[Harry Rex Vonner]

"RealClearPolitics (RCP) is a Chicago-based political news and polling data aggregator formed in 2000[2] by former options trader John McIntyre and former advertising agency account executive Tom Bevan.[3][4][5] The site's founders say their goal is to give readers "ideological diversity,"[6] though the progressive media watchdog group Media Matters for America and others describe the site as being right wing.[7]"


If Ky's democrat majority shows up to vote, Mitch is in trouble.

Which left wing rag gave you this information? No wonder you are so biased and uninformed. Look at what you read and, even worse, believe.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

^ The point was, you guys elected a senator with no more experience than her, yet you bitch about her experience. Hypocrite much?

Using your logic, I suppose we should replace an accomplished and experienced surgeon with some kid just finishing a pre-med program. After all the accomplished and experienced surgeon had no experience when he first started.

The truth is that you cannot offer any valid argument for anyone to vote for Clueless Barbie. There is no rational argument to support her. She makes Ashley Judd look like a genius- and that isn't easy.

[TheRealThing]

"RealClearPolitics (RCP) is a Chicago-based political news and polling data aggregator formed in 2000[2] by former options trader John McIntyre and former advertising agency account executive Tom Bevan.[3][4][5] The site's founders say their goal is to give readers "ideological diversity,"[6] though the progressive media watchdog group Media Matters for America and others describe the site as being right wing.[7]"


If Ky's democrat majority shows up to vote, Mitch is in trouble.

You do know"watchdog" media matters is very liberal right? Google
Byron York

Which left wing rag gave you this information? No wonder you are so biased and uninformed. Look at what you read and, even worse, believe.

He got it from Wikipedia Harry Rex. Not that everything on Wikipedia is to be rejected out of hand, many subjects are covered very well on that site. But, in this case we see that somebody came on and added a comment ("though the progressive media watchdog group Media Matters for America and others describe the site as being right wing"), which of course, is typical to the emotional bias of the liberal. The progressive watchdog group 'Media Matters' is by definition and their own description, BIASED to the far left. And, though it's doubtful at this strained juncture of man's history that anyone is not aware, the left's number one strategy is to attack. Sometimes they actually try to articulate a case built on logic, though such strategy is normally ineffective due to the fact that the audience lefties are trying to influence are the low information types. Normally they just horse laugh anything they cannot explain away through charges of greed or racism against the right. But, cases like the above, a subtle slam of the kind I have pointed out is about all they can get by with, without getting a chorus of raspberries for their trouble.

The right by the way, is America. Our parents, and grandparents, WW2 vets, the clergy, working folks who are financially stabile enough to tax into oblivion for the sakes of those who won't work. You know, folks like those of the "Great Generation", the objects of the left's contempt, God fearing self sufficient people of this nation in whose homes one might reasonably expect Sunday dinner to be served to the delight of their families. Like those damnable Tea Partiers for example. Slugs who love their country and the sacrifice and wisdom of the founding fathers. And for which, would be willing to sacrifice themselves in the taking up of arms in it's defense. The Right Wing, Ugh! Who could trust people like that?

[nky]

Fantasy? I'd be willing to make a small, gentleman's wager of $100 with you, that if Hillary runs for President, she wins. You in?

FTR, anybody that shoots, knows Alison was shooting that shotgun properly, in the commercial. Watch the skeet explode every time. Reckon Mitch can handle a gun?

[YOUTUBE="Alison"]z7Pa16JPUlY[/YOUTUBE]
[Image: http://a1.img.talkingpointsmemo.com/imag...6kxnrq.jpg]

by the way looks like she's recycling some of Joe Manchin ads from his run in WV:trolldad:

[Harry Rex Vonner]

You can take manure, dress it up with a hunting vest safety glasses and earplugs, and show it how to hold a shotgun. But, in the end, it is still just manure.

[SKINNYPIG]

by the way looks like she's recycling some of Joe Manchin ads from his run in WV:trolldad:

In the picture I notice two things...she's pretty good looking & the ear plug in her left ear is not properly seated.

[TheRealThing]

In the picture I notice two things...she's pretty good looking & the ear plug in her left ear is not properly seated.

LOL, I this is a political ad. Tell you what I'd like to see in real time. Little Alison drive up to the skeet range, get out of her gas guzzling SUV, get her shot gun, ammo and the other props seen in the video. Set up and squeeze off a few with regular guys like us watching, and then let's see how many birds explode. nicker:

(She looks better from the side)

[Granny Bear]

I have reviewed many of these posts, and think how uncanny it is that time can erase culpability.


Within twenty four hours of the attack in Benghazi, Hillary Clinton emailed the prime minister of Egypt telling him that the attack was definitely NOT from the now infamous film, but was a matter of terrorism. Of course, she is denying that she mislead Americans about the motive.

Ty Woods was one of the victims of Benghazi. His father offered his journal/diary to the Congressional hearing today that proves otherwise.

"I gave Hillary a hug and shook her hand and she said we are going to have the film maker arrested who was responsible for the death of my son."

