Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This may come as a surprise to you but the 1%er spend FAR more than $500 on a pair of shoes. $500 for shoes is on the low end for designer shoes. Heck, I'm just an average middle class person and I've spent $250 on a pair of shoes. We wouldn't even be having this conversation if Hillary wasn't a woman, no one cares how much male candidates spend on their wardrobea. The "hypocrite" argument Republicans are throwing around about "shoegate" is just a smoke screen to bash her about something.
WTF WTF WTF WTF. Most 1% can't justify paying that much for a pair of shoes, unless you are a celebrity or the wife of a huge Wall Street personel. Rich people are rich because they are smart with their money. They don't waste it on 20 pairs of 500 + shoes. They may have a pair or 2 but that's it. I would know because I'm a 1%er. My husband and I save and save and save (coupons, outlets, sale rack). You need to get into reality. That's why republicans have the perception of being rich. BECAUSE THEY ARE SMART WITH THEIR MONEY!
I find Hillary to be the most loathsome character in politics in my lifetime. What are her core principles? She'll say one thing to one crowd but another to a different crowd. Now she's this uber liberal who is gung ho about gay marriage, criminal justice reform, immigration etc. Yet not too long ago she sounded like a Republican.
This may come as a surprise to you but the 1%er spend FAR more than $500 on a pair of shoes. $500 for shoes is on the low end for designer shoes. Heck, I'm just an average middle class person and I've spent $250 on a pair of shoes. We wouldn't even be having this conversation if Hillary wasn't a woman, no one cares how much male candidates spend on their wardrobea. The "hypocrite" argument Republicans are throwing around about "shoegate" is just a smoke screen to bash her about something.
"Hypocrite" argument?
As stated Hillary is the one pretending to separate herself frombthe 1%'er that she is.
There is your hypocracy, it lives at the house of Clinton and not only in the shoe closet.
Perhaps I should say lives at the Houses (mansions plural) of Clinton.
A Republican did far worse - Iraq - where thousand of US soldiers died.
Sea cove, Hillary, like 95% of America after 9/11 was overtly hung no to go after anyone in the Arab world that might remotely be connected. From 2002-2006 the patriotic fervor was on BOTH sides of the aisle...now, one can certainly debate the wars afterwards. But don't, for a second, act like the dems didn't want it either.
You are barfing a sound bite. The only reason we haven't ended this a decade ago is because people like the democrats, always tie the arms behind the backs of the military. When they are allowed to do their job, we get the job done. When folks like the constantly non committed left waffle, wars turn into grinding attrition.
B-52 saturation strikes get anyone's mind right. The problem with you is you actually want to prosecute a war surgically. I don't. If you are in war, you need to be init to win it and change minds. How? Brute force.
Sherman knew it, Washington knew it, Patton knew it, Teddy Roosevelt knew it, even Nixon knew it. On your side, Johnson blew it, Truman didn't have much of a clue after the two bombs about it, and Clinton and barrack still don't have a clue what to do about it.
NEXT time we have some mid east war games, let's say we ALL get into end it quickly? I kindly turn you to the comments made by General Chuck Horner. When you go to war, you try to end it as quickly as possible. Why? It actually saves lives on both sides. To prolong war only kills more than necessary because you just play the war of attrition running the tab way way higher than it needs to be. Contrast gulf storm with these two wars. Do you really think it would be much of a contest if we actually used our air arsenals with little or no restrictions just short of nuclear? Do you really think anyone in those countries could hold up to 9 B-52's/ three waves dropping ordinance?
Again, the problem is you want to fight WARS by an armchair. If you go in, go in with an exit strategy. Bush and your guy never had one after the first war. Me? I would have obliterated any town (Fallijah) the very next day insurgents took it over. The message to the locals? Get on board or you will have no home to go back to?
This combat malaise meandering for 8 years is senseless. Either get in and finish it or get the f out. Period. But make up your minds. The soldiers and civilians deserve no less? Have a plan. And what, you want HILLARY to be commander in chief? Talk about laughable.
If she gains the presidency, I urge all members of the military to resign their commissions, finish their terms and leave. Otherwise, she will get them killed.
It's simple, who would you really want holding the nuclear football, Hillary, or pick anyone on the right. After all, it's your a$$ too you know. Worse yet, it could be your kid next time. No thanks.
Next at bat, ISIS. What do you suppose we do about THAT one? Ideas? Solutions? Or do we letthe innocent continue together slaughtered? Your call here commander. What about Darfur and Boco Haram?
Nine pages of posts so far and no one has offered a persuasive reason why I, an independent, should vote for Hillary.
SP
There's no reason to. The Republicantwins will make the case for us by nominating the biggest clown they can find. If you're a true independent, who is a serious person, you'll have to vote for Hillary. Don't fret. Many Democantloses are in the same boat. For some odd reason, the Republicantwins choose to make themselves irrelevant.
WTF WTF WTF WTF. Most 1% can't justify paying that much for a pair of shoes, unless you are a celebrity or the wife of a huge Wall Street personel. Rich people are rich because they are smart with their money. They don't waste it on 20 pairs of 500 + shoes. They may have a pair or 2 but that's it. I would know because I'm a 1%er. My husband and I save and save and save (coupons, outlets, sale rack). You need to get into reality. That's why republicans have the perception of being rich. BECAUSE THEY ARE SMART WITH THEIR MONEY!
Just because you are a 1%er without a couple of pairs of Louis Vuilton ($1,000) shoes or Manolo Blahnik ($1,400) or Jimmy Choo (upper$100s to $1,000) doesn't mean you are a typical 1%er. $500 for the shoes Mrs Clinton wore over the 4th is not a big deal and picking on that fact only shows how low Republicans can go to trash a woman candidate. And by the way, don't pretend to know how many pairs of Salvatore Ferragamo ($500) shoes are in Mrs. Clinton's closet.
It must be killing the conservatives that such a "loathsome" and "unethical" character is soundly leading every possible Republican candidate on head-to-head polls. What does that say? lol
Apparently it's not as boring as you say or you wouldn't be so apoplectic about it? As it relates to Benghazi, did you not catch the interview from the operatives that were on the ground??? According to them, they could have delivered help but, the Clinton:POTUS regime failed to do so. Let's not forget, it's already been proven she knew it wasn't some a clowns video that triggered when she said to the father of the dead navy seal, "we are going to spare no expense to find the culprit who released that video"....as if. In short, she lied to the decedent's father and knew she was lying when sye said it. No matter, the more compelling info came from those 4 guys who tried to lend support and tried to get some relief flown in...and we're promptly told to stand down. And due to that, a sitting ambassador and three others died. No denying it and those are the facts.
And what does the left do? "let's move on". "why does it matter?". Please. Had a republican done that, you guys would still be getting off round the clock with your media outlets. FOX is the LEAST of your worries. They are one station. Imagine when her lies on Benghazi are brought front and center next year...uh oh....
Except that even Fox News says this:
Quote:
WASHINGTON – A two-year investigation by the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee has found that the CIA and the military acted properly in responding to the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya.
The report alleges no wrongdoing by Obama administration appointees.
Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies surrounding the incident, the report concludes that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.
The report blames the Obama administration's inaccurate portrayal of the attack as having evolved from a protest on fragmentary and contradictory intelligence from the CIA. It finds no intent to mislead the American public.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
