Tea party looks to 2016 at South Carolina convention

[Traveler19491]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

***SIGH*** Naturally I meant "debate" between intelligent individuals with differing viewpoints who can cite non-partisan, independent sources. Not slugs who are skilled at nothing more than cutting and pasting pundit comments that agree with their particular viewpoints. Sorry, but I'm not into the cutting and pasting wars. Too much like what my ex used to call, "Nyah, nyah, nyah, and counter nyah, nyah, nyah". I'm not a huge fan of Hillary, but on her worst day she is light years ahead of W. At least she can talk in complete, grammatically correct sentences, and doesn't have the rest of the first world nations wondering <deleted> is wrong with American voters. Oh, and she apparently can't see Russia from her front porch, and doesn't think it's cute that her kids use the dog as a step stool to reach the sink. And can state which newspapers she reads.

Posts don't get much sillier than yours.

Your off the wall comparison of Hillary to Sarah is ridiculous in the extreme.

In the first place, Palin never said she could see Russia from her front porch. She said Russia could be seen from parts of Alaska...which is true.

As somebody that owns five golden retrievers and has a six year old nephew that rides them around the yard, what her son did is childish behavior and any criticism of it is just as childlike.

Thirdly, I don't really care what newspapers Palin reads but the main stream media and progressive liberals can't seem to get enough of her, even though she will very likely not be the Republican nominee for any national office.

My point in referencing those three links is NOBODY can tell us what Hillary's accomplishments were during her tenure as Secretary of State. Not Hillary, the Democratic National Committee or the State Department can come up with an answer to that little poser.

You want an intelligent conversation?

Then you try answering the question...What were Hillary Clinton's accomplishments as Secretary of State?

Even more broadly based, try and tell us what she has accomplished on her own during her long career, other than marrying William Jefferson Clinton.

But then..."At this point, what difference does it make"?

I realize that you couldn't give a rat's hind quarters what newspapers Palin reads, but apparently intelligent voters do, and since she recently appeared at the Iowa summit, and then, on Hannity, insinuated that she might run again, I think a lot of people would, in fact, be interested in what sources influence her thinking. That estimation would be backed up by the fact that that one interview did more to damage her reputation among centrist voters than any other single misstep, among myriad, that she made. People who care about their vote have this silly feeling that they'd like their President, or Vice-President, to be well informed, and that their information come from legitimate sources. The fact that she could not muster one single reference at least seemed to indicate that she doesn't read, at least not publications dealing with national or foreign affairs. That would be problematical.

I am well aware that Palin never uttered the catch phrase about Russia. I was using sarcasm to illustrate a point.

As far as Hillary's accomplishments.....

http://theweek.com/articles/468265/hillary-clintons-9-most-memorable-moments-secretary-state

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/leslie-marshall/2014/02/19/hillary-clintons-accomplishments-speak-for-themselves

You asked, so there's an answer to "that little poser". You may not agree, but you stated, categorically, that "NOBODY can tell us what Hillary's accomplishments were." Well, you only asked for an answer. I've given you two.

Edited January 29, 2015 by Traveler19491

[ramrod45]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

I had no idea you could WIN Secretary of State, only that there is a vote on the confirmation. You can't WIN if you need to first be nominated. And she was a lousy Sec of State anyways.

My, what an interesting comment. And yet we refer to the NOMINEE of one of the two parties as "WINNING" the election. One has to persuade a majority of Senators to VOTE in favor of their NOMINATION, and the WINNING vote determines if the individual will be confirmed. Even the media refers to a Presidential nominee as winning or losing the confirmation. As to the quality of her service, that is open to legitimate debate, of which, I am afraid, you are not qualified. Give me a break clown. Go back to school and come back when you can post something intelligent.

It seems to me that WIN indicates a conflict, a contest. Someone who is appointed has no conflict, and further, asking a group to confirm if this selection is acceptable does not, to me, constitute a "win". As for myself, since you have no idea of my level of education, background, or really anything, I must construe your non-flattering comments (which has a monotonous continuation throughout many of your posts) to indicate that to protect what must be low self-esteem, you must denigrate others in an attempt to allude to an apparent delusional pulpit, when in fact a true, respected intellectual does not need to succumb to such nugatory actions. Perhaps you should look at your own Neanderthal knuckle dragging cretin remarks.....

