The Democratic Party’s Brain Damage

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


HillaryIn 2008, Democrats insisted that Senator John McCain was too old to be president. At a rally introducing Hillary Clinton, Congressman John Murtha criticized him for even running. “It’s no old man’s job,” he said.

Obama and Kerry used language suggesting that McCain was senile. Left-wing activists claimed that he could die of skin cancer at any moment. Late night comedians turned McCain’s age into a target.

McClatchy headlined a story, “Some wonder if McCain’s too old and wrinkly to be president.”

There are no stories in which reporters ask passerby if Hillary is too old and wrinkly to take 3 AM phone calls.

In Newsweek, Anna Quindlen, a fanatical Hillary supporter, wrote that, “The senator’s pursuit of the presidency reminds me a bit of those women who decide to have a baby in their late 50s.” If she has any objection to Hillary’s pursuit of the presidency while pushing 70, she hasn’t written about it.

By October, spurred by repeated media attacks on his age, 34 percent of Americans said that McCain was too old to be president. The sharp spike in the poll numbers over one month showed how effective the Democratic age smear was.

Had McCain been elected, he would have taken office at 72. If Hillary Clinton wins, she’ll be 69. And age is suddenly no longer an issue. Neither is health.

Quindlen emphasized that McCain couldn’t lift his arms over his head. No one is going to ask how flexible Hillary Clinton is in body (the political flexibility of the woman who opposed and supported nearly everything at one time or another is already renowned).

The problem as it turned out was not that McCain was old. It was that he was a Republican.

Slate ran an article claiming that McCain’s brain would go bad over the next eight years, but discussing the state of Hillary’s brain is out of bounds. Late night comedians won’t be making jokes about how old Hillary is or how confused she gets in the morning.

Those jokes could only be made about a man who was three years older than she is now.

It’s outrageous to question the medical consequences of Hillary’s “traumatic brain injury” which took her six months to recover from after passing out and falling down while boarding a plane. But ridiculing Bob Dole’s dead arm, an injury he suffered while dragging one of his men into a foxhole out of enemy fire during WW2, or McCain’s inability to lift his arms or perform certain tasks after they were broken by his torturers, was part of the political game.

We can question the health of war veterans, but not of a career politician.

There will be no stories about how wrinkled Hillary’s skin is. No one will ask her if she can tie her shoes or use Twitter without an assistant. Or whether she forgets things sometimes.

But if a Republican in his late sixties or early seventies becomes a candidate, then the switch will flip and suddenly asking those questions will become fair game.

Again.

The issue isn’t Hillary’s brain. It’s that Democrats don’t consider themselves accountable in the same way that they expect Republicans to be. It’s that they consider attacks on Republicans fair game that they are too thin-skinned to accept.

If McCain was too old and his brain too infirm to serve in the White House, the same people making that argument should have to explain why those same questions can’t even be asked about Hillary. Does three years make a world of difference? Has medical science been so dramatically revolutionized over the last eight years that they no longer matter?

If Hillary isn’t too old and if her health is off limits, then Democrats should admit that they engaged in cynical ageist attacks to win the White House. But that too would be accountability.

And we have a crisis of accountability.

The Democrat in the White House and his associates refuse to accept responsibility for anything. Any call for accountability results in an explosion of outrage as if the very act of holding the ruling party accountable is a crime.

The huffing and puffing over the suggestion that a woman who took six months to recover from a serious health episode may have health problems that will affect her performance is typical of the way that the Democratic Party behaves.

And of the way that its media auxiliaries echo its agenda.

When Murtha accused McCain of being too old, the media took the attack seriously. When Karl Rove mentioned Hillary’s health problem, the majority of the stories focused on it as a cynical attack. This partisan coverage gap is not an anomaly. It’s the new normal.

The problem isn’t Hillary’s brain damage. It’s the Democratic Party’s brain damage.

The Democratic Party, which has been around since the early 19th century, is just too old. The parts of its brain that relate to accountability and integrity have been burned out. The political party suffered a traumatic brain episode in the sixties and hasn’t recovered from it since. The left side of its political brain is dominant while the right side has completely withered away.

The Democrats keep insisting that they’re moving forward, when they’re actually wandering off to the left. They insist that they’re centrist when they’ve completely drifted off the road.

It doesn’t matter how young or old its candidates are as long as they base their worldview around discredited 19th century ideas about economics and equally discredited 20th century ideas about the virtues of central planning. A youthful body with a decayed brain rotting with ideas that were old when Nixon and LBJ were toddlers isn’t progressive.

It’s hopelessly reactionary.

Obama may have been in his late forties when elected, but his ideas were around one hundred and forty years old. No matter what age Hillary is, her ideas are equally old. It’s not the state of her brain that’s the problem; it’s the things that she’s been putting in there since a young age.

If Hillary and her Democratic Party really want to demonstrate their mental fitness, they can start by naming one single new economic idea that they’ve brought to the table in the last seventy years. And if they can’t, Americans will ask themselves whether they can afford another eight years of 19th century economics from a party whose last new idea is even older than Hillary.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • James Foard

    I don’t know where in the name of heaven you dug up that picture of Hillary, but I love it. Don’t tell me it’s her College Yearbook photo.

  • Judahlevi

    It is the mind that matters, not the body. The essence of our character and who we are as an individual is in our minds, not our bodies.

    This is why multiculturalism’s emphasis on your body (appearance) is ridiculous and wrong. True diversity of any group of individuals comes from diversity of thought, not body colors or genders.

    As Greenfield states, the primary reason Hillary won’t make a good president is not because of her physical health or her gender, it is her mind.

    • Dyer’s Eve

      Well said! Thank you.

    • Atikva

      Not only her mind, her character. Although if I must entrust my life to a leader, I’d rather have one whose state of health doesn’t impair his/her mental ability. Look what happened at Yalta !

  • truebearing

    The Democratic Party reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where George Costanza couldn’t accept a clown that wasn’t named “Bozo.” He kept harassing Eric, the clown, because he didn’t know who Bozo was. Finally, Eric vented his exasperation with this classic line: “You’re livin’ in the past, man! You’re hung up on some clown from the sixties, man!”

    If only the Democrats were cathected on the sixties (actually, they’re stuck there too). They are still hung up on a clown from the 1800s.

    Hillary is old, as attractive as a mud fence, and has a distinctly viperish personality, but if anyone criticizes her, the caterwhauling over sexism will commence. Since the criticism of someone as unlikable as Hillary is inevitable, let’s take a page out the Clinton strategybook and go after her early and relentlessly, which will innoculate the Right near the end of the campaign when the Left will pull out all of the stops to make her a sympathetic victim and Republicans anti-woman.

    The fact is, Hillary may have suffered some brain damage. Severe concussions can cause a lot of problems. I have a brother who was never the same after a severe concussion from a car accident. Given the behavior of the rest of the Democratic Party, they may well have spent their youth running head first into brick walls, or renting their skulls out as pinatas. Biden must have volunteered his head as an anvil.

    We need someone with the wit of Reagan. He stuffed the “old” jokes right down the Left’s throat in the debates. Maybe a deft wit can pillory Hillary in a way that the Left can’t attack.

    • The March Hare

      The Democrats method of going after any viable Republican candidate has always caused significant damage to all Republicans prior to their gaining the nomination and caused the candidate eventually nominated to go into the election process with considerable baggage tied onto them by the left, much of it imagined. To go after her early and relentlessly is an excellent idea and has a proven track record thanks to their actions. The down side of it is, if not done right, our elections could end up turning out to be such a mud slinging fest that nobody wants to hear any of it and takes the “A pox on both your houses” attitude.

      • truebearing

        The attacks on Hillary need to stay in the factual realm, at least the official ones. There is no hope of preventing the blogosphere from erupting into an ad hominem festival. She is just too polarizing and deservedly despised. It’s virtually impossible to say anything nice about an evil person anyway.

        The way to beat the Left on this is to constantly translate the actions of Hillary to consequences for the average American. Personalize her evil.Make people feel her threat personally. Just calling her evil, accurate though it may be, is not going to work. The average American voter is too obtuse. It needs to be spelled out.

        I nominate Daniel to head up this “translation” effort. He cuts through the lies and delineates the facts of any given situation better than anyone I’ve ever seen. if the Republican leadership had half of a brain, note I said “if,” they would employ his analyses in their ads and pay him to think for them.

        • hiernonymous

          I can think of no more appropriate use of his talents. That was a stroke of genius. Tis a consummation most devoutly to be wished.

      • JDinSTL

        It’s not the Democrats that do it pre-nomination.

        It’s Karl Rove and Mitch’s DC Establishment Republicans

        • The March Hare

          It’s both, but Rove and McConnell are another issue. The vast majority of the smears have always been the Democrats and the Rove machine is a johnnie-come-lately bunch. Rove was brought into the system with Bush II and it was an old story from the Democrats even then. What Rove does is spare the Democrats the trouble.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      We do. We need a capable communicator who is used to media appearances and is light on his feet.

      • truebearing

        You mean like Ted Cruz?

        • bigjulie

          You bet!!!

          • Lea

            You should be impeaching Obama for aiding and abetting the muslims. Yet you have not. Now you dreaming about a new president who you want to believe is going to do a better job. You have no idea that your government has already been overthrown and is now possessed by the Muslims, Marxists and Masons.

          • stellap

            Masons? George Washington was a Mason. So were Benjamin Franklin (Grand Master of Pennsylvania, 1734) and John Hancock.

