HISTORY!!! But 9/11 still happened & Bush & the Republicans who controlled Congress LET IT HAPPEN.*



Bush was dependent on Bubba's intell. which didn't exist. bubba was only into sex and money. screw the USA



> _And let's not forget one more thing... who was it who GOT Bin Laden???_



got a flash for ya. it was not Obozo


----------



## MrJim (Jul 28, 2014)

kcvet said:


> you video links out. and so are you.



Use the link I put underneath it. Works just fine. You can watch Bush pussying out on OBL.



kcvet said:


> 3 times?? he fired a missle into afghan and killed a camel. to keep attention away form Monica baby



More rightwing BS.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.asp



kcvet said:


> wrong again



Talking about yourself again, are ya?



kcvet said:


> ever hear of intell?? didn't think so
> 
> Bush was dependent on Bubba's intell. which didn't exist. bubba was only into sex and money. screw the USA



Apparently you are the one who doesn't understand how intel works. If you did, you might know that neither Clinton nor any other POTUS are intelligence officers & have nothing to do with gathering it. That's done by an agency called the "CIA", which stands for "Central Intelligence Agency". Their job is to gather foreign intelligence & report those findings to the Executive branch & Congressional intelligence committees. You should spend some time reading up on that stuff if you're going to try to argue about it.



kcvet said:


> got a flash for ya. it was not Obozo



Got a flash for ya... it happened under Obama, so he gets the credit. He ordered it & was on top of it the whole way. If he gets the blame for crap like Benghazi & everything else that goes wrong everywhere in the world while he's in office, then he gets credit for killing Bin Laden.

And Bush gets credit for 9/11 & Iraq.


----------



## kcvet (Jul 28, 2014)

MrJim said:


> Use the link I put underneath it. Works just fine. You can watch Bush pussying out on OBL.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> More rightwing BS.
> 
> http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.asp



more radical leftwing BS. your the only one on earth that use's this fake site



> Apparently you are the one who doesn't understand how intel works. If you did, you might know that neither Clinton nor any other POTUS are intelligence officers & have nothing to do with gathering it. That's done by an agency called the "CIA", which stands for "Central Intelligence Agency". Their job is to gather foreign intelligence & report those findings to the Executive branch & Congressional intelligence committees. You should spend some time reading up on that stuff if you're going to try to argue about it.



thank you for telling us something we already knew. and every bear in wyoming to !!!!



> Got a flash for ya... it happened under Obama, so he gets the credit. He ordered it & was on top of it the whole way. If he gets the blame for crap like Benghazi & everything else that goes wrong everywhere in the world while he's in office, then he gets credit for killing Bin Laden.]



it was the work of many going back on the Bush watch. even your boy admits to it. at least i can read

your a legend in your own mind


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jul 28, 2014)

Due to the direction this thread has taken, it is now closed.


----------

