Posted on 03/14/2015 4:43:35 PM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
"Anarchists?" If only! Let's stipulate that Maureen Dowd's current column is absolutely brutal to Hillary. Riffing off the Republicans' letter to the ayatollah, Dowd deigns to send a letter from "America" explaining the Constitution to Clinton. Dowd denounces Hillary for being "willing to cite your mother's funeral to get sympathy for ill-advisedly deleting 30,000 emails," and describes her as "an annoyed queen, radiating irritation at anyone who tries to hold you accountable."
But that won't stop us from holding Dowd accountable for her absurd shot at Republicans, whereby she writes of Hillary exploiting "our fear of the anarchists and haters in Congress." Let's leave aside "haters," which is shorthand for people who disagree with what you like. But "anarchists?" Really?
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Does she really want to run? This can be case of supporters, back slappers, yes-men, and thousands of others cheering her on, buoying her ego and encouraging her to run
You are right! Melba toast, meet Hillary toast.
This didn’t come from the right wing or even conservatives. The NYT, WaPo, and all the other attackers with swords are carrying them left-handed. With the origin somewhere around 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Unfortunately, your opinions seem to be to constantly denigrate other posters rather than offering something new and fresh or thought provoking.
But that’s OK. This is America and you can do that. But don’t expect a lot of sympathy.
I don't recall having expectations of any of that.
Although.. in your case, I do find myself hoping for you to find a pile of "STFU".
Simply because you don't know what you're on about.
One of the most physically perfect females I have ever seen.
Agreed. I think the democratic party is feeling much the same visceral revulsion at nominating a Clinton in 2016 as the republican party is of nominating a Bush.
Separate yes.
Co-equal no.
http://www.creators.com/conservative/joseph-farah/lesson-for-a-constitutional-scholar.html
“But note how the powers of each branch are “different.” How can different powers ever become equal? Yes, the three branches were established to diffuse power — but not equally. There were some among the founders who wanted co-equal branches of government. They lost the debate, and they knew it. They acknowledged it.”
“I admit that schoolchildren are misinformed every day that we have three co-equal branches of government. I admit that it is something of an article of faith. But it is a dangerous deception, one of many that must be shattered if we are ever to re-establish our constitutional moorings.”-Farah
That face has worn out 5 bodies. Bad temperament, bad policies, bad person. She just needs to go away into the sunset (preferably in another country).
OUCH Michael Douglas ex lady friend saying this OUCH LOL!
Only trouble is this:
I remember thinking in ‘07, “ABC!!!!! ‘Anybody But Clinton!’ “.
Little did I know Obama would be our President. Hillary probably would have been less harmful to our nation - like Bill, totally out for herself, but far less ideological, and would have probably worked with the Repubs to some extent.
O is a pro-Muslim communist who is all-out to destroy our nation, to hell with those who oppose him and his agenda.
So who will replace the Hildabeast? Scary thought. Today’s Dems would nominate Marx, Lenin or Stalin if they were still alive......
And, Spiritual. He is a true Destroyer. The press were gaga over calling him "a god," "a lightbringer."
He exercises M Scott Peck's definition of evil every day of his life, which presents evil as the political will to prevent others' spiritual growth.
I get that in spades. It was performed on me a couple of times with tremendous effectiveness, that frankly, I have never forgiven, even though I am glad those people are not around.
All this fits 0bama and the Left. Screw them. 1. Is consistently self deceiving, with the intent of avoiding guilt and maintaining a self image of perfection
2. Deceives others as a consequence of their own self deception
3. Projects his or her evils and sins onto very specific targets while being apparently normal with everyone else.
4. Commonly hates with the pretense of love, for the purposes of self deception as much as deception of others 5. Abuses political & emotional power ("the imposition of one's will upon others by overt or covert coercion".) 6. Maintains a high level of respectability, and lies incessantly in order to do so 7. Is consistent in his or her sins. Evil persons are characterized not so much by the magnitude of their sins, but by their consistency of destructiveness. 8. Is unable to think from the viewpoint of their victim 9. Has a covert intolerance to criticism and other forms of narcissistic injury 10. Most evil people realize the evil deep within themselves but are unable to tolerate the pain of introspection or admit to themselves that they are evil. Thus, they constantly run away from their evil by putting themselves in a position of moral superiority and putting the focus of evil on others. “Since [narcissists] deep down, feel themselves to be faultless, it is inevitable that when they are in conflict with the world they will invariably perceive the conflict as the world's fault. Since they must deny their own badness, they must perceive others as bad. They project their own evil onto the world. They never think of themselves as evil, on the other hand, they consequently see much evil in others.” ― M. Scott Peck
Of course it does - Maureen couldn't hit a main point if she fell on one.
The astonishing thing is that she's been told to make the effort at all, against Hillary.
Something quite fascinating is going on - and big.
Nice fast post! You da’man!
You did not address your Post #13 to me, but you did post it publicly rather than privately for all to read, so I must ask: What in the hell are you talking about and how did you post to someone who has not posted on this thread prior to your incoherent rant? NEVER POST ON FREE REPUBLIC WHILE DRINKING!!!
With all due respect, this News Busters article is milquetoast. It left out the best parts of the royal a** whoopin’ Maureen Dowd gave Hillary Clinton. If you want to read the entire scathing article, go here:
“Anarchists? “
I think about 80 percent of our worthless federal gub mint ought be dissolved and their worthless employees made to pick fruit and beg for mercy.
Elizabeth Warren seems to be the flavor of the month. Lord knows who it will be next spring. Who outside of Arkansas had hear of Billy Jeff ‘toon in the spring of 1991?
here’s the rest of the article:
“....Could Dowd please describe just who and what she has in mind? Thomas Jefferson, perhaps, who said “that government is best which governs least?” Today’s Republicans timidly call for slight reductions in the growth of government programs. When’s the last time you heard a national-level Republican call for the abolition of anything big?
So please, Maureen. We dug your column, but only wish you were close to right in characterizing Republicans as passionate defenders of the minimalist federal government our Founders envisioned. ...”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.