          • jviscont1

            the 3M’s. I like that. reminds me of the joke of a Muslim, Marxist and a Mason in a bar. And the Muslim says wtf we doing here…. we have a country to run

          • stringman

            I can understand the threat from Marxists and Muslims that have penetrated the federal government en masse but, what do we have to fear from the makers of perfectly good glass canning jars?

          • Davros11

            ha..ha.. awesome, but I think he means that dastardly group..

          • Lea

            Luciferian Freemasons make good glass canning jars?

          • stringman

            OMG you’ve never heard of Mason Jars? And you’ve never been inside a Masonic Lodge? There’s no Satan worship going on there. OK OK Well…you could look them up on THE INTERNET. You have heard of that……haven’t you?
            But seriously…..what planet have you been living on? Are there a lot of people there that are equally as uninformed?

          • Davros11

            Excellent point, liberals/progressives/democrats/republicans/conservatives are all the same, we should force them out and only allow set-terms 2-4 years max, then out of politics back to private industry to support yourself. and take away all the retirement money, screw you if you were in politics and government, if you did not save then just die!

          • Lea

            The USA is throwing money around everywhere, giving it to other countires, in particular muslim countries, when poverty is horrendous in America. This is a great sin.

          • Conniption Fitz

            In reality, it’s Muslims, Marxists and Moguls (media, manufacturing and money-men*)

            (*sticking with the 3M theme)

          • Lea

            Perfect application, the axis of evil, MMM. Good to find someone who is in sync on this one.

    • Habbgun

      If the Republicans really wanted to they could destroy what we call the MSM. If they actively and conspicuously mentioned news sites other than the networks and cable jokes like CNN. If they talked about a need for a rejuvenated press and not a left wing hack press. If they held the press in a well deserved contempt they could let the voters know to look elsewhere and push the Left into either acknowledging and screaming about how bad the alternative is (guaranteeing that people will run to see the “forbidden” ) or keep quiet and hope they keep their monopoly. Either way play offense and not defense.

      The politicians won’t because they don’t want to create a press that might start monitoring back room deals. The current press doesn’t and both parties like that. The established pol like to play ball with the media so they can destroy their opponents in the primaries by using the establishment media.

      • truebearing

        The Republicans keep trying the “rope-a-dope” strategy — lay on the ropes while the combined forces of the leftist media pummel them with an endless flurry of punches. The Republican candidate is lucky to land a punch, but if he does, the corrupt media immediately rules it a “low blow.”

        Another area where Republicans fail is with their alternative tactics. They still think robo-calls are cutting edge. They aren’t. They’re irritating and disruptive.

        The good news is that the majority of voters now hold the media in utter contempt. A smart candidate, with smart advisors, which necessarily eliminates the Steve Schmidts of the world, can use the distrust of the media against the media and the Left. If history is predictive, the more the media is effectively attacked, the more they will blunder into retaliation and prove the attacks are warranted. Sarah Palin was quite adept at making fools of them, and she had to do it all by herself. That strategy needs to be started immediately, however, before we pick the actual nominee.

        • jviscont1

          a platform some what palatable to a growing Hispanic electorate would help the GOP too. And avoid those gotcha question moments as to does Sarah actually read if she is to be a GOP spox.

      • JDinSTL

        And feather their own nests at our expense

    • stringman

      Nearly everyone has heard the joke about what you should do when you answer the door and the fellow says, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.’ Liberals must have all been dropped on their heads as children because, not only don’t they get the joke but, it appears, liberalism is a mental impairment that causes people to actually invite them in.

  • ParkerShannon

    It is not the “Democratic Party.” It is the “Democrat Party.”

    And there is nothing democratic about this motley collection of American-hating Marxists, fascists, statists, totalitarians, and Utopians.

    • Lea

      MMM, Muslim, Marxist, Masons all for a one world government. The inability of politicians to come against the muslim movement of sharia proves that they have selected islam as the NWO religion. This may account for the Catholics and some Protestants joining hearts and hands with Muslims, so they don’t get to lose their seats of power in the envisioned new world order.

      • 20pizzapies

        What about Lutherans Buddhists and Mormons ? You folks call them America Haters and attach your phony tags , but in reality , you are the haters , of your fellow Americans who do not think exactly like you , if that ain’t Fascist I don’t know what is . So you Identify with Sovereign Citizens , Cesessionists , white supremacists , militia wannabees , Birchers and neo Nazis , yea ! that’ll work . You make Ruby Ridge , Waco and Snowden your heroes .

        • JDinSTL

          Cesessionists…. nice

          • 20pizzapies

            But you know what I meant .

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Utah is not exactly a liberal state.

          • 20pizzapies

            My reply was rhetorical , I mean catholics , protestants , why leave out any other part of the spectrum ? As for Utah , it is above all else Mormon , lock stock and barrel . Owned and operated by the LS .

        • Lea

          Really! Never heard of all those labels. I don’t identify with any particular group and I doubt that many of the rest of us do on this thread. We are mainly concerned with the war on humanity. The axis of evil is manipulating muslims to war on all other religions, so that only Islam remains. This is fact. It is happening all over the world. If anything is fascist it is the Masonic Marxist Muslim movement working towards global dominion. Haters? Now, that sounds like a muslim talking. Facts and truth exposure is not hate, dear.

          • 20pizzapies

            ” Masonic ? Marxist ? Muslim movement ” ??? Do you know what you’re talking about – DEAR ? Masons have no connection to muslims , nor do Marxists , both are antithetical to Muslims and their ultimate goal . Yes it is the Goal of the Prophet [look that up DEAR ] that drives the Muslim UMMA [ look that up too ] towards world domination . Muslims are indeed HATERS of all that is not Islam . But you DEAR are also a hater , though you are not wanting to admit it . Your notion of who exactly your enemy is , is confused to say the least . You are merely a Tea Party parrot making trained utterances and understanding none of it . Get an education DEAR, it will help , in addition , get your head out the echo chamber , air it out of the pollution that deludes your though process . Then you may be able to absorb the truth .

          • Lea

            No, in fact Islam will make alliances with anything that will work towards its expansion regardless. Muslims are in alliance with communists in the philipines, in fact even in gaza and turkey, and America and europe. Muslims are in alliance with the Nazis in the Ukraine. Muslims masons are called shriners. Best you get informed and perhaps learn some basic manners, that is if the demon that rides you will allow. You are the hater of humanity as you stated: muslims hate all that is not islam. This your false prophet incited you towards. Islam is a crime against humanity. You are so indoctrinated that you would know the truth if it hit you like lightning. Neither am I even an American. LOL.

          • 20pizzapies

            You been drinking too much Tea party Tea , get your head out of Fox and the echo chamber and you might be informed , rather than making idiotic statements .

  • Lanna

    The Left is boring, self centered, egotistical, callous, and aligns itself with Islamic and oppressive dictatorshiops…there is nothing electable about those qualifications.

    • The March Hare

      “there is nothing electable about those qualifications”

      That ought to read:
      there SHOULD BE nothing electable about those qualifications.

      • truebearing

        Yes, you have to constantly ask yourself, “what the H*LL are people thinking?”

    • BS77

      It’s the dumb bunny idiot voters who worry me…..they are robots voting Democrat over and over and over………..

    • 20pizzapies

      Yet they get elected anyway .And that proves that people with the mindset displayed here , are I the long run rejected . And the more you try to make more of an issue about a tragedy and politicize it to the degree which you continue to do , the more the obvious becomes apparent . And still you have no one even approaching credibility on the horizon to run in 2016 . So keep obsessing on Benghazi , it will eventually define you as the hypocrites that you truly are ,

  • darnellecheri

    You had me at the title. It’s funny. Seriously though, for what will be the last 24 years (when Obama’s reign ends), America elected relatively young men for president. Clinton was 46, Bush was 54, and Obama was 47. I don’t think that tide is going to change.

    • truebearing

      Cruz is fairly young. He may be too smart for the America electorate, though. They seem to have a penchant for voting down to their level.

  • Joe Esposito

    Hillary Clinton and all the other Marxist in the democratic party were born with brain damage. Its too bad the abortion rights groups weren’t around before 1950. We could only hope that the parents of all these current Marxist running the democratic party would have been flushed down the toliet bowl along with all the other waste.

  • Davros11

    When are we going to stop playing our game(which always loses), and play theirs (which always wins) Enough about keeping the moral high ground, and all that other cowardly stuff, start hitting back, start attacking, start doing something except whine about how liberals are. Start taking them out via speeches, protests, anything they do, we need to start doing.. Go to their houses and protest them there, go to their families house and protest them there, go to their businesses and protest them there.. Fight them anyway and everyway possible!!

  • WillielomanIII

    The biggest problem actual conservatives have is not Hillary or Obama. It is that the R’s have corrupt lobbyist owned leadership like Boehner and the Bush’s and and Thad Cochran types in the Senate. The only solid conservative that could win the presidency now is Sarah Palin and the media (including the Jew haters a the the Sharia compliant Fox News) and the RINO culture of corruption R’s will continue to take cheap shots at her.

    • Calvinius

      You actually think Sarah Palin could win the presidency?

      Please, Republicans, test that theory. Draft Sarah! LMAO

      • WillielomanIII

        Yes, same thing they said about Ronald Reagan in 1980…

        • Calvinius

          For all of Reagan’s shortcomings, he wasn’t a quitter. Same can’t be said of Palin.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Palin is as much of a quitter as Hillary. Both left their jobs to pursue higher office.

