Back in 2008 I was much more of a 'progressive' than I am now. Although I did mark his name, I was not voting for Obama (who I knew nothing about) but rather voting against Clinton. Obama has been a loathsome disaster, but for all his faults he has not tried to do Iran. Yet. I did not trust the either McCain or Clinton would not have done the same. McCain because he is a blatant war-monger, and Clinton because she'll do anything the Zionist tell her to as far as I can tell. I wrote someone for 2012, but in retrospect I do wish that Romney had won for a variety of reasons. Here's another amusing vid about 'Ready for Hillary.' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYJ-yfnj-OEHer reaction about Gaddafi shows me more than anything that she is not a normal human being and not someone we want making decisions about our lives. Great video. |
|
|
|
Does she represent the progressive's wet dream? |
|
|
|
A question for bitcoiners into graphic design or with a taste for any form of art in general... It looks to me like the Republican machine smashing through the two iconic pillars of Democrats, Bill and Billary. Red = Republican Blue = Democrat Of course the only reason red and blue are that way is red was too strongly associated with communism and socialism for the democrats to stomach having as their own color.... If you picture the logo from a looking down viewpoint the H looks like a roadkill, flatten by a red arrow... When Steve jobs created his company NexT, he spent $$$$ for the design of his logo... I wonder how much Clinton spent... http://www.logodesignlove.com/next-logo-paul-rand |
|
|
|
It looks simple and flat which is the current trend at the moment, although it could be more creative and colorful IMO.
The colors are locked with the american flag's I presume... I would suggest different versions of the colors and maybe a different shape. If you change the colors and the shape then... It means they need a new logo (too late now of course). |
|
|
|
Looks like a moving company or airline to me. When my mind see's an arrow it thinks of transportation. I would not have picked this logo myself.
 |
|
|
|
I'm sure most men wouldn't mind being groped by hot women but most wouldn't want wood in front of other passengers. This line of work attracts the types that would take advantage of the situation much like child care work draws in those that want easier access to children. This is hardly an absolute by any means, however.
That would also be true for the TSA agent. Now I understand why they wear loose pants...  |
|
|
|
It looks simple and flat which is the current trend at the moment, although it could be more creative and colorful IMO.
The colors are locked with the american flag's I presume... |
|
|
|
And the law of our land prevails exactly how it what intended, as always.
The law of their land more precisely. I know I would not get away with that law... Not connected with enough evil people methinks |
|
|
|
A question for bitcoiners into graphic design or with a taste for any form of art in general... |
|
|
|
Hahahahaa....nice one. Really liked your reply buddy  Other buddies will still find my reply funny, even 2000 years from now... Thanks to the miracle of Subspace communication...  |
|
|
|
There have been accusations flying around that she's been buying up Twitter and Facebook followers as well, it's pretty sad how everyone is acting like she's already won, elections are getting as annoying as Christmas with how intrusive and aggressive people are about it all.
I am not a fan of clinton (Yeah! Shocking I know!). The most disturbing thing is the democrats are afraid of pushing any other candidates. O'Malley was publicly finger pointed by a clinton attack dog for even entertaining the idea of running... Deblasio is not yet endorsing and the attack dogs are already on his neck. The media are not even trying to hide this sad affair of a wannabe queen to be In Iowa, O'Malley says of Clinton: You're inevitable until you're nothttp://www.cnn.com/2015/04/11/politics/omalley-clinton-not-inevitable/It “won’t go unnoticed”: What the Clinton camp’s de Blasio dust-up says about the thinness of the Democratic fieldhttp://www.salon.com/2015/04/14/it_wont_go_unnoticed_what_the_clinton_camps_de_blasio_dust_up_says_about_the_thinness_of_the_democratic_field/ |
|
|
|
She has good chances of winning the coming elections. What do you say people?
