Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Let's go ahead and get this discussion rolling. Does she just pick up where Obama left off? What will Hilldog do to try and leave her mark on things?

Pwns wrote:Let's go ahead and get this discussion rolling. Does she just pick up where Obama left off? What will Hilldog do to try and leave her mark on things?

What every dog does? Piss on the couch....

Mostly lies and incompetence.

It will just be horrible (according to the disenfranchised), maybe as horrible (according to the disenfranchised, and neglected) as the last Clinton administration (according to the disenfranchised, neglected, and butt-hurt fans of impeachment).

Other than that, there will be mostly whining, moaning, pissing, pining, complaining, ragging, bitching, blaming, investigating, crying, peeing, poo pooing, verping, and nocturnal dripping by all the worshipers of the late, great Reagan administration, which largely never happened.

So, normal around here for any Dem administration.

Next..

CAA Flagship wrote:Mostly lies and incompetence.

What's funny is she's probably the most competent candidate we've had in our lifetimes. Try and figure THAT out.

Lots of war, death, and destruction.

Wedgebuster wrote:It will just be horrible (according to the disenfranchised), maybe as horrible (according to the disenfranchised, and neglected) as the last Clinton administration (according to the disenfranchised, neglected, and butt-hurt fans of impeachment).

Other than that, there will be mostly whining, moaning, pissing, pining, complaining, ragging, bitching, blaming, investigating, crying, peeing, poo pooing, verping, and nocturnal dripping by all the worshipers of the late, great Reagan administration, which largely never happened.

So, normal around here for any Dem administration.

Next..

The question was "FROM a Hilldog administration", not from us.

kalm wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote:Mostly lies and incompetence.

What's funny is she's probably the most competent candidate we've had in our lifetimes. Try and figure THAT out.

Based on what? Being in the White House during the dot.com era?
More competent than a successful Governor?
Puhleeze

CAA Flagship wrote:

kalm wrote:
What's funny is she's probably the most competent candidate we've had in our lifetimes. Try and figure THAT out.

Based on what? Being in the White House during the dot.com era?
More competent than a successful Governor?
Puhleeze

You know I can't stand her either but she's clearly more competent within the current system of government than anyone else. I can admit that. I just happen to not care for the current system.

Now, tell me how you were a Christie supporter and how he was going to really be different...Change, Hope...and all that...

kalm wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote:Mostly lies and incompetence.

What's funny is she's probably the most competent candidate we've had in our lifetimes. Try and figure THAT out.

Why? Because she happened to live in that house for 8 years?

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
What's funny is she's probably the most competent candidate we've had in our lifetimes. Try and figure THAT out.

Why? Because she happened to live in that house for 8 years?

That's an advantage...and also running for senator, being a senator, being a Sec Def thingy. Like it or not she has qualifications....far more so than any other candidate.

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
What's funny is she's probably the most competent candidate we've had in our lifetimes. Try and figure THAT out.

Why? Because she happened to live in that house for 8 years?

Well I'm sure she'll know the best way to sneak in her side piece...

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote: Why? Because she happened to live in that house for 8 years?

That's an advantage...and also running for senator, being a senator, being a Sec Def thingy. Like it or not she has qualifications....far more so than any other candidate.

It is weird how all of a sudden Trump's "executive experience" doesn't mean anything to the conk establishment.

Lies, a facelift, cankle-mania, and a lifetime supply of feminine hygiene spray.

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote: Why? Because she happened to live in that house for 8 years?

That's an advantage...and also running for senator, being a senator, being a Sec Def thingy. Like it or not she has qualifications....far more so than any other candidate.

Kasich. And she wasn't Sec Def, moron.

Grizalltheway wrote:

kalm wrote:
That's an advantage...and also running for senator, being a senator, being a Sec Def thingy. Like it or not she has qualifications....far more so than any other candidate.

It is weird how all of a sudden Trump's "executive experience" doesn't mean anything to the conk establishment.

Yes! Hillary made an innocent mistake and is paying the price for it, or she's a conniving bitch and total mastermind! It's a conundrum indeed!

[youtube]http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/ ... mind/n9509
[/youtube]

I love all the guys on this forum to whom "NEOCON" was THE DEVIL just 10 years ago

I guess it's OK as long as its a Dem modeling it

CID1990 wrote:I love all the guys on this forum to whom "NEOCON" was THE DEVIL just 10 years ago

I guess it's OK as long as its a Dem modeling it

Who's arguing with you?

kalm wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote: Based on what? Being in the White House during the dot.com era?
More competent than a successful Governor?
Puhleeze

You know I can't stand her either but she's clearly more competent within the current system of government than anyone else. I can admit that. I just happen to not care for the current system.

Now, tell me how you were a Christie supporter and how he was going to really be different...Change, Hope...and all that...