The very fact that she can look these people in the eye, and deny what she did should make every voter shudder. This woman lies without blinking an eye. And the fact that it is a lie about a dead American that she had some control over, doesn't seem to shake her in any way.

http://www.foxnews.com/

[64SUR]

Not going to say nothing. moke: just curious where was this committee during the Iraq war. On vacation or was it and election year. :Sad04:

[64SUR]

Take your time folks. :worthy:

[TheRealThing]

I have reviewed many of these posts, and think how uncanny it is that time can erase culpability.


Within twenty four hours of the attack in Benghazi, Hillary Clinton emailed the prime minister of Egypt telling him that the attack was definitely NOT from the now infamous film, but was a matter of terrorism. Of course, she is denying that she mislead Americans about the motive.

Ty Woods was one of the victims of Benghazi. His father offered his journal/diary to the Congressional hearing today that proves otherwise.

"I gave Hillary a hug and shook her hand and she said we are going to have the film maker arrested who was responsible for the death of my son."

The very fact that she can look these people in the eye, and deny what she did should make every voter shudder. This woman lies without blinking an eye. And the fact that it is a lie about a dead American that she had some control over, doesn't seem to shake her in any way.

http://www.foxnews.com/

Yeah and I will go you one better. If you heard today, we taxpayers got sucker punched again as something jaw dropping was revealed in the regular Friday afternoon news dump. Lois Lerner will not be prosecuted according to the FBI, not enough evidence. Now--- this is the same FBI that is presently investigating Hillary, right?

At any rate you are correct in your observation. After two or three years worth of stonewalling, committee members like Elijah Cummings and Adam Schiff et al, are the ones screaming their heads off about how long this has drug on and on. They provide their own blocking. And you're spot on, most conservative voters won't even remember all this stuff.

[TheRealThing]

Not going to say nothing. moke: just curious where was this committee during the Iraq war. On vacation or was it and election year. :Sad04:

Take your time folks. :worthy:

Sorry 64, I didn't mean to neglect you. :biggrin:


EXCERPT----
"Joe Biden and John Kerry, both senators at the time, supported the measure. (THE IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION 2002) Mrs. Clinton’s New York colleague Charles Schumer said yes. So did Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California. Heck, even Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada voted for the resolution.

The day before the vote, Mrs. Clinton delivered a passionate — and lengthy — speech in support of the war bill.
“I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt,” she said on the Senate floor. “Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20,000 people.”

She laid out a detailed case for why America needed to step in, singing the praises of George W. Bush’s father. “In 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait, losing the support of the United States. The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab states, and threw Saddam out after 43 days of bombing and a hundred hours of ground operations.”

She pointed out that after that war, “the United Nations imposed a number of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories necessary to do the work.” And she noted that everyone knew Saddam had WMDs: “The [U.N.] inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bioweapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities.”

She expressed support for her husband’s decision in 1998 to push for “regime change,” and ripped the U.N. for putting limits on its inspections. And she went on and on about Saddam’s WMD stockpile, saying he held so many secret sites that “were huge compounds well-suited to hold weapons labs, stocks.”

Mrs. Clinton declared that Saddam, “left unchecked … will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.”

But perhaps she didn’t fully believe the intelligence, the top-secret briefings. Wait, she did: “Now this much is undisputed.” Undisputed. Saddam had WMDs, had used them against his own people, was a serious threat to the world. Or so she said."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015.../?page=all

[TheRealThing]

Oh 64------, where are you, cat got your tongue?

The article above shows us the difference between letting today's Democrats give you your opinion, versus actually knowing what you're talking about. It was largely the Dems leading the charge to invade Iraq. Two years later they had all flip flopped, saying they were against the war. I guess people like you either were too young to remember or are too drunk on the kool aid to give a darn.

[64SUR]

Not going to say nothing. moke: just curious where was this committee during the Iraq war. On vacation or was it and election year. :Sad04:

Delete.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Sorry 64, I didn't mean to neglect you. :biggrin:


EXCERPT----
"Joe Biden and John Kerry, both senators at the time, supported the measure. (THE IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION 2002) Mrs. Clinton’s New York colleague Charles Schumer said yes. So did Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California. Heck, even Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada voted for the resolution.

The day before the vote, Mrs. Clinton delivered a passionate — and lengthy — speech in support of the war bill.
“I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt,” she said on the Senate floor. “Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20,000 people.”

She laid out a detailed case for why America needed to step in, singing the praises of George W. Bush’s father. “In 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait, losing the support of the United States. The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab states, and threw Saddam out after 43 days of bombing and a hundred hours of ground operations.”

She pointed out that after that war, “the United Nations imposed a number of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories necessary to do the work.” And she noted that everyone knew Saddam had WMDs: “The [U.N.] inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bioweapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities.”