Merriam Webster: win (intransitive verb), to succeed at arriving at a place or a state. You were the one who insisted on starting an argument based solely on semantics. The dictionary backs up my use of the word, one that individuals possessing a degree in journalism also subscribe to. Your statement, "It seems to me..." illustrates that your position is nothing more than your personal opinion. Also, in a Senatorial confirmation hearing, there is in fact, "a conflict, a contest". The party in opposition to the White House is often seeking to block the nomination, while the party aligned with the White House is seeking to confirm.

Merriam Webster: conflict (noun), 2a: competitive or opposing action of incompatibles: antagonistic state or action (as of divergent ideas, interests, or persons)......Merriam Webster: contest (noun), to make the subject of dispute, contention, or litigation; especially: dispute, challenge.

A Senatorial confirmation hearing satisfies all of those definitions, ergo she won her confirmation ( http://www.inquisitr.com/16034/hillary-clinton-wins-confirmation-as-secretary-of-state/ ). You wanted to get into a conflict over a matter of semantics, so there you are. Your determination to hang onto your personal restrictive definition of the word is based on nothing more than your personal opinion.

My comments about an individual being a knuckle dragging cretin were directed at one person who made a disparaging, racist remark aimed at a man whose heroic actions saved lives. I stand by my estimation of the author's character and mental capacity. However, your original snarky comment ("I had no idea you could WIN Secretary of State...") was intended to belittle my usage of a word in a journalistcally accepted context, and was a "non-flattering comment" in its own right, revealing your own capacity for nugatory actions (thanks for that one, by the way. I learned a new word. Love it!) My self esteem is just dandy, thank you very much. And what the hell is, "an apparent attempt to allude to a delusional pulpit"? I have to admit, I've never heard of a "delusional pulpit". I never made claim to be a "respected intellectual", but for you to exclude me from that class must mean that you feel yourself included, otherwise how would you know whether or not I am one? Now that seems a touch egotistical. No, Sparky, my sole aim on this forum is to debate facts. I admit to a liberal bias, but I do try to use facts, and when I am using my own opinion I state it as such. I won't debate Hillary's success or lack thereof as Secretary of State. I'm no fan. The aim of my post about her "wins" was to illustrate that the individual who labeled her a "loser" wasn't using facts.

If the Secretary of State is appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, I do not find that a "win", regardless of your definitions (which I do not find fits the situation). But it isn't worth the debate. As for you never claiming to be a "respected intellectual" and that must include me, please let me remind you that solely based on three sentences, you managed to discern my level of intelligence, that I am not qualified to debate, and that my schooling must have been remiss since I need to go back. So please do not include my intelligence, my opinion, or even my lack of facts (and why would one need to include facts for a personal statement) with you desire to debase me. Standing by your previous statements of ludicrous proportions is fine.....it merely asserts that you have a need to belittle other, which I find offensive. Oh, and I still think Hillary was a lousy Sec of State....and I don't need any "facts" to support that opinion.

Edited January 29, 2015 by ramrod45

[Traveler19491]

If the Secretary of State is appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, I do not find that a "win", regardless of your definitions (which I do not find fits the situation). But it isn't worth the debate. As for you never claiming to be a "respected intellectual" and that must include me, please let me remind you that solely based on three sentences, you managed to discern my level of intelligence, that I am not qualified to debate, and that my schooling must have been remiss since I need to go back. So please do not include my intelligence, my opinion, or even my lack of facts (and why would one need to include facts for a personal statement) with you desire to debase me. Standing by your previous statements of ludicrous proportions is fine.....it merely asserts that you have a need to belittle other, which I find offensive. Oh, and I still think Hillary was a lousy Sec of State....and I don't need any "facts" to support that opinion.

And to you I owe an apology. I was out of line in making disparaging allusions to your education, your intellectual capacity, or your ability/qualifications to debate. That is not my style. You and I may disagree politically, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion, and to express such. And any disagreements we may have do not give me the right to belittle you in any way. Again, my apologies.