          • Calvinius

            No, Palin quit her job as governor after she lost the election for VP. She quit because the job just turned out to be too hard for her to handle.

          • truebearing

            So you’re a liar and a fool. You’ve got it all.

            She wasn’t having any trouble with the job whatsoever, until hordes of deranged leftists began harassing her and filing bogus lawsuits that were bankrupting her and preventing her from doing her job. She had the highest rating of a governor in the US before your fellow scum started their orchestrated attack.

            Trying to educate someone like you is as hopeless as getting Obama to tell the truth, but let me correct you on another point. VPs don’t win or lose elections. The presidential candidate is the winner or loser. The VP is along for the ride. It’s a shame you couldn’t fit that fact into your 12 pack of brain cells, but it’s true.

          • Calvinius

            Those ethics complaints about Palin were not “bogus” at all. And she only had a high approval rating early in her term because Alaskans hadn’t yet been exposed to her corruption.

            And you might want to try re-reading the Constitution. Or perhaps I should say read it for the first time. The president and VP are according the Constitution separately elected.

          • truebearing

            You idiot. No one votes for the VP. Yes, they are both on the ticket, but do you really think Joe “the dolt of Delaware” Biden is the reason Obama won? LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            The ethics complaints against Palin were all thrown out.

          • Calvinius

            You truly are the master of missing the point.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Ah those ethic complaints.

            Like the time she was accused of getting a State Trooper fired after he tasered a kid.

            Horrible, just horrible.

          • Calvinius

            Meanwhile back in the real world, Sarah Palin got that state trooper fired for divorcing her sister. The claim of “tasering a kid” was a BS aftert-the-fact rationalization.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Let’s not mention death threats and… oh yes… tasering an 11-year old.

          • Calvinius

            So back to regurgitating Palin’s lies, then.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Are you denying the tasering an 11-year-old part?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            The job was fine beforehand. And she was praised by Democrats and even the mainstream media before she became a VP candidate.

            She quit after she gained a national profile.

            You’re reciting bubble talking points from Daily Kos that have nothing to do with real life.

          • Calvinius

            The “mainstream media” had nothing at all to say about Palin prior to her gaining a national profile. And the increased national attention is what exposed her corruption.

            You clearly live in the bubble, and get your talking points from Sarah Palin’s Twitter feed.

  • http://historyscoper.com/ T.L. Winslow

    The problem with McCain wasn’t his age but the fact that he was tortured in Vietnam by the Commies, and wasn’t psychologically whole anymore, and might have gone nonlinear in the White House, demanding the nuclear suitcase to get even with them – not that it would have been bad :)

    Hillary’s problem is the huge number of people who hate her and can’t be turned even if she pulls out the L card to get new voters. For that reason she might just be a decoy while the Democrats prepare their real candidate, their new Obama, maybe Elizabeth Warren.

    Just in case she gets anywhere, there’s no better place to quickly master Hillary’s shady past than my free Hillaryscope on my Historyscoper site. Come find me when you wake me up, I’m not a soldier, advance tickets on sale May 21.

    • Calvinius

      I suppose Elizabeth Warren as president would be conservatives’ worst nightmare, since she actually is as liberal as you guys think Obama is.

      • Daniel Greenfield

        What about Zombie Karl Marx aka Senator “See No Evil at the VA” Sanders?

      • reader

        she’s also a fraud – even though a lighter and more obvious version. but she won’t have a chance outside massachusetts – too white and wrinkly. the blacks and will stay home.

        • Calvinius

          No, you are a fraud.

          • truebearing

            No, you are.

      • T800

        I have yet to see Comrade Obama initiate anything that could be considered “conservative”. He even was a member of the communist New Party. His friends are all communists,his mentor was communist.

        • Calvinius

          Apparently you’re clueless enough that you don’t realize “the communist New Party” is a contradiction in terms. The New Party had nothing to do with communists. Your claim that his friends are all communists is ludicrous. And the “mentor” bit I presume is a reference to the false claims of Frank Marshall Davis being his mentor.

          • truebearing

            Wrong again. Obama ran for his first elected office in Chigago as a New Party candidate. He also ran as a Democrat. It was a scheme cooked up by communist strategist Joel Rogers, a professor in Madison, WI. They called it “dual candidacy” and it was intended to use Democrat voters to get Communists elected.

            The New Party was a collaboration between the Democratic Socialists of America and the Communist Party USA.

            The dual candidacy scheme was challenged in court, ending at the Supreme Court, where it was shot down.

            If you’d care to make a wager…say $10,000, I’ll take the bet, then show you a screen shot of the Commie newsletter after the election, where two New Partians won. Obama was one of them and is mentioned in the newsletter.

            You just can’t seem to get anything right. Have you considered the possibility that you don’t know what you’re babbling about?

          • Calvinius

            Way to respond to something other than what I said. The New Party had nothing to do with communism. Moron.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            Your response to a reasonable comment was moronic. Would you care to take Truebearings’ wager? Put up, or shut up …

      • American Patriot

        Warren is not liberal. There is nothing liberal about her or the Democratic Party in general. Warren and her party are leftists. Conservatives are the true liberals, who are classical liberals. Classical liberalism is the only true liberalism, not the so-called “liberalism” of the left. The GOP is the real liberal party.

        • Calvinius

          Conservatives are anti-liberty. The notion that there’s a difference between “classical liberalism” and modern liberalism is something conservative made up.

          • American Patriot

            Conservatives are pro-liberty. Classical liberalism is true liberalism. Modern liberalism is not liberalism. It is leftism. Today, many key members of the Democratic Party came from the New Left movement. This isn’t made up. It is the truth.

  • Ban Liberals

    NO… MORE… DYNASTIES!

    And that includes Bush, especially the Clintons (remember Chelsea is next!), and the rest.

    NO… MORE… FAMILY ‘HAND-OFFS’!

  • Christopher Riddle

    I disagree with this assaeesment.In order to suffer from”Brain-Damage”,it is requisite that a”Brain”must exist!!With
    The Left”,It’s ALL EMOTION-DRIVEN BULLSH*T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Or at least for the brain to be used

  • jtrollla

    The Democratic Party is no longer the Democratic Party. It is now the Socialist Party USA, truth be told. It’s transformation started with Woodrow Wilson and has been competed with Barack Obama.

  • Atikva

    Whatever her age, her mental fitness, the old scandals she drags behind, the BENGHAZI scandal is the one that defines Mrs. Clinton, that’s her Nessus tunic. Her motto “What difference does it make now” precedes her wherever she goes, for as long as she lives.

    If she seriously sees herself as a possible next President with such an impedimenta, she must be delusional.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Obama made it. So it’s not implausible

      • Lea

        It is amazing how 9/11 galvanised the muslims straight into the White House.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          and everywhere else, they gain enormous political influence from acts of terror

          • JDinSTL

            And will not stop until it quits working for them

          • Daniel Greenfield

            exactly

    • Calvinius

      That’s what defines her in the eyes of right-wing nuts. To everyone else, Benghazi isn’t even a scandal at all.

      • truebearing

        That’s not what the polls say, unless you’re defining Independents a “rightwing nuts” now. Evil left-wing nuts don’t care how many people die in their pursuit of power, so it doesn’t surprise anyone you have this warped perpsective. Of course you know none of the facts either and just puke out what you were told to say.

        • Calvinius

          There are no polls backing up what you claim.

          • truebearing

            Think so?

            The majority think the Whitehouse is lying about Benghazi. The majority also approve of the Special Committee.

            Poll: 67% Approve of Congress Creating Special Committee on Benghazi

            http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/barbara-boland/poll-67-approve-congress-creating-special-committee-benghazi

          • Calvinius

            According to a Fox News poll. LMAO

          • truebearing

            Can you explain what is wrong with a Fox poll? Laughing like a fool at things that aren’t funny is hardly a way to discredit the poll. It discredits you, but the poll remains perfectly believable.

            You said I couldn’t find a poll backing my claims. Now admit you were wrong.

          • Calvinius

            What’s wrong is that Fox News is not remotely credible. And neither is Glenn Beck’s “The Blaze”, which FYI is citing an online poll that anyone can vote in as many times as they see fit.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            As opposed to CNN?

          • Calvinius

            Yes. CNN, along with every other TV news outlet that’s not Fox News, is more credible than Fox.

          • American Patriot

            So the left-wing MSNBC is not biased and is credible? Don’t make me laugh. And you are no real liberal. Real liberals are classical liberals, not the so-called “liberalism” of the left. Classical liberals are modern conservatives.

          • Calvinius

            Conservatives have no connection to liberalism of any kind, classical or otherwise. Conservatives are anti-liberty.

          • http://www.chaverimisrael.org Norbert Haag

            Your education shines really.

          • Debbie G

            Aw, c’mon Norbert. The children are having a little fun!

          • 20pizzapies

            Those who call themselves “conservative ” have no semblance whatsoever to what Buckley would call conservative . He’d dump them just like he dumped the Birchers . Buckley would turn in his grave to see what is called the “conservative party ” today .

          • Calvinius

            Given that the Birchers have been welcomed back into the so-called “conservative movement” with open arms (since 2010 the John Birch Society has been one of the main sponsors of CPAC), there’s no way to deny what you’re saying.

          • 20pizzapies

            They’ve welcomed more than just Birchers . The Militias , White Supremacists ,Sovereign Citizens, and even some NEOs . They’ve have been showing up at tea party rallies , getting their pictures taken with their demagogues .

