Bush's 8 years were marred by a war caused by a terrorist attack and a depression that was caused by the policies of both parties. While' date=' certainly not a great President, it's hard to compare him negatively to Obama. America is as divided as it as ever been save the late 1850s and early 1860s and the 1960s. Give Obama props, America did "change", but could you say with a straight face that it's been for the better?[/quote']

 

If you want free hand outs, bigger government to pace your life for you because you aren't strong enough to manage your own life and want to blame successful rich people for your failures in life it's been a great 8 years.

 

Just don't tell our liberal friends on here about Hillary's 26 million dollar income per year. She still has them all sold on the fact that she's going take care of them while collecting her fat Wall Street paychecks.

Known Clinton supporter/contributor George S 'interviewed' her?

 

Really? Georgie Boy? He is a cheerleader, not even close to a journalist. He is not and never was a Woodward or Bernstein.

Read the transcript. That's why I linked to it. The Q&A was far more probing than the "friendly Fox chat" between Pirro and Trump that I stumbled upon last night. What a complete waste of time that was.

Read the transcript. That's why I linked to it. The Q&A was far more probing than the "friendly Fox chat" between Pirro and Trump that I stumbled upon last night. What a complete waste of time that was.

 

I read the entire transcript. Exactly where was she pushed on any issue? Where were the tough questions?

 

Most of it was letting her slam away at Trump instead of explain herself.

You must practice in front of a mirror a lot.

 

Not sure what that means, but again - yes. I personally and we as a nation are better off now than we were during the previous administration, by any number of standards. For me, first and foremost, as I have often stated, thousands of us are not being killed and wounded overseas. My personal acid test.

Not sure what that means, but again - yes. I personally and we as a nation are better off now than we were during the previous administration, by any number of standards. For me, first and foremost, as I have often stated, thousands of us are not being killed and wounded overseas. My personal acid test.

 

It meant if you can say that with a straight face you must practice.

 

We we are not better off. More people on SNAP than ever before. More has been added to the national debt than ever in history. Obamacare is a sham and a train wreck.

 

If if all of that makes you think we are better off, I simply don't know what to say. I see people suffering daily thanks to this administration.

It meant if you can say that with a straight face you must practice.

We we are not better off. More people on SNAP than ever before. More has been added to the national debt than ever in history. Obamacare is a sham and a train wreck.

 

If if all of that makes you think we are better off, I simply don't know what to say. I see people suffering daily thanks to this administration.

 

Not at all.

As far as TV, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, PBS, sometimes CNN.

 

Yep what he said. ^^^^^^^

Is it over? I'm not sure that it has even started yet. I'm beginning to think that both Parties are going to have contested conventions and that neither Clinton or Trump will be on the ticket come November.:popcorn:

As far as TV, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, PBS, sometimes CNN.

 

Anyone you disagree with

 

Yes, I disagree with almost all of them. On TV, the only liberal station to me is MSNBC. I consider FOX to be right wing. All the others I consider mainstream, unbiased TV media stations.

 

If we expand beyond TV to radio, I see radio being right wing dominated. Is there one radio talk show that doesn't at least lean right? Most of them are blatantly right wing. I also think radio talk show impacts viewpoints more than TV.

 

Overall, I don't see the media as liberal. As to all this liberal media bashing, I liken it to watching the team you support in a basketball game. As you watch the game, it seems like the refs are calling against your team. Really, they aren't. And while you think they are calling against your team, the fans on the other side think they are calling against their team. You both actually want more of the calls to go your team's way and when they don't, you rant about bias. What is truly biased is your viewpoint. That is the way I see all this liberal media talk and woe is me attitudes from the right.

As far as TV, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, PBS, sometimes CNN.

 

Sometimes CNN??? PBS isn't too bad. 85% of press reporters, wasn't it?

 

Radio is all hard right.

So she knows the answers - but is not empowered - correct?

 

So if a cabinet head who reports directly to POTUS can not answer why her people were slaughtered does that leave only one person - POTUS?

 

But at least we seem to agree - General Ham was never given CBA. And Americans needlessly died because it never came.

 

Why were CiA personel on the ground painting targets with lasers for overhead laser guided munitions? That can only be done if the munitions operators (pilots or drone operators) are in communication with those on the ground. So it appear even without CBA, life saving orders were withheld. Untold are maimed and have been hidden from public view, 4 are dead - was it a planned attack, or a reaction to a video (a known lie from the beginning) - "what difference does it make". And that is in context.

 

She may know the answers. She may not.

 

One thing is for certain is HRC had no power to order CIA or Military forces to assist, which we recently learned from Trey Gowdy, head of the Congressional grill team, that it would not have made a difference if forces would have been sent.

 

After hours of testimony and Congressmen repeatedly asking the same question of whether it was a protest or a planned assault after it had been answered several times and actually answered in the question, I believe I would have made the same statement.

 

In no way was HRC trivializing the deaths of the diplomats like many on the right have tried to allude.

As far as TV, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, PBS, sometimes CNN.

 

Washington Post, USA Today, New York Times

 

The days of the objective press are long gone. They don't even pretend anymore. I wonder how those 20 reporters at The Washington Post are doing digging up dirt on Trump, while HRC Communist China Clinton Foundation donations are not covered.

Edited June 6, 201610 yr by Pioneer.Pride

She may know the answers. She may not.

 

One thing is for certain is HRC had no power to order CIA or Military forces to assist, which we recently learned from Trey Gowdy, head of the Congressional grill team, that it would not have made a difference if forces would have been sent.

 

After hours of testimony and Congressmen repeatedly asking the same question of whether it was a protest or a planned assault after it had been answered several times and actually answered in the question, I believe I would have made the same statement.

 

In no way was HRC trivializing the deaths of the diplomats like many on the right have tried to allude.

 

I guess you completely discount the testimony from people on the ground in Libya that testified it would have made a difference.

I guess you completely discount the testimony from people on the ground in Libya that testified it would have made a difference.

 

To clarify they would not have made it. Again I didn't say it. Trey Gowdy did.

 

It may be inevitable at this point. Who's to blame? The leadership in the Republican party has had 8 years to groom a candidate knowing who the challenger would be. With all that time they still failed to select someone that could ignite a fire in the dormant party, allowing it to founder at the hands of the tea party and now Trump. Get your act together (quickly) or your in for 8 years of HRC and then the baby Clinton behind her.