[chuckd]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

***SIGH*** Naturally I meant "debate" between intelligent individuals with differing viewpoints who can cite non-partisan, independent sources. Not slugs who are skilled at nothing more than cutting and pasting pundit comments that agree with their particular viewpoints. Sorry, but I'm not into the cutting and pasting wars. Too much like what my ex used to call, "Nyah, nyah, nyah, and counter nyah, nyah, nyah". I'm not a huge fan of Hillary, but on her worst day she is light years ahead of W. At least she can talk in complete, grammatically correct sentences, and doesn't have the rest of the first world nations wondering <deleted> is wrong with American voters. Oh, and she apparently can't see Russia from her front porch, and doesn't think it's cute that her kids use the dog as a step stool to reach the sink. And can state which newspapers she reads.

Posts don't get much sillier than yours.

Your off the wall comparison of Hillary to Sarah is ridiculous in the extreme.

In the first place, Palin never said she could see Russia from her front porch. She said Russia could be seen from parts of Alaska...which is true.

As somebody that owns five golden retrievers and has a six year old nephew that rides them around the yard, what her son did is childish behavior and any criticism of it is just as childlike.

Thirdly, I don't really care what newspapers Palin reads but the main stream media and progressive liberals can't seem to get enough of her, even though she will very likely not be the Republican nominee for any national office.

My point in referencing those three links is NOBODY can tell us what Hillary's accomplishments were during her tenure as Secretary of State. Not Hillary, the Democratic National Committee or the State Department can come up with an answer to that little poser.

You want an intelligent conversation?

Then you try answering the question...What were Hillary Clinton's accomplishments as Secretary of State?

Even more broadly based, try and tell us what she has accomplished on her own during her long career, other than marrying William Jefferson Clinton.

But then..."At this point, what difference does it make"?

I realize that you couldn't give a rat's hind quarters what newspapers Palin reads, but apparently intelligent voters do, and since she recently appeared at the Iowa summit, and then, on Hannity, insinuated that she might run again, I think a lot of people would, in fact, be interested in what sources influence her thinking. That estimation would be backed up by the fact that that one interview did more to damage her reputation among centrist voters than any other single misstep, among myriad, that she made. People who care about their vote have this silly feeling that they'd like their President, or Vice-President, to be well informed, and that their information come from legitimate sources. The fact that she could not muster one single reference at least seemed to indicate that she doesn't read, at least not publications dealing with national or foreign affairs. That would be problematical.

I am well aware that Palin never uttered the catch phrase about Russia. I was using sarcasm to illustrate a point.

As far as Hillary's accomplishments.....

http://theweek.com/articles/468265/hillary-clintons-9-most-memorable-moments-secretary-state

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/leslie-marshall/2014/02/19/hillary-clintons-accomplishments-speak-for-themselves

You asked, so there's an answer to "that little poser". You may not agree, but you stated, categorically, that "NOBODY can tell us what Hillary's accomplishments were." Well, you only asked for an answer. I've given you two.

Thank you for the response. Now let me address that response.

First, concerning Sarah Palin. If you honestly believe she has a snowball's chance in hell of ever becoming a nationally elected figure, you are well behind the power curve. The main stream media is convinced she is a joke, Hollywood considers she is a joke and nearly every liberal TV news outlets consider her a joke. If you think for a second she can overcome all the negative publicity a campaign from her would garner to be elected, or even nominated in the first place, your knowledge of national politics needs a refresher course.

I think Palin is a sincere, honest person that isn't the right fit for the present day national scene. She is an asset in other areas but not on a national ticket. If you wish to be enamored with her failings and not focus on any real contenders in the Republican party...be my guest.

Now, on to Hillary's top 9 "accomplishments". Guess the author couldn't find 10 so had to stop at 9. By the way, the article is titled as her 9 "most memorable moments" rather than her 9 "accomplishments".

Let's look at them:

1. The liberation of Libya

Yep. Libya is liberated from Ghadaffi all right. It only took the death of four Americans in Benghazi to turn this memorable moment into a disaster. We won't even talk about the current state of affairs in Libya. What this proved is neither one of them were capable of answering that 3 AM phone call.

2. The opening-up of Myanmar

The Generals in Myanmar wanted to open it or it would still be closed. What impact her diplomatic skills had on their decision is unknown and very likely minimal at best.