          • 20pizzapies

            MSNBC is not ALL of the media . As I said to Daniel , the daily 6:30 pm broadcasts on ABC,NBS and CBS are balanced . MSNBC is the lefts mirror image of FOX . I don’t get an “editorial on any three of those nightly news broadcasts nor do I get the opinion of the broadcasters , but that just isn’t the case with FOX . Nor do I confuse MSNBC with those 3 network’s nightly broadcasts at 6:30 .People who watch FOX news are not concerned with a balanced news report , they tune in to hear what suits their view and that’s exactly what FOX gives them ….in spades .

          • Daniel Greenfield

            There is no such thing as an absolutely credible news outlet.

          • Calvinius

            No, of course there’s not. My point is that Fox News is the least credible news network.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Based on your ideological bias which ranks credibility in reference to your ideology, I’m sure to you that’s true.

          • 20pizzapies

            C’mon Daniel , the WHOLE WORLD is wrong and Fox is the only one getting it right ? You’re in trouble when you start believing Fox and the Blaze , it’s an echo chamber for a minority mindset , and supports the delusion that half the country thinks like you . It’s no different than believing a poll on Huffpo as being representative of the majority of Americans . You both play the same game , and neither represent the majority of the electorate . Fox news first started claiming Clinton was faking an injury , and when the medical records confirmed it they shut up , that is until Karl Rove claimed she had brain damage then had to backpeddle on it , and you guys did not yet get the message , so you play it up a different way . To not see the utter transparency of your position is to delude yourselves . And to start citing a Blaze “poll ” simply puts another hole in your position .

          • Daniel Greenfield

            FOX doesn’t always get it right. No more than anyone else does. It has its own set of blinders.

            It’s no better or worse in that regard than CNN, CBS, etc. It does however represent a different set of blinders and in a universally biased media, that’s important.

          • 20pizzapies

            The trouble with FOX is , that it goes it wrong more than anyone else and on a daily basis . I don’t find HLN to be propagandizing while reporting the news every morning 6-8am . Whereas FOX is hellbent on putting their narrative into everything they report .I’m talking about news , not the “shows ” that are on all the networks . NBC evening news is straight up as is ABC and CBS , I don’t find them favoring either point of view . I think the right’s complaint about those news broadcasts are a bit exaggerated . For that one half hour broadcast at 6:30 pm weekdays , I can get news that is balanced . I don’t find that to be the case with Fox ANYTIME .

          • Daniel Greenfield

            FOX is no more wrong than CNN or NBC or CBS. And when the media is pro-government, then it’s more often right because it doesn’t need to cover up anything.

          • 20pizzapies

            Well if you’ve ever watched NBC , CBS or ABC nightly news at 6: 30 every night , I don’t see how you consider those half hour broadcasts pro-government . There’s no spin , no smirking , no opinions and no aspersions cast , just what’s making the days news , no right or left . Fox is never like that . Nor is MSNBC

          • pete

            would those blinders be handed out by Rupert’s Saudi partner, prince Al-waleed?

          • Atikva

            This “online poll that anyone can vote in as many times as they see fit” looks a lot like the latest Presidential election.

          • Calvinius

            Ah, the old myth of voter fraud again. How cute.

          • truebearing
          • 20pizzapies

            hahaha , really ! The Blaze ! Really !

          • truebearing

            Check the link before you start laughing, dim wit. The Blaze didn’t do the polls. They merely cited them. HaHaHa.

          • 20pizzapies

            HaHaHa – you’re the dimwit , for going to Blaze for anything .

      • Atikva

        “Everyone else” isn’t anybody worth his salt. Mrs. Clinton may not be the only one, but she has blood on her hands and the American people know it.

        • Calvinius

          No, the American people know that claim is bulls**t.

          • Atikva

            OK, keep dreaming, close your eyes shut against reality, it won’t make an iota of difference.

          • Calvinius

            Rather like how the Benghazi nontroversy will never have any relevance.

          • truebearing
          • Atikva

            Pfft! Wishful thinking. Roule, torrent de l’inutilité!

          • Daniel Greenfield

            No one is ever going to care about some hotel break in.

          • darnellecheri

            No, never.

          • 20pizzapies

            Looks like no one ever cared about the 265 US Marines that Reagan got killed in Beirut eh Daniel ? WHERE were the investigations ? Where was the total acrimony that’s coming from the right ? Where was the “faux outrage ” we see coming from the right ?

          • truebearing

            Hey, genius. here are some more polls that prove you are the one spewing toro caca.

            http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/09/new-benghazi-poll-doesnt-bode-well-for-obama/

          • 20pizzapies

            Yea look at where the “polls” are coming from ….Glenn Beck and Company . His clientele are just as nutty as he is . Americans who can think for themselves know better , sorry your not included in that demographic .

          • john

            Keep us laughing.

        • 20pizzapies

          Yea and so does everyone else who got us into Iraq .

      • krowbro

        That’s because conservatives possess the ability to think critically while the left responds in knee-jerk fashion, relying entirely on the leftist indoctrination they have been inundated with from birth. Your post is a classic example of this phenomenon.

        • 20pizzapies

          conservatives , atleast the strain that calls itself such today , lacks any ability to think critically . Benghazi is a political football which no doubt will be dragged about as long as Clinton remains a threat to run for president . We’ve had 4 investigations over 18 months and this newest attempt will render the same . A tragedy , just like the Beirut Embassy Attack , where 265 American Marines lost their lives due to an order to have GateGuards with no live ammunition . What most here in the echo chamber fail to realize is that most Americans do grieve the loss of life , but also recognize this witch hunt for what it is . And you will find out how much so on election day .

          • krowbro

            Thanks for proving my point.

          • 20pizzapies

            Don’t thank me , I’m not responsible for your ignorance . All Tea Party Conservatives need do to prove my point , is to keep spouting foolishness like they do everytime they open their mouths , like that Arizona Rancher running for office . LOL….hopelessly pathetic .

          • krowbro

            And yet again, you prove my point with unsupported claims.

          • 20pizzapies

            I don’t need to support known facts made pyblic ….just turn on your TV , or read your newspaper , you can’t make this stuff up . The pathetic part of it all is that when a jerk like that Congressional Candidate in Arizona gets outted, he just doubles down leaving no doubts .You’re in denial partner .

          • krowbro

            I believe you are the one in denial. I’m not sure whom you are talking about or what bearing it has on the discussion about Benghazi, which again proves my point about the left’s ability to think critically. So let’s get specific. Why did Obama, Hillary and ambassador Rice lie about the fact that the attack on the compound in Benghazi was a terrorist attack and continue to blame it on some youtube video that hardly a soul knew about? Do you not question their motives at all here? The mainstream media has repeatedly referred to the outpost in Benghazi as an embassy or diplomatic mission, however; it was never listed on any official government websites as such. What exactly was the mission taking place there? There have been intelligence reports that the US mission there was to transport arms to the rebels in Syria, many of whom were linked with Al Qaida. Isn’t that at least worth looking into? Where was Obama during the night of the attack and why did he jet off to a fundraiser the very next day after four Americans were killed in the attack? Doesn’t that bother you in the least? The fact that Susan Rice was sent out to lie for the administration during the heat of the presidential campaign doesn’t arouse any suspicion whatsoever that this was part of an orchestrated cover up? Why was the Benghazi compound not protected sufficiently, particularly on a date like 9/11? These are just some of the questions that, in my opinion, have not been adequately answered in the hearings that have taken place. Given the administration’s propensity to lie as proven time and again, I have zero faith that the answers provided in these hearings for show tell the story. The fact that you apparently accept the answers again is indicative of a lack of critical thought processes. There are hundreds of more questions that I can pose here, but I suspect that it would be a waste of bandwidth, you are hopelessly indoctrinated.

          • 20pizzapies

            What difference does it make ? The fact is the embassy was attacked , it happened at the same time the muslims were raising hell about that movie – will you deny that ? The CIA was involved up to their ears and maintained a building adjacent to the Embassy – will you deny that ?
            The assistance needed to ward off the attack was too far away – that’s a fact / the Ambassador was NOT dragged through the streets , he was being carried out by Libyans trying to get him to a hospital – would you deny that ? The night of the attack Obama didn’t “jet off to a fundraiser ” , he WAS already at a fundraiser , so the whole beef here revolves around whether the Admin says it was terrorists related to the film or terrorists from Al Queda , and if it was Al Queda don’t you think the CIA should have known ? The White House said it was a terrorist act , but the GOP beef is that it was not specified WHO , and that has absolutely nothing to do with the causality of the event or the resulting deaths . There was no way to save the Ambassador at the time , the only QUESTIONS there should be are- WHY the Embassy wasn’t reinforced before hand if an Al Queda attack was suspected ?- WHY was the Ambassador in Benghazi to begin with instead of Tripoli ? , and -WHAT was the CIA doing through it all ? It’s already been established , in the last FOUR investigations that there was no case of standing down , the logistics simply could not effect a rescue in the time frame it would have been necessary to do so.To depict Obama partying not giving a shit about the event , and to depict Clinton as preventing forces from going to the rescue is nothing but partisan B.S. and YOU should know that . You can accuse the Admin. of putting a spin on it AFTER the fact . And if that’s the case so be it , let the chips fall where they may , but the rest of the narrative is just partisan B.S.
            As for the Jerk in Arizona , running against the Republican incumbent in the primary , representing the Tea Party ? You tell me – he said” 99%of the mass shooting that took place in this country over the past several years was the fault of Democrats ” ….I own more guns than my opponent ” Go look it up partner , if you think that’s not pathetic , then you are the one who is truly indoctrinated .