She expressed support for her husband’s decision in 1998 to push for “regime change,” and ripped the U.N. for putting limits on its inspections. And she went on and on about Saddam’s WMD stockpile, saying he held so many secret sites that “were huge compounds well-suited to hold weapons labs, stocks.”

Mrs. Clinton declared that Saddam, “left unchecked … will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.”

But perhaps she didn’t fully believe the intelligence, the top-secret briefings. Wait, she did: “Now this much is undisputed.” Undisputed. Saddam had WMDs, had used them against his own people, was a serious threat to the world. Or so she said."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015.../?page=all

In the lead up to war, it became McNamara's "fog of war." Nobody would argue that Sadaam Hussein was a good dude...he was a despot. But, any war drawing upon national passion right after 9/11 that plied those emotions and sentiments to go after Sadaam? It became a hodge-podge of flawed intelligence, stir- the-pot rhetoric, and rush to battle, where any politician who shouted "hold the phone" got to wear the wussy dove hat. In my view, the invasion of Iraq will be viewed historically as a horribly flawed decision, made on dubious grounds, which resulted in chaos writ large. Celebrated cases make for bad law, and 9/11 led this nation into many shock and fear induced errors of policy and judgment, errors not confined to red or blue suits. However, those days were difficult ones, and historians have the luxury of hindsight.

[TheRealThing]

In the lead up to war, it became McNamara's "fog of war." Nobody would argue that Sadaam Hussein was a good dude...he was a despot. But, any war drawing upon national passion right after 9/11 that plied those emotions and sentiments to go after Sadaam? It became a hodge-podge of flawed intelligence, stir- the-pot rhetoric, and rush to battle, where any politician who shouted "hold the phone" got to wear the wussy dove hat. In my view, the invasion of Iraq will be viewed historically as a horribly flawed decision, made on dubious grounds, which resulted in chaos writ large. Celebrated cases make for bad law, and 9/11 led this nation into many shock and fear induced errors of policy and judgment, errors not confined to red or blue suits. However, those days were difficult ones, and historians have the luxury of hindsight.

Granted. But the ax I had to grind about the whole deal at the time had to do with the political hay that the Dems made of the Iraq Resolution. They supported it pure and simple and her majesty Hillary herself supported it and made impassioned speeches on the floor of the Senate to that end. Then when the validity of the intel began to unravel, she and the rest of the Dems claimed they'd been lied to in order to gain political cover and to slam Republicans as a whole.

They have no shame as was demonstrated yet again today when Rep Trey Gowdy revealed his report on the Benghazi investigation. I've said this before, if the standard for pinning blame on the person deserving of it, servants of the people one and all, mirrors that of the courtroom they'll be able to get by with anything. You'll notice if you read above that Lois Lerner got by with her shenanigans too in another case of missing emails and destroyed hard drives. George W did however, turn over all documents asked for by Congress. And was called a liar by the very people who vetted the intel right along with him, and is still being called a liar to this day. But speaking of today, we saw that despite the affidavit stating all emails had been turned over, signed by HRC no less, that yet another 160 emails have surfaced.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Granted. But the ax I had to grind about the whole deal at the time had to do with the political hay that the Dems made of the Iraq Resolution. They supported it pure and simple and her majesty Hillary herself supported it and made impassioned speeches on the floor of the Senate to that end. Then when the validity of the intel began to unravel, she and the rest of the Dems claimed they'd been lied to in order to gain political cover and to slam Republicans as a whole.

They have no shame as was demonstrated yet again today when Rep Trey Gowdy revealed his report on the Benghazi investigation. I've said this before, if the standard for pinning blame on the person deserving of it, servants of the people one and all, mirrors that of the courtroom they'll be able to get by with anything. You'll notice if you read above that Lois Lerner got by with her shenanigans too in another case of missing emails and destroyed hard drives. George W did however, turn over all documents asked for by Congress. And was called a liar by the very people who vetted the intel right along with him, and is still being called a liar to this day. But speaking of today, we saw that despite the affidavit stating all emails had been turned over, signed by HRC no less, that yet another 160 emails have surfaced.

I personally think President Bush was a strong leader in the aftermath of 9/11 and was treated unfairly, as in I feel his decision to stay in the classroom and finish reading was an instinctual thing in which, I feel, he figured scaring a room full of young children by jumping up and sprinting out of the room would not help nor change the situation. I respect President Bush, though I often strongly disagreed with his policy.

[Granny Bear]

I can't even discuss Hillary anymore without getting angry. If she were any other citizen, or immigrant, in the United States, she would be under indictment.

[TheRealThing]

I can't even discuss Hillary anymore without getting angry. If she were any other citizen, or immigrant, in the United States, she would be under indictment.

You're not the only one that feels that way I assure you.


The gag reflex associated with the idea of President Hillary Clinton is a strong presence across the face of this land. Despite what liberal news paper owners say, and the way liberal pundits clean up her image with lies and distortions of the truth, and the skewed polls that manipulate questions and answers, I believe the people will reject her this fall. In fact, if we had voter ID laws in place right now I would be somewhat confident that Trump will win.