3. Playing peacemaker in the Middle East

How could I possibly have missed this one? the Middle East is a haven of peaceful protests with Israel and all those surrounding Muslim countries roasting marshmallows over the campfire and singing Kumbaya.

4. Freeing a Chinese dissident (Really a popular move in Boise, Idaho)

5. Killing Osama bin Laden (Standing shoulder to shoulder with Seal Team 6)

6. Tightening sanctions on Iran (Sanctions started in 1979. She tightened them so Obama could relax them.)

7. Isolating Syria's Assad (Yet another smashing success in the Middle East.)

8. Fighting for women's rights (Women are still not driving in Saudi and female genital mutilation is rising in the UK. Mission accomplished)

9. Becoming a pop icon.

I won't answer your second link other than to restate my question. What has she accomplished on her own during her long career, other than marrying William Jefferson Clinton.

Without the name recognition and her "stand by my man" she would have accomplished nothing on her own, in particular the New York Senate seat.

I don't think she can win an election if she gets the nomination. We will see.

[Traveler19491]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

***SIGH*** Naturally I meant "debate" between intelligent individuals with differing viewpoints who can cite non-partisan, independent sources. Not slugs who are skilled at nothing more than cutting and pasting pundit comments that agree with their particular viewpoints. Sorry, but I'm not into the cutting and pasting wars. Too much like what my ex used to call, "Nyah, nyah, nyah, and counter nyah, nyah, nyah". I'm not a huge fan of Hillary, but on her worst day she is light years ahead of W. At least she can talk in complete, grammatically correct sentences, and doesn't have the rest of the first world nations wondering <deleted> is wrong with American voters. Oh, and she apparently can't see Russia from her front porch, and doesn't think it's cute that her kids use the dog as a step stool to reach the sink. And can state which newspapers she reads.

Posts don't get much sillier than yours.

Your off the wall comparison of Hillary to Sarah is ridiculous in the extreme.

In the first place, Palin never said she could see Russia from her front porch. She said Russia could be seen from parts of Alaska...which is true.

As somebody that owns five golden retrievers and has a six year old nephew that rides them around the yard, what her son did is childish behavior and any criticism of it is just as childlike.

Thirdly, I don't really care what newspapers Palin reads but the main stream media and progressive liberals can't seem to get enough of her, even though she will very likely not be the Republican nominee for any national office.

My point in referencing those three links is NOBODY can tell us what Hillary's accomplishments were during her tenure as Secretary of State. Not Hillary, the Democratic National Committee or the State Department can come up with an answer to that little poser.

You want an intelligent conversation?

Then you try answering the question...What were Hillary Clinton's accomplishments as Secretary of State?

Even more broadly based, try and tell us what she has accomplished on her own during her long career, other than marrying William Jefferson Clinton.

But then..."At this point, what difference does it make"?

I realize that you couldn't give a rat's hind quarters what newspapers Palin reads, but apparently intelligent voters do, and since she recently appeared at the Iowa summit, and then, on Hannity, insinuated that she might run again, I think a lot of people would, in fact, be interested in what sources influence her thinking. That estimation would be backed up by the fact that that one interview did more to damage her reputation among centrist voters than any other single misstep, among myriad, that she made. People who care about their vote have this silly feeling that they'd like their President, or Vice-President, to be well informed, and that their information come from legitimate sources. The fact that she could not muster one single reference at least seemed to indicate that she doesn't read, at least not publications dealing with national or foreign affairs. That would be problematical.

I am well aware that Palin never uttered the catch phrase about Russia. I was using sarcasm to illustrate a point.

As far as Hillary's accomplishments.....

http://theweek.com/articles/468265/hillary-clintons-9-most-memorable-moments-secretary-state

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/leslie-marshall/2014/02/19/hillary-clintons-accomplishments-speak-for-themselves

You asked, so there's an answer to "that little poser". You may not agree, but you stated, categorically, that "NOBODY can tell us what Hillary's accomplishments were." Well, you only asked for an answer. I've given you two.

Thank you for the response. Now let me address that response.