          • krowbro

            It’s good to see you get your talking points from Media Matters, The Huffington Post, NY Times and all the other “news” outlets whose sole purpose appears to be to defend Obama and advance the Marxist cause. The outpost in Benghazi was for a CIA mission. You may not be curious about what it is they were doing, but the whole thing doesn’t pass the smell test for me. Added on top of the Benghazi situation, you have the Mexican gun running scandal, the IRS targeting of conservative groups, the fraudulent election of Obama, the NSA syping on us, the use of our military to overthrow Ghadaffi without congressional approval, the support of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Arab Spring, the illicit means by which Obamacare was enacted, and the use of executive orders to circumvent congress and by extension the will of the people. Only died in the wool, completely indoctrinated leftists who believe the ends justifies the means can overlook all of the corruption clearly evident in this administration.

            Concerning the “jerk in Arizona”, I couldn’t care less because I don’t live there. Besides, Obama, Pelosi and Reid say stupid things on a daily basis and what they do has a direct affect on my life. I don’t know what your take is on them, but if you support what they stand for, then you continue to prove my point.

          • 20pizzapies

            I don’t use talking points , I read and crosscheck information which is available in the public domain . YOU are the one relying on talking points , that’s why most of what you stated is partisan rhetoric and hearsay . You oughta try it one day , that is investing the time to crosscheck information rather than excepting it . I don’t go near Huffpo or MSNBC , they’re just as slanted but to the left .
            And if you don’t care about the jerk in Arizona , if your a Tea Party Supporter or Apporover , you should , because the Tea Party Candidates can’t help themselves by blurting out this type of babble . There’s another down here in Florida who recently state that anyone who does not own property should not be allowed to vote . If talk like this doesn’t disturb you , then don’t waste your time engaging in any political or policy debates , because you’re just plain IGNORANT .

          • krowbro

            Actually, contrary to your assumption, I check out all sides of the story and weigh the data. The Obama administration, however; has proven that they have no problem telling lies if it will advance their agenda, so I have a tendency to disbelieve what they say. For example, it is an undeniable, irrefutable fact that Obama stated on numerous occasions during the debate about the ACA, that if you liked your health plan and/or doctor, you would be able to keep your health plan and/or doctor, PERIOD. Either that was a bald faced lie, or Obama is the dumbest a** to have ever held the office. For those who can add two plus two, it was a lie intended to garner support of his socialistic health care plan. Why do you think he made these statements?

            Here is another set of facts related to the subject in question, Benghazi. The event took place during the heat of the presidential election. Obama had stated several times on the campaign trail that Al Qaida was neutralized and took a lot of credit for that because he gave the order to supposedly kill Bin Laden – although I think he was killed in the caves at Tora Bora during our invasion. All of a sudden, there is a terrorist attack on a U.S. compound in Libya in which four Americans are murdered because they were not provided enough security by the administration. For two weeks thereafter, the administration’s minions go on TV claiming it was all about a stupid youtube video that was seen by very few people. On top of that, shortly thereafter, the maker of the movie is thrown into jail on some shady charges. Obama absolutely did not call it a terrorist attack in the Rose Garden as was stated by his media protector, Candy Crowley, during the second debate. How do I know this? Because I read the transcript of his speech. Sure, you could spin it that way because he mentioned the word terrorist in the speech, but you would have to be a moron to buy that if you analyzed the statement to which she referred within the context of the speech. Given these facts, what would a reasonable person conclude? At the very least, a reasonable person would have more questions, which is the purpose of appointing a special counsel. Even the parents of those who lost loved ones question the motives of the Obama administration. We owe them an answer.

            I am a supporter of the Tea Party, but that doesn’t necessarily mean I support or approve of every candidate chosen or every word they utter. The Tea Party is a grass roots movement with disparate organizations, of course I can’t possibly know of, let alone approve/disapprove of all so-called Tea Party candidates. The Tea Party is not monolithic. Having said that, I am not disturbed by the statements you quoted, although I don’t necessarily agree with them. Even if one does agree, that doesn’t classify them as ignorant. It is ignorant to call someone ignorant without hearing their reasons for supporting such a statement. I do think that if you do not pay taxes and receive subsidies from the federal government, then you shouldn’t be able to vote. What is also ignorant is judging all Tea Party candidates by the statements of a few, as you did in your last paragraph. Despite your ignorance, I would never tell you to refrain from debate, because you just might learn something from it.

          • 20pizzapies

            LOL….so Obama was killed at Bora Bora ? Really ? Say no more , you’re a fool . And we’ll see where the Benghaaaaazeeeee two step gets you tea bags and republicans . And here’s a news flash Duncan , more than just a few Tea Party candidates have been making ludicrous remarks and btw several just got smacked down in the recent Republican primaries . But hey none of that should matter to a brainwashed dolt like you . Don’t hurt yourself thinking .

          • krowbro

            All of you leftists are so predictable. I knew it would not take too many exchanges before you resorted to condescension and name calling. It is what all good leftists resort to when they run out of programmed responses. As I stated at the beginning of this thread, most leftists – and now I have to include you in that list – lack the ability to think critically. You have proven yourself incapable of reasoned argument. I do not have the patience nor inclination to dial back my intellect to mentally spar with you any longer. It gives me no satisfaction to take candy from a baby. Have a great life!

          • 20pizzapies

            Oh , you mean condescension and name calling like the rest of your lot on this blog ? Hypocrite !
            Your intellect has already been dialed back , and the dial broken off .

    • 20pizzapies

      No , that’s how you define her , ouit of fear that she just might run , and win the election , because as we speak , the right has not produced one credible contender , nor does it even have one on the horizon . And if they are dumb enough to run Romney again , he will lose hands down . So far all other ” contenders ” have been flip flopping on all the issues from voting rights , immigration , climate change and the minimum wage . You folks must think all these things are taking place in a vacuum .You all forget that on election day it will be just R or D , not TP .

  • http://www.apollospeaks.com/ ApolloSpeaks

    WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE IF HILLARY HAS BRAIN DAMAGE?

    Click http://www.apollospeaks.com for the answer.

  • Demo P. Seal; PouponMarks

    Hillary is known to be an extremely self medicated alcohol abuser. It runs in her family. Her sashay throughout the Stale Department was rife with boozy interludes with the girls and selected staff. I have been around alcoholics all my life and recognize the signs. Look at her face and body in the last few years, the accelerated aging, the pallor and parchment-like transformation of her face.

    It is wholly believable that when she looks in the mirror and sees her reflection of the narcissist/psychopath reflected back, that she feels the compunction to reach for the juice.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      I wouldn’t be too surprised. Her life is otherwise miserable and driven by ambition.

      Her family life is a national joke and all she has to live for is power.

      • 20pizzapies

        Gee Daniel , you’ve just described every politician that’s ever lived .

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Just the ones still in office

          • 20pizzapies

            Agreed there Daniel , and that makes about 525 of them presently .

      • Debbie G

        Hillary doesn’t appear to be bothered by a philandering husband as long as it doesn’t interfere with her political aspirations. Any normal married woman would be ashamed and outraged by this behavior, but I guess females should keep their mouths shut and let hubby do as he wishes. Talk about a war on women….

    • truebearing

      Oh-Oh! You accused a Democrat of being a “narcissist/psychopath.” Now you will be visited by the resident FPM thought police troll, Hiernonymous, who will diagnose you with various mental maladies for having the audacity of diagnosing the obvious mental maladies of Hillary.

      Yes, that would be hypocritical of him, but that has never stopped a leftist before.

      • Daniel Greenfield

        Hiernonymous is really diagnosing himself.

        • hiernonymous

          Hiernonymous doesn’t make diagnoses. That’s a fool’s game.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            If Hiernonymous makes diagnoses and says that anyone who makes diagnoses is a fool… then he must be a fool.

            But if Hiernonymous admits he is a fool, should his self-diagnosis as a fool be considered credible?

            It’s a tricky problem.

          • truebearing

            You sound rather Shakespearean as you ponder the implications of implicating oneself as a fool. :)

          • 20pizzapies

            In debate what heirnonymous has done is called destroying the destroyer .You have clearly lost the argument that you yourself put up .Arguments basedon false premises and bias usually get shot down by logic , but the echo chamber here blinds you to that

          • Habbgun

            Hmmm…left wing white trash supremacist and the black sellout to them both agreeing…..the Left wing on display….thanks guys….you are an education to the young.

          • 20pizzapies

            Try a coherent sentence next time Duncan .

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Sound, fury, tale told by an idiot, does have a rather obvious application.

          • hiernonymous

            “If Hiernonymous makes diagnoses and says that anyone who makes diagnoses is a fool… then he must be a fool.”

            Correct.

            “But if Hiernonymous admits he is a fool, should his self-diagnosis as a fool be considered credible?”

            Perhaps not.

            But that hasn’t happened.

            Daniel, you have yet to explain just what specific tenet or belief all liberals hold that prevents them from being Jewish. Do you ever intend to address that defect, or do you intend to continue to generate diversions until the subject slips quietly away? Seems a bit of a timid approach.

          • Daniel Greenfield
          • hiernonymous

            My question is an exercise in futility? Could be!

          • Daniel Greenfield

            That’s the first time you’ve grasped a point.

            Maybe I should stick to communicating with you entirely in animated GIFs as if you were a millennial.