She is almost certain to win the elections in 2016. The demography has changed radically. There is a steep growth in the number of Mexican voters, and a moderate growth in the number of the black voters. Both these sections will vote overwhelmingly for her. Yes even I have the same views as yours. The steep growth in Mexican voters will really make a difference but that is not the only factor which will be attributed to her winning, if she wins at all. Can't Mexican voters cast their ballot for her directly from Mexico? If not, why is this unfair? Press Can't Figure Out Why Hillary Clinton is Running for President |
|
|
|
Because Hillary Clinton is white and no longer young, a strain of political thought holds that she might lack Barack Obama’s inherent appeal to new and minority voters and thus that she won’t be able to ride the Democratic party’s demographic advantages to easy victory in 2016. political thought holds that she might lack Barack Obama’s inherent appeal to new and minority voters and thus that she won’t be able to ride the Democratic party’s demographic advantages to easy victory in 2016. Writing for the Washington Examiner, Philip Klein ably sketches the nightmare scenario for liberals. “If Hillary’s performance among black voters retreats to more typical Democratic levels,” he writes, “it will hinder her efforts in swing states such as Ohio and Florida, where Democrats need to rack up huge margins in urban areas to make up for their weaknesses in other parts of the states. … It’s questionable that young voters will flock to vote at historically high levels for a 69-year-old white woman who has been a national political figure since before many of them were born.” The nightmare for conservatives is a complementary scenario in which Clinton holds the Obama coalition together without issue and simultaneously increases Democratic margins among women and whites. In that world, she defeats her opponent by greater margins than Obama defeated John McCain and Mitt Romney. But there’s no reason to assume that outcome is any more likely than the one Klein alluded to. And there’s also no reason Democrats should tinker with a winning formula. If Clinton can turn out Obama’s voters, she will win. The challenge, then, is to make sure Clinton’s age and ethnicity don’t discourage Obama’s youthful, diverse supporters from turning out in November 2016. Fortunately, there’s an easy way to make sure that doesn’t happen. Clinton simply has to select Barack Obama as her running mate. LOL, you might be thinking. Obama can’t be the vice president. That would place him at the top of the line of succession, and the Constitution limits him to two terms. Clinton would end up in court before she ended up in the White House if she pulled something like that. I’ll grant that if Democrats nominate Barack Obama to be their vice presidential candidate next year, it would be somewhat controversial. But here Democrats can borrow tactically from the literal-minded conservatives who have seized on syntactic oddities to unravel Obama’s domestic agenda. As a purely textual matter, the Constitution merely prohibits Obama from being elected to a third term. It doesn’t necessarily prohibit him from actually being president again, should Hillary Clinton no longer be able to serve. And were he on the ticket, Clinton’s potential liabilities with Obama loyalists would disappear. As hot takes go, this one is significantly more piping than, say, the idea that Al Gore should challenge Hillary for the nomination. My guru for this argument is Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf, though others have examined the issue, as well. There are three sections of the Constitution that prescribe limits on who can be president and vice president: Article II, the Twelfth Amendment and the Twenty-Second Amendment. While the former two limit who is “eligible” to serve—natural born citizens, 35 or older—the Twenty-Second Amendment begins “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.” http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121533/hillary-clinton-barack-obama-vice-president |
|
|
|
Darrell Issa asked Hillary Clinton about her personal email use in 2012A House committee sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton more than two years ago asking if she used a personal email account for official business, but never received a direct answer to the question. The correspondence — first reported Tuesday night by The New York Times — shows Rep. Darrell Issa asked Clinton about her personal email use on Dec. 13, 2012, writing in his capacity as chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. “Have you or any senior agency official ever used a personal email account to conduct official business?” Issa wrote Clinton. “If so, please identify the account used.” The letter also asked another question that turns out to be a pointed one in light of Clinton’s acknowledgement last month that she left office with tens of thousands of work-related emails in a personal account and did not provide copies to her former agency until last year, after an official there asked four former secretaries to turn over any such records. “Does the agency require employees to certify on a periodic basis or at the end of their employment with the agency they have turned over any communications involving official business that they have sent or received using nonofficial accounts?” Issa asked in one of a series of eight questions sent to agency chiefs and obtained by POLITICO. At the end of January 2013, about six weeks after the letter was sent, Clinton stepped down as secretary. The letter was answered in March of that year by State Department legislative affairs official Thomas Gibbons, who didn’t say whether Clinton had used personal email as secretary. Gibbons said any State employee “should make it clear that his or her personal email is not being used for official business.” Issa’s letter to Clinton, who formally announced her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination on Sunday, was one of a round of more than a dozen such inquiries he sent to agency chiefs across the government after it was disclosed that officials at the Environmental Protection Agency and elsewhere had conducted official business on private email accounts and government email accounts created under fake names. Former Issa aide Kurt Bardella said State’s response fuels questions about Clinton’s handling of her email as secretary. “Why did the State Department wait until after Secretary Clinton left office to respond to the Issa letter? Were Secretary Clinton’s efforts to deliberately conceal her official activities through use of her private email prompted by then-Chairman Issa’s request?” Bardella asked. “As is status quo with the Clintons, there are far more questions than answers and it’s likely that these revelations of her secrecy are just the tip of the iceberg.” A State Department spokesman defended the agency’s response. “The Department responds to thousands of Congressional inquiries and requests for information each year,” spokesman Alec Gerlach said in a statement. “In its March 2013 letter, the Department responded to the House Oversight Committee’s inquiry into the Department’s ‘policies and practices regarding the use of personal e-mail and other forms of electronic communications’ with a letter that described those policies in detail. We continue to work closely with Congress on various issues on the Department’s policies and procedures.” The emails Clinton turned over to the State Department in paper form in December totaled about 55,000 pages. She said at her news conference last month that she deleted another set of emails, which aides said was of comparable size, after her lawyers concluded they were not work-related. State Department officials have pledged to publicly release a redacted version of the emails Clinton turned over. That process is expected to take several months, but officials have declined to commit to a specific date. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/darrell-issa-hillary-clinton-personal-email-use-2012-116992.htmlhttp://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/15/us/politics/hillary-clintonwas-asked-about-email-2-years-ago.html?referrer=&_r=1
|
|
|
|
|
Will clinton be the only and exclusive de facto candidate for the democrats? It seems the press is already sold to the idea... Risky, as her health may not be top notch.