"Probably the Most Competent Candidate". That's what you called Clinton.
What is the support for this belief? She has no significant governing experience.

If I was responsible for hiring a CEO of a large company, I would be interested in looking at people that were either #2's or #3's in large companies, or CEO's at smaller companies. We, as voters, have the responsibility of choosing the CEO of the biggest company on earth. Why would I choose a department manager (who did not perform all that well) over someone with quality CEO experience?

CAA Flagship wrote:

kalm wrote:
You know I can't stand her either but she's clearly more competent within the current system of government than anyone else. I can admit that. I just happen to not care for the current system.

Now, tell me how you were a Christie supporter and how he was going to really be different...Change, Hope...and all that...

"Probably the Most Competent Candidate". That's what you called Clinton.
What is the support for this belief? She has no significant governing experience.

If I was responsible for hiring a CEO of a large company, I would be interested in looking at people that were either #2's or #3's in large companies, or CEO's at smaller companies. We, as voters, have the responsibility of choosing the CEO of the biggest company on earth. Why would I choose a department manager (who did not perform all that well) over someone with quality CEO experience?

I didn't say I thought she'd make a GOOD President. The system is complex, corrupt, and status quo oriented. She has greater experience and knowledge than any other candidate for navigating it. You liked Christie. EC(b) and the letter behind the name are important for you. If Hillary had an R you'd be voting for her.

Obama 2.0 is upon us. If you were a fan of hope and change the first time around, you'll love the next 8 years.

It's interesting how many miles apart they were when they competed in '08, but now she's using the BHO playbook and using his every talking point. I would have guessed she would try to distance herself from this administration, but the lefties (and BHO) still think he's the bee's knees. In his own words:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=breU1CnARiQ[/youtube]

kalm wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote: "Probably the Most Competent Candidate". That's what you called Clinton.
What is the support for this belief? She has no significant governing experience.

If I was responsible for hiring a CEO of a large company, I would be interested in looking at people that were either #2's or #3's in large companies, or CEO's at smaller companies. We, as voters, have the responsibility of choosing the CEO of the biggest company on earth. Why would I choose a department manager (who did not perform all that well) over someone with quality CEO experience?

I didn't say I thought she'd make a GOOD President. The system is complex, corrupt, and status quo oriented. She has greater experience and knowledge than any other candidate for navigating it. You liked Christie. EC(b) and the letter behind the name are important for you. If Hillary had an R you'd be voting for her.

I see your spin and am all over it. I stepped in and took the charge.
You said she is the "most competent candidate". I pointed to the qualifications and record and asked you why you would think that. Whether any candidate would make a "GOOD President" is dependent on a lot of things, and not part of your original statement.
And no, I wouldn't vote for Hillary if she had an R. Not in a primary, that's for sure. I have a lot of problems with people that are assholes and lie. I have far less of a problem, in comparison, with people that I disagree with that aren't assholes and liars.
As Christie said many times, if you're looking for someone that agrees with you completely, look in the mirror. I liked Christie because I know him more than any other candidate. There are things he did as NJ Gov that I would like to question him on, but they are fringe things like choosing the company to do the post-Sandy commercials and taking a helicopter to his son's baseball games. But knowing how difficult it is to be a Red Gov in a deeply Blue state with a Blue legislature, I respect his ability to make tough decisions that are necessary, even if it negatively affects certain people. He has demonstrated the ability to reach across the aisle which is a necessary trait for POTUS. But I have no problem falling back to the other Govs that were running.

So I'm still waiting to hear why you think she is the "most competent".

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote: Why? Because she happened to live in that house for 8 years?

That's an advantage...and also running for senator, being a senator, being a Sec Def thingy. Like it or not she has qualifications....far more so than any other candidate.

A "Sec Def thingy"? You do know she was at State not Defense. Right?

Qualifications aside, she has no character and zero credibility.

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:I love all the guys on this forum to whom "NEOCON" was THE DEVIL just 10 years ago

I guess it's OK as long as its a Dem modeling it

Who's arguing with you?

When did I say anyone is arguing?


I do detect some passive defensiveness about her.... disguised as "well, she's more qualified than the rest what with her time as the secretary of defense thingy"

"We came, we saw, he died" - pure NeoCon porn - that should erase any of those so called qualifications as much as anything else

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Who's arguing with you?

When did I say anyone is arguing?


I do detect some passive defensiveness about her.... disguised as "well, she's more qualified than the rest what with her time as the secretary of defense thingy"

"We came, we saw, he died" - pure NeoCon porn - that should erase any of those so called qualifications as much as anything else

She's a competent bureaucrat, in fact probably a fantastic one, in a corrupt system. Fun watching you guys struggle with that.

"Did he call her competent"?