          • hiernonymous

            There wouldn’t be a noticeable drop in reasoned argument in your posts if you were to do so, and it would be an improvement over the verbal squirming you’ve had on display the past few days. The conversation is an exercise in futility because you are either unable or unwilling to make explicit the reasoning behind your public pronouncement that liberals cannot be Jewish. You didn’t need a gif to demonstrate the futility of expecting a logical explanation from you.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            My mistake. I assumed you understood that you were the dog.

            You couldn’t even grasp that much.

          • hiernonymous

            Pity. For a moment, you had a relatively clever metaphor going.

            Still nothing on those non-existent Jewish liberals?

      • hiernonymous

        “…who will diagnose you with various mental maladies…”

        For example?

        • truebearing

          Is your memory failing? When I suggested Spielberg is a sociopath, you diagnosed me as suffering from “hysteria.” That happened yesterday.

          BTW, thanks for validating my prescience. You predictably showed up at the mention of leftists suffering from mental maladies.

          • hiernonymous

            It is not my memory, but your reading abilities, that is suffering. Nobody has accused you of suffering from a mental malady. I’ve certainly accused you of making an overly emotional post – here’s what I actually said:

            Willfully mischaracterizing an argument is not reasoned argument, but hysteria.

            Nobody has suggested that you suffer from anything. Contrast that, for example, with your claim that another poster would specifically meet the clinical checklist of a diagnosis of sociopathy. When I suggest that it’s inappropriate to offer clinical diagnoses of others as a smear, I wasn’t speaking hyperbolically: you were actually offering clinical diagnoses.

            Not that it matters, but even if I’d accused you of being hysterical, rather than your argument style, that still wouldn’t have been a clinical diagnosis. There is no clinical diagnosis of hysteria, nor has there been for 34 years. Lest you trot out your usual accusation of hypocrisy, note my comment to you, when you mulled over switching your diagnosis of Mr. Spielberg from sociopathy to narcissism:

            You’re correct, it doesn’t really matter whether your diagnosis was
            sociopathy or narcissism, neither is appropriate. Narcissism, at least,
            has a colloquial use that might have been defensible, had you not just
            made it clear that you were speaking clinically.

            So you’ll note that I’ve consistently drawn a distinction between simply carping about another’s personality, which is probably only pointless and insulting, and offering actual clinical diagnoses, which is brazenly inappropriate.

            Bottom line: there’s no way that accusing those you disagree with as sociopaths – which you’ve now done three times in as many days – is appropriate.

            “BTW, thanks for validating my prescience. You predictably showed up at the mention of leftists suffering from mental maladies.”

            Actually, I showed up at the mention of my nick. Though judging by your recent diagnoses, that would be the same thing, no?

          • truebearing

            Nice crawfishing. I wouldn’t have expected any less from you.

            You intended “hysteria” to be a diagnoses of me and my argumentative behavior, and an insult, and you know it. Note that I am not disputing your right to apply terms of psychology, only their accuracy. I am, however labeling you a hypocrite for doing what you condemned.

            I will continue to attempt to disabuse you of your stubborn delusion that you are the arbiter of what is and isn’t appropriate.

            Who in their right mind thinks an opinion on a comment section is a “clinical diagnosis?” Obviously you do, but I did include a qualifier that addresses your singularity.

            I have some education in psychology and considerable personal experience in dealing with people who have been diagnosed with a sociopathic personality disorder. I know what to look for. That experiential knowledge, combined with my 1st amendment rights, entitles me to opine on public figures as I see fit. If you don’t like it, try meditating. Maybe you will finally understand the meaning of “you can’t serve two masters.” Or try praying, your intellect certainly has failed you on that one.

            Is three times in three days the rule for excessive diagnoses of sociopaths in the Democratic Party? But what am I suppose to do about all of the other sociopaths in the Democratic Party? Skip identifying one every other day? That will take forever, given the sheer numbers of deranged leftists. No, clearly less labeling isn’t the answer. I need to increase the number or I’ll never get done.

            Methinks you do protest too much. Is this diagnosis of sociopaths getting too close for comfort? I guess it would be a blow to be publicly outed as such, especially coming on the heels of you providing the very rule that proved you’re a fool.

          • hiernonymous

            “You intended “hysteria” to be a diagnoses of me and my argumentative behavior, and an insult, and you know it.”

            No, I intended – and intend – “hysteria” to highlight the substitution of emotion and emotional imagery for reason and factual support in your arguments. You’re quite correct that it’s intended to be insulting.

            “I am, however labeling you a hypocrite for doing what you condemned.”

            That would require you to be dishonest. Your call.

            “That experiential knowledge, combined with my 1st amendment rights, entitles me to opine on public figures as I see fit.”

            And the same entitle me to point out that what you’re doing is unseemly. See how that works? Excellent.

            “Is three times in three days the rule for excessive diagnoses of sociopaths in the Democratic Party?”

            No, but it’s enough to answer your bleating about being unfairly accused of making such accusations frequently.

            “Methinks you do protest too much.”

            Do you ever fail to resort to the banal?

            “…especially coming on the heels of you providing the very rule that proved you’re a fool.”

            One wonders whom you’re trying to convince.

          • truebearing

            I’m tired of your genuine intellectual twaddle. It’s boring. I stopped reading at “see more.” I have better things to do on Friday nights than read your latest effort to twist things so you can convince yourself you won the debate.

            I’m sorry you had such a hard time with “you can’t serve two masters.” And I’m sorry you sewed yourself into a syllogistic proof that you are, by your own rules, a fool. It’s been a tough couple of days for you.

          • hiernonymous

            “I’m tired of your genuine intellectual twaddle. It’s boring. ”

            I don’t doubt that you are. And thinking can be dull for those used to more immediate gratification.”

            “I stopped reading at “see more.” ”

            That phrase never occurs in my post. More sloppy reading and misquoting.

            “I have better things to do on Friday nights than read your latest effort to twist things so you can convince yourself you won the debate.”

            You don’t need to provide any excuses for exiting a conversation. Here’s a tip: if I think an exchange has stopped being productive, I will sum up the last points I want to make and simply tell the other fellow that I will read his response with interest, but will not respond further unless he raises a really interesting new point. It’s polite, it gives him a chance to sum up as well, and if he does say something really interesting, you’re free to continue.

            And I don’t generally think of these exchanges in terms of winning and losing. I did competitive debate back in the day, when there were strict standards and a judge to flow the arguments, but very few of the exchanges on these forums rise to “debate.” For example, watching someone avoid supporting a pretty basic statement for nigh on three days now isn’t “debate.” You can’t evaluate an idea isn’t articulated, which, of course, is the reason it isn’t being articulated. I’m happy to point that out, but not to dignify it with the label “debate.”

            “I’m sorry you had such a hard time with “you can’t serve two masters.””

            I’m not sure what sort of ‘hard time’ you imagine I had. The idea you expressed is quite simple. The difficulty comes in getting you to be specific in how you think it applies to the issue of Mr. Spielberg’s liberalism preventing him from being Jewish. Once that was out in the open, the applicability of your aphorism could really be examined. When Jesus made his “render unto Caesar…” comment, He pretty plainly indicated that there were circumstances where one can serve two masters. The thought you expressed was not difficult to understand; but it was not complete. You and Daniel appear to believe that if someone is unwilling to agree with you upon hearing the first shorthand opening of an argument, that he lacks the ‘mindset’ that allows him to understand, when, in fact, you’ve simply been too lazy or otherwise reluctant to follow through with the incomplete thought you’d begun.

            “And I’m sorry you sewed yourself into a syllogistic proof that you are, by your own rules, a fool.”

            Examine your premises.

            “It’s been a tough couple of days for you.”

            It seems very important to you to believe so. This suggests that we engage in these conversations for different reasons. Interesting.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            “Here’s a tip: if I think an exchange has stopped being productive, I will sum up the last points I want to make and simply tell the other fellow that I will read his response with interest, but will not respond further unless he raises a really interesting new point.”

            That explains why you keep writing 10 page papers in response to every comment long after everyone has told you to stop.

          • hiernonymous

            “That explains why you keep writing 10 page papers in response to every comment long after everyone has told you to stop.”

            It might, to someone who is used to letting others do his thinking for him. You’ll note that I wrote “….if I think an exchange has stopped being productive…”

            If you don’t want to participate in a conversation, don’t participate. I can’t imagine why you’d think that I’d care whether you’d “told me to stop” or not. (Or, for that matter, why you think that you and truebearing constitute “everyone.”).

            In our case, there’s still an outstanding issue – to wit, several days after claiming that Mr. Spielberg could not be liberal and Jewish, you’ve yet to explain just what, specifically, is both inseparable from being liberal and an insuperable obstacle to being Jewish. You’ve offered many deflections and diversions, but not a substantive response.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            An exchange goes both ways. You don’t engage in exchanges.

          • hiernonymous

            It is hard to have an exchange with someone who insists that his claims require a particular mindset to be comprehensible. When you stop channeling revealed truth and decide to hold yourself accountable to the rules of logic and reason, we can have an exchange.

            The question, of course, was what tenet or belief is inherent to being liberal, and prevents being Jewish. If you continue to take refuge in “you just wouldn’t understand,” then you make an exchange impossible.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            You’re still not engaging in an exchange.

          • hiernonymous

            Right.

            It’s when you post “the belief or tenet that prevents a
            liberal from being Jewish is ____________” that I’ll have something to
            which I can respond, and this becomes an exchange.

            Or,
            alternatively, when you post “you know, I didn’t really think that
            through, and there’s really no there there,” that
            would do the trick.