|
|
|
|
According to a Defense Department approved “sexism course,” the Bible, the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence all contribute to modern sexism. Those three cherished texts all count as “historical influences that allow sexism to continue,” according to a presentation prepared by the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute, whose mission is to give a ”world-class human relations education.” According to the course, the Bible has “quotes” which can be interpreted as sexist by readers. The Declaration of Independence is also an historical cause of sexism, as the document refers only to ”all men” — not “men and women.” And the Constitution, the Pentagon argues, is an historical source of sexism because “slaves and women were not included until later in history.” Of course, members of the Armed Forces take an oath to defend the Constitution — which is, according to the DEOMI course, an “historical influence that allows sexism to continue.” “The content of the lesson is provided to generate academic discussion concerning how these historical documents have been included in discussions about the topic of sexism,” Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen, a Defense Department spokesman, told The Daily Caller. But following TheDC’s request for comment, the sexism course — as well as two other courses listed on DEOMI’s website, entitled “Prejudice & Discrimination” and “Racism” — were taken offline. “This course is currently offline and under revision,” a notice says under all three courses. Asked about the sudden update, Christensen replied, “DEOMI online materials are periodically pulled to review to ensure accuracy and relevance. The racism, sexism and Prejudice & Discrimination are currently undergoing that review process.” TheDC obtained copies of all three courses prior to their removal. http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/13/defense-department-the-bible-constitution-and-declaration-of-independence-all-perpetuate-sexism/----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Defense Department: The Bible, The Quran, The Constitution And Declaration Of Independence All Perpetuate Sexism When Jefferson said "all men are created equal", he wasn't including black slaves and women. He was still a brilliant, radical 'libertarian' compared to other wealthy people of his day. ... And even a visionary with "once you go black, can't go back..."? |
|
|
|
EARNEST: “Let’s go straight to your questions. Julie, do you want to start?” Pace: “Thanks, Josh. I wanted to start with Iran compromise on the Hill. Has the White House seen the language and would the president still veto this compromise [indecipherable]?” EARNEST: “Well, Julie, there is the mark up that is scheduled for later today in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. So in the context of this briefing, I will not be in a position to be ultimately definitive about whether or not we will be able to support the product that emerges. But there is some greater clarity I can offer you in terms of our position. The first is, we’ve had what I think I can describe as four specific concerns with the way the Corker legislation was introduced. The one that I’ve talked the most frequently about in public is the requirement for the administration to certify that Iran has not backed terrorism against Americans. And this idea that we could essentially get Iran to renounce terrorism is unrealistic.http://nomorecocktails.com/post/2015/04/14/Earnest-Unrealisitic-To-Think-We-Can-Get-Iran-To-Renounce-Terrorism.aspx |
|
|
|
Not all were Christians. Some were atheists, but I am not an historian. You'll need to dig that yourself to know if I am right or wrong. What matters is what this president and his administration believe, not to be afraid to be ridiculed saying it... Yes, atheists, deists, but I'm sure they were raised in some Christian denomination or had close contact with Christians, not Muslims. Obama is doing what politicians do, in these case talking to a Muslim crowd trying to find something in common with them. That 'muslim crowd' is definitely not the young iranians who got killed trying to fight off their oppressors... He made a deal with them. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