First, concerning Sarah Palin. If you honestly believe she has a snowball's chance in hell of ever becoming a nationally elected figure, you are well behind the power curve. The main stream media is convinced she is a joke, Hollywood considers she is a joke and nearly every liberal TV news outlets consider her a joke. If you think for a second she can overcome all the negative publicity a campaign from her would garner to be elected, or even nominated in the first place, your knowledge of national politics needs a refresher course.

I think Palin is a sincere, honest person that isn't the right fit for the present day national scene. She is an asset in other areas but not on a national ticket. If you wish to be enamored with her failings and not focus on any real contenders in the Republican party...be my guest.

Now, on to Hillary's top 9 "accomplishments". Guess the author couldn't find 10 so had to stop at 9. By the way, the article is titled as her 9 "most memorable moments" rather than her 9 "accomplishments".

Let's look at them:

1. The liberation of Libya

Yep. Libya is liberated from Ghadaffi all right. It only took the death of four Americans in Benghazi to turn this memorable moment into a disaster. We won't even talk about the current state of affairs in Libya. What this proved is neither one of them were capable of answering that 3 AM phone call.

2. The opening-up of Myanmar

The Generals in Myanmar wanted to open it or it would still be closed. What impact her diplomatic skills had on their decision is unknown and very likely minimal at best.

3. Playing peacemaker in the Middle East

How could I possibly have missed this one? the Middle East is a haven of peaceful protests with Israel and all those surrounding Muslim countries roasting marshmallows over the campfire and singing Kumbaya.

4. Freeing a Chinese dissident (Really a popular move in Boise, Idaho)

5. Killing Osama bin Laden (Standing shoulder to shoulder with Seal Team 6)

6. Tightening sanctions on Iran (Sanctions started in 1979. She tightened them so Obama could relax them.)

7. Isolating Syria's Assad (Yet another smashing success in the Middle East.)

8. Fighting for women's rights (Women are still not driving in Saudi and female genital mutilation is rising in the UK. Mission accomplished)

9. Becoming a pop icon. alt=cheesy.gif width=32 height=20>

I won't answer your second link other than to restate my question. What has she accomplished on her own during her long career, other than marrying William Jefferson Clinton.

Without the name recognition and her "stand by my man" she would have accomplished nothing on her own, in particular the New York Senate seat.

I don't think she can win an election if she gets the nomination. We will see.

Like I said, I didn't think you would agree, and to be perfectly honest, I don't find them all that impressive myself. But you had said, "...NOBODY...", and I just felt like that merited a response. No, I don't think Palin can now, or ever will, make a legitimate contender for the nomination, let alone the Presidency. I have no doubt that, in her heart of hearts, she is sincere in her beliefs, but sincerity alone does not a good politician make. And I would take issue with your contention that, "She is an asset in other areas...". Aside from being able to draw the Tea Party subscribers who are plagued by an inability to construct a grammatically correct protest sign, she is rapidly becoming a liability for the Republicans. Even Bill O'Reilly recently panned her, along with Trump, saying that their candidacies would make a good "reality show". But no, I don't think I'll ever have to lose any sleep over a Palin Presidency.

As to Hillary's chances...let's just say that I'm not impressed with her as a potential President, any more than I was with her tenure as Secretary of State. But, unless the Republicans can come up with someone with some real luster (and at this point the field is pretty poor), Hillary just might pull it off. Time will tell.

[Jay Sata]

I am not normally a fan of Charles Krauthammer on Fox but he gave a pretty good assessment of the potential GOP candidates the other day.

In short he appeared to dismiss most of them including Bush as a serious opponents of Clinton.

Personally I would like a new Democrat to challenge Hillary.

[Traveler19491]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

I am not normally a fan of Charles Krauthammer on Fox but he gave a pretty good assessment of the potential GOP candidates the other day.

In short he appeared to dismiss most of them including Bush as a serious opponents of Clinton.

Personally I would like a new Democrat to challenge Hillary.

Agreed. I would love to see Elizabeth Warren run, but she has apparently ruled herself out.

[Ulysses G.]

Even Bill O'Reilly recently panned her, along with Trump, saying that their candidacies would make a good "reality show".

I am no fan of either one of them and I doubt if O'Reilly is either, but they are both on reality shows already. I'm not sure that he was dissing them.