            But when you post “your mindset doesn’t allow
            you to understand the reasons behind my statement,” there’s not really
            an awful lot of exchange going on. Not much to
            respond to, is there?

          • 20pizzapies

            It’s all over your head truebearing , you don’t possess the intellect to evn understand what’s been said to you . However you truly are a hypocrite .

          • 20pizzapies

            you just got smacked down , big time truebearing , lol…but you’re too much of a dullard to figure that out . but hey stupid is as stupid does , eh dipstick ?

      • Guest

        The entire left is rife with narcissistic and pathologically narcissistic personalities. It has the character of a religious cult.
        http://americanthinker.com/articles/../leftism_a_radical_faith.html

        • truebearing

          Not to mention sociopaths by the truckloads.

    • 20pizzapies

      Keep your day job . You’re talking out your rear end . Knock her for her politics , not your ridiculous assssumptions .

  • Anukem Jihadi

    I guess as a matter of principle I should defend McCain except the man is either senile or has no principles so I won’t bother. Left wing hypocrisy suits him, if the shoe fits he can wear it.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      it’s not about McCain, it’s about the left

      • Anukem Jihadi

        I know but when it comes to McCain how can you tell where you are? Sorry

  • nomoretraitors

    “At a rally introducing Hillary Clinton, Congressman John Murtha criticized him for even running. Murtha is dead. McCain is still alive. I guess McCain gets the last laugh

    • Daniel Greenfield

      … better yet McCain’s mother is still alive

      • truebearing

        LOL! I guess the Left doesn’t acknowledge diversity in longevity.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          The left only acknowledges diversity in leftism.

      • nomoretraitors

        Wow. She must be hitting 100

  • lyndaaquarius

    Daniel Greenfield lays it out. Can anyone refute his stunning points? I’d love to read a rebuttal .

    • hiernonymous

      Okay, here’s one:

      Daniel just questioned her age. The black helicopters haven’t come to whisk him away.

      His piece is just a long complaint that Democrats raised McCain’s age to good effect, but nobody is allowing the Republicans to raise the same point about the slightly younger Hillary. I must have missed the part in his cavil about just who is preventing the issue from being raised, and what unfair methods they are using to do so.

      • Daniel Greenfield

        The ‘complaint’ is about the media, not black helicopters.

        Helps if you read the piece whose comments section you’re trolling.

        • hiernonymous

          Sure. You’re kvetching that it was okay to criticize McCain and Dole, but not Clinton, on account of her age.

          Since you couldn’t follow the black helicopter point, let me walk you through it. The black helicopter is the typical manifestation of the sinister use of force by the shadowy one-world-government forces of conspiracy theory nightmares. By noting that they haven’t come to whisk you away, I’m noting that there is nothing stopping anyone from leveling that criticism. There are no black helicopters. Well, there are, but not in that sense. The rather obvious point is that there’s nobody stopping anyone from raising the point you seem to think can’t be raised.

          You’re claiming that one can’t raise Hillary’s age, while in the process of raising Hillary’s age. Your complaint is about the media? You’re part of the media. How ’bout that?

          What you seem to forget is that Reagan was also targeted by criticism of his age. He didn’t snivel about how unfair it was, or moan about what his party was or wasn’t too thin-skinned to accept, or any of that spineless nonsense. He simply smiled and went for the jugular: “I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to
          exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience,”

          • Lou

            A minority of people might come to FPM or other sites and post about black helicopters.

            Does that give you carte blanche to say that the essayists at said sites talk about black helicopters?

          • hiernonymous

            If “black helicopters” is giving you an aneurism, feel free to substitute a symbol of shadowy authority of your choice.

            The direct answer to your question is that I have “carte blanche” to talk about anything I like, as long as it’s not violating a law, but the helicopters were not the subject of the post.

  • Crassus

    If corruption and incompetence were alcohol, Hillary would have died from liver failure before reaching the age of 40. I still think that as bad as she looks she won’t be alive come 2016 much less run for POTUS.

    • truebearing

      There is always hope.

  • Renaissance Nerd

    The Dems never were any good. The party has been cheating in elections since the 1790s, and the only consistency they’ve demonstrated is their unfailing racism. They hide it from dupes these days, but the mask is finally slipping.

  • 20pizzapies

    Awww , c’mon now Daniel , you sound like Karl Rove . How old was Reagan , and what happened to him in his second term ? I wouldn’t vote for Clinton based on ideological issues and positions she has taken , but “brain damage ” ?

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Whatever happened to Reagan didn’t affect the country.

      • 20pizzapies

        Really ? How is it he ” wasn’t in the loop ” in the Iran Contra Scandal ? What did he call the attack on the Embassy in Kuwait ? What caused an order for no live ammunition for the Marines guarding the gates of the Embassy in Beirut ? The Debt rose to $650 billion after his first term and was $2.7 trillion when he left office , I guess none of that affected the country ? And just WHEN did he go senile ? We all knew only when the video caught Nancy in the background giving him his answers to the press , and that Nancy sought a soothsayer in scheduling some of the summit meetings Reagan had with world leaders . And how many times did Reagan raise taxes ?

        • Daniel Greenfield

          I’m sure he was in the loop. Every president sometimes says stupid things regardless of age. The national debt had nothing to do with senility, Dems in Congress and the Cold War were the issues.

          • 20pizzapies

            Trouble is Daniel, G.H. Bush may have been telling the truth . Either way one or both broke the law .Congress DEMS and REPUBLICANS made it illegal to fund the Contras . Reagan and his Admin went beyond that and traded arms with an enemy to get the money .And the CIA bought drugs from Noriega under Reagans watch , drugs that were sold on the streets of the US . And went Noriega went Rogue we had to invade Panama . I don’t think anyone knows except Reagans Cabinet, exactly when he actually lost it , or when Reagan was no longer calling the shots . btw -Reagan never said he wasn’t in the loop , that was GH who made that statement . The investigation oddly enough , never reached Reagan .And Obviously enough , no one ever believed he was “out of the loop ” .

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Those are issues apart from the claim that Reagan was senile. Unless you’re also going to claim Oliver North was senile.

            As for working with the enemy, there was John Kerry whose Communist sympathies with the Sandinistas helped set all this into motion.

          • 20pizzapies

            Fighting the Sandanista’s was a worthwhile cause until the death squads were exposed , and what the CIA was really doing came to light . Those were the reasons Congress outlawed funding the Contras . Killing nuns etc.didn’t wash well with Congress . It wasn’t just Kerry .Besides I don’t think Kerry was in Congress then was he ? Gov. of Mass.

  • T800

    “liberalism is a mental illness”. Hillary is a “liberal”,therefore she is mentally ill. Long ago,she “forgot” where she put her Rose Law firm records on Whitewater(that got conveniently found much later,after things died down),then she believes she had to duck incoming fire at some airfield,She logged over a million air miles on taxpayer monies,and achieved NOTHING (but she believes she did).Lastly,she fell down,causing a blood clot on her brain,screwing up her vision (clearly “brain damage”),necessitating special prism glasses to correct her vision. Why did she fall down? Brain damage.

  • USARetired

    Hillary is a ‘foul mouth’, short tempered, unqualified, and unfit for senior civil service of any kind! She accomphished nothing except disaster, as US Ambasador, ending her tour in total disastor, which should be her last chance! for public service!

  • BagLady

    I deviate. Had to. Just read some uplifting news on Yahoo. Wall-Mart is losing its hold on the market. “Never mind the quality feel the width” has lost its appeal and Americans are waking up to the fact that less is more.

    It’s taken long enough.

    • CapitalistPig

      Wal-Mart has mostly grown through expanding the number of stores for years. Same store sales have been anemic to flat for years. I defended WM for years on the idea that a better mousetrap always comes along. Around almost every WM are “big box specialty retailers”….Home Depot, Bed Bath & Beyond, Academy Sports, Discount Tires, Best Buys, Ross Stores–all discounters with the ability to buy in quantity–but with far more selection in their specialty than WM………….in short, better “mousetraps”. So all the screaming & hyperventilating for the locals & feds to “do something” about WM was no different than Sears a 100 plus years ago, then came other catalogs, markets, supermarkets, malls & discounters to slowly claw at their market share. And 50 years from now, the story will be written about how Amazon is no longer the king of the hill—-Freedom & capitalism worked fine. Markets always sort themselves out.

      • Alleged Comment

        If you want get-by stuff Wal-mart is fine. But if you want quality then go to Sears, JC Penney and maybe Home Depot or Lowes, though I’m not sure of the qualify of their tools.

        • CapitalistPig

          That’s me. I do the same thing. Wal-Mart has become the Mother of All Convenience stores…..when I need a few general things I go there. When I need a part or tool or something for my bicycle, i go to Lowes/Academy etc–my wife shops for clothes at Ross–huge selection & discounts far beyond WM.
          “Ain’t never been a horse that couldn’t be rode & ain’t never been a rider that couldn’t get throwed” as we say here in Texas. Wal-Mart can be beaten.

      • BagLady

        Flicking through my TV choice I landed on Cinemax and stared for a while at Demolition Man and a great deal of gratuitous violence. Once I’d sussed the story line and got into it, the power went off — as per norm at this time of year — but I was there long enough to note that the only eatery left in the US was Pizza Hut. There is no ‘freedom’ in capitalism sans control.

        I don’t know what protective structure you have in the US but the UK used to have the Monopolies Commission (gone now).

        I expect you have read of Pfizer’s aggressive take-over bid for one of Britain’s largest pharmaceuticals – AstraZenica. The government claim they can do nothing to stop the take-over. It is in the hands of the shareholders. We are not told who the major shareholders are but we can guess, can’t we?.

