During the NH debate...

Discussion in 'Second Amendment and Legal' started by VThillman, Feb 5, 2016.

  1. VThillman

    VThillman Active Member

    This is a quote from an article about the debate staged in New Hampshire:

    "Clinton pledged repeatedly to fight for every vote in New Hampshire. But, if you read between the lines of some of her statements, it was clear that she understands that the Granite State primary is probably already over. Her first big attack on Sanders was on his alleged lack of commitment to gun control including votes against the Brady Bill. That attack won't play well in New Hampshire, a Second Amendment-friendly state, and Clinton knows it. But, she also knows that among Democrats nationally, being the candidate regarded as more liberal on gun control is a good place to be."

    [bolded text by me]

    I see this construction a lot, but it is still nonsense. These people don't understand the meaning of the word liberal.
  2. phideaux

    phideaux Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporter

    She aint stupid, the Clintons been doing this for politic stuff for over 30 years,

    They are shooting to win the war ,not these piddly battles, IMO:)

    They are still playing like a puppy, wait till they bring out the dogs.;)

    (bold for....I dunno why..):rolleyes:

    Last edited: Feb 6, 2016

  3. buster40c

    buster40c Well-Known Member

    Isn't it just amazing how the voting corruption has reared its ugly head already? Next I will be told there hasn't been any voting corruption.....this is the good old USA where corruption just doesn't happen. Hillary will be just like Obama getting 125% of votes in many voting precincts. OOPS that didn't really happen and that black lady didn't really say she voted three times for Obama either. Kind of reminds me of how they lambasted Saddam for his getting 100% of the vote. Yet when his country was invaded not a single citizen lifted a gun against the invading troops. Where were all those 100% supporters? When the chips were down it seemed 100% voted against him.
    What's funny is how each candidate tells us why the other is evil and shouldn't be trusted with running our country. So in other words we are being told we can vote for evil #1 or evil #2.
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2016
  4. Ernesto

    Ernesto In the army now..

    The thing I liked was when Bernie called her out by taking $600,000 plus for some crummy speech at Goldman Sachs. Talk about a pay off.
    She's in with the scum bankers just like all the Republicants is.
  5. buster40c

    buster40c Well-Known Member

    I read today that Goldman Sachs is also funding Rubio. I guess they want to cover both ends?
    I also read that Jeb could have a 4th quarter hail Mary and be the nominee. Perhaps that's why he isn't dropping out of the race with his 1% placement? I just really doubt the country is ready for another Bush and this Bush just doesn't have any charisma like his pappy and brother had.
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2016
  6. uscg721

    uscg721 New Member

    During my time of handling classified information I have witness a civilian contractor fired for moving TS/SCI material from one room to his desk which was located in another room designated as Secret and others lose rank for lesser infractions.

    Hillary disregards all protocols and procedures sending SAP level info around the world and she gets to run for the Presidency!

    The only hope is the American people will vote against such gross corruption by not voting for her.

    I can assure Hillary is not the lesser of the evils!