        When it gets to a battle between oligarchs the only way the market works is through turf war.

        This is glorified asset stripping; the lowest form of legalised business practices. Thousands of British jobs will be lost and much life saving research will be hampered.

        Quatermass revisited (an English scary TV favourite that kids were not allowed to watch).

        • Daniel Greenfield

          .. but let’s consider the conditions that make it difficult for upstart companies to deal with the big corporations

          especially in the area of medicine

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Wal-Mart made two mistakes. It tried to capture a more upmarket audience and its online strategy is terrible. Finally it depends largely on cheap Chinese manufacturing and the currency is shifting in China’s favor.

      • BagLady

        Wal-Mart will not lie down and die, it will morph along with the other too-big-to-fail oligarchies.

        How about the legislation going through between our so-called EU/US representatives at the moment? I speak of the TransAtlantic Trade and Investment Partnership,the secretive TTIP that will allow corporations to sue governments – taxpayers – for loss of potential income due to public outrage.

        Recently privatised public services like health, education and energy, sold off on the cheap to vested interests may not revert to public ownership.

        Rules that now protect consumer welfare and the environment are to be ‘relaxed’.

        Since I am seen as from ‘the other side’ I presume you view this new legislation from a different perspective than mine.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          I’m an opponent of the TPP.

          Plenty of big box chains have died under the pressure of the internet. Wal-Mart isn’t immune to economics.

    • Rick Lac

      Walmart was better at distribution and inventory than its’ competition in the 1990s. It was legendary and it earned that just distribution. After Desert Storm Schwartzkopf wrote a book and went on a speaking tour. the logistics guru behind the American effort was hired by Walmart.

      Walmart also had 2 marketing campaigns. The 1st was buy American. The 2nd campaign was the Rollback campaign. The 1st campaign was doomed due to so many companies outsourcing. At some point we need to get back to it for several reasons. These 2 marketing campaigns with their excellent logistics made Walmart #1.

      Walmart has weak sales. does that say more about Walmart or more about the overall economy? McDonald’s also has weak sales in its’ industry and it is also the market leader. I would submit that although Walmart might be making some missteps a lot of its’ weak sales is due to the Obama economy.

      Citizens and companies are waiting for the resolution of the culture war and want to see which way taxes and regulations are going. They are waiting for the outcome of the 2014 and 2016 elections to see who the victor are going to be.

      Walmart might be sluggish but Kmart, Fred Meyers, Target and others are doing well?

      If Walmart fails or becomes TBTF it will because some like a Howard Prescott (Secret of my Success) climbs to the top of the corporate ladder. Such a climb will be abetted by idiot board of directors like Jesse Jackson or some stupid lawyer-politicians (think Priest kings of ancient Sumer)

  • BagLady

    Out of a population of 317.8 million you have an old lady representing one side and… um.. give me a name for the opposition . Give me a policy that shifts the balance away from ‘inland security’ to inland infrastructure.

    At least Putin speaks straight. “Hitler” Hillary calls him.

    How sad is she?

    Amazing, isn’t it, that such a small population ‘controls’ everything.

    I see a big wobble coming on as the amateurs in the White House ‘take control’ of the east.

  • Libslayer

    The new, youthful, fresh face of the postmodern democrat party:
    Hillary Clinton!!!
    And if she doesn’t run:
    Joe Biden!!!!
    Or if he falls in a puddle and drowns:
    Elizabeth Warren!!!!!
    And if real Indians scalp her:
    Third term for Obama!!!

    Young people love voting for washed up lying socialists!

  • Libslayer

    The new, youthful, fresh face of the postmodern democrat party:
    Hillary Clinton!!!
    And if she doesn’t run:
    Joe Biden!!!!
    Or if he falls in a puddle and drowns:
    Elizabeth Warren!!!!!
    And if real Indians scalp her:
    Third term for Obama!!!

    Young people love voting for washed up lying socialists!

  • glissando

    …By now all Americans with a pulse know that Jay Carney makes a fool of himself
    for a living… Personally, I liked him better on The Honeymooners…. Anyway, by
    now he must be wondering, “We have been stalling so long now on Benghazi, it
    must be okay to call it old news…don’t ya think?”… “Well, isn’t it dude”….I love
    the surfer mentality of all the children at the White House….Even head surfer, Bill
    Clinton, tells us the State department investigated itself on Benghazi and found
    nothing amiss…Bubba failed in include the fact that Hillary was never interviewed
    about her disastrous performance on that September 11th..The Benghazi
    investigation would maybe get more attention if it were named “The Committee to
    Investigate the Death of Four Americans”….more to the point don’t cha
    think?…Personally I hope these Democrat Fools spend many years in the jail.

  • jviscont1

    Ronald Reagan was blowing out 69 candles on his pre inauguration birthday cake Wasn’t Hillary faking the head injury to dodge Congressional inquiries and now Dr Rove’s diagnosis says otherwise?

    • The March Hare

      Bill Clinton has already stated it took 6 months for Hillary to recover from the fall. Some people thought it was faking, but actually Hillary and the dems were trying to tamp it down as to not hamper her political viability later on.

  • William James Ward

    There must be set of questions about any candidate and my first one
    for elimination, is the candidate a liar, which equals a no vote. Billary
    is absolutely a no vote. Look at the present liar in Chief, we will not
    survive another, we are almost done as a viable Union of States.
    William

  • physicsnut

    more evidence of brain damage from
    THE BRILLIANT BRAINS AT THE NY TIMES :

    Medicaid Patients’ Health May Raise Costs
    By ROBERT PEAR 2:27 PM ET

    Surgery patients covered by Medicaid arrive at the hospital in worse health, stay longer and cost more than patients with private insurance, a new study has found.
    END QUOTE

    i guess they needed a “study” to figure that out.
    Perhaps we should do “studies” – and charge them
    big bucks to belabor the obvious.

  • herb benty

    God Almighty hates hypocricy, so given the fact these Democrats and THEIR MSM are saturated in hypocricy, they really are in deep, deep trouble one day.

  • Alleged Comment

    We’re gonna have a tuff time with this one as Billary was already brain damaged when she became a Demoncrap.

    Surely, no further damage can be done, huh? We’re gonna have to think of something else. Maybe the double vision? Nahh, that would increase her chances!

  • USARetired

    She has been .Brain dead’ all her life, It’s just accelerated now! She ofren loses her temper and speaks like a 13th century Sea Caption, which has absolutely no social benefit ! ‘Jack the Ripper’ was better qualified for politics then this poor excuse for a human!

  • Texas Patriot

    I think that there is a kind of brain damage at work in American politics, but I don’t think it is confined to Hillary or the Democratic Party. Rather I think it has something to do with the media overload and information overload now being experienced around the planet by two-legged hominids everywhere. The net result, it seems, is a kind of cognitive dissonance manifested in the form of an inability to recognize and respond appropriately to real danger as and when it arises, even if it is staring us right in the face. Instead, because we all know that the world is a dangerous place, and because we know that there are very good reasons to be concerned about something, we tend to manufacturer superficially dangerous things to be anxious about, even as we virtually ignore the very real and really very dangerous rattlesnakes now in the grass all around us. This kind of brain damage, I think, may be universal in Western Civiloization at this point in time.

    • Lea

      My sentiments exactly. Just yesterday I made the remark that there is so much information and even more misinformation that humanity is doomed, because it is unlikely we will be able to make any sense of it all, in time, to save our western civilisation from the onslaught of the forces of destruction.

  • JakeTobias

    I think all candidates should have to take a lie detector test.

    Not to find out what their positions are, or what they really believe. But only to find out if they are liars, or are hiding something. They test athletes to find out if they are cheating. Why can’t they test political candidates to find out if they are liars? If they had done that with Obama when he was running, for instance, and asked him his position on gay marriage say, and he answered, he believed it should remain between men and women only, he would have been revealed a liar.

    If only they would do that. Wouldn’t that be nice? Notice the question would not be, if gay marriage would be good or bad for the country, but only whether he was lying about his position. So in Hillary’s case, it would be irrelevant to ask about age in politics, or what happened in Benghazi, or even what she thought about infidelity. She need only be asked, just to use one example, whether she was kicked off the Watergate committee for being a liar or not. If only they would do that with Hillary, and all candidates, I think the test results could be quite revealing.

    • Lea

      A good idea is to enforce 24/7 surveillance and recordings of everything said and done behind closed doors. Look what happened to Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood when they were unaware that they were on live TV and plotted the demise of Ethiopia and affirmed that America was their target.

      http://www.clarionproject.org/videos/egyptian-govt-caught-live-tv-plotting-against-ethiopian-dam#

      It would be the greatest thing to place the government under surveillance instead of the ordinary people. The NSA spying should be the other way round.

  • Chris in N.Va.

    Ahh…..Those Dynamic Dems….

    Fighting 21st century problems with 19th century ideas.

    Now THAT’s “progressive” indeed!

    Yuppers….

  • bittman

    The Democrat’s intense concern about the number of Americans dying in Iraq and Afghanistan and the cost of the War on Terror also ended the day when Obama was sworn in as President — thereby demonstrating their true objections was not the people dying or the costs — but the fact that a Republican was in the White House.

  • USARetired

    Speaking without swearing like a ’5th Century salty Sea Captain, is very difficult for this one!

  • Conniption Fitz

    Democrats invented the double standard to cover Clinton’s escapades.

  • The March Hare

    Flagged as spam