PDA

View Full Version : RIP Nancy Reagan


Davian93
03-06-2016, 01:47 PM
Dead at Age 94 (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/nancy-reagan-dead-94-n532871?fark&utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link).

Amazing she lasted as long as she did.

Ozymandias
03-07-2016, 02:13 PM
Dead at Age 94 (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/nancy-reagan-dead-94-n532871?fark&utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link).

Amazing she lasted as long as she did.

Hillary Clinton always reminds me of Nancy Reagan, just a bit more independently ambitious

Kimon
03-07-2016, 03:43 PM
Hillary Clinton always reminds me of Nancy Reagan, just a bit more independently ambitious

And smarter. Nancy Reagan made well-documented use of psychics and astrologers, and not just for shits and giggles, for decisions relating to her husband's political scheduling. Hillary differs in far more than just ambition. Whether or not Nancy Reagan had personal ambition is immaterial considering that she lacked the qualifications. Although admittedly, the same was obviously true of her husband.

GonzoTheGreat
03-08-2016, 03:11 AM
Her husband was almost as qualified as she was.

Ozymandias
03-09-2016, 05:12 PM
And smarter. Nancy Reagan made well-documented use of psychics and astrologers, and not just for shits and giggles, for decisions relating to her husband's political scheduling. Hillary differs in far more than just ambition. Whether or not Nancy Reagan had personal ambition is immaterial considering that she lacked the qualifications. Although admittedly, the same was obviously true of her husband.

Hillary Clinton used a personal email account to send State Department emails while in office, and then tried to cover up the evidence when confronted about it. All while knowing she was running for President.

I'd prefer Nancy Reagan's honest stupidity when held up against the mindless, reflexive duplicity of Hillary Clinton.

Davian93
03-09-2016, 06:06 PM
Hillary Clinton used a personal email account to send State Department emails while in office, and then tried to cover up the evidence when confronted about it. All while knowing she was running for President.

I'd prefer Nancy Reagan's honest stupidity when held up against the mindless, reflexive duplicity of Hillary Clinton.

So did Colin Powell...and several other Presidential appointees. Its not exactly the giant scandal the GOP has been trying to make it.

Ivhon
03-09-2016, 07:39 PM
So did Colin Powell...and several other Presidential appointees. Its not exactly the giant scandal the GOP has been trying to make it.

Nothing involving her is ever exactly the giant scandal that either the GOP or Bernie supporters make it out to be.

If a 25 year old witch hunt conducted by both ends of the political spectrum with investigative journalists and politicians out to make a name for themselves as giant-killers has failed to turn up anything, then you have to conclude that:

She is by far the most devious and intelligent person that has ever lived - all these campaign ending gaffes are just a front

She is literally the anti-christ using dark magic to cover her tracks

or...maybe...there's nothing there.

Ozymandias
03-21-2016, 10:19 AM
So did Colin Powell...and several other Presidential appointees. Its not exactly the giant scandal the GOP has been trying to make it.

It's got nothing to do with the content of the emails, and everything to do with the piss poor judgement it demonstrates.

She'd have to be incredibly naive or incredibly stupid to think that something like that wouldn't be used against her, and she did it while being 100% sure she'd be running for President. She literally handed her opponents live ammunition to use against her. Whether she was using that account to send emojis to Bill, or to send classified documents to Edward Snowden, is completely immaterial to the point I'm trying to make. It was just so arrogant.

It would be a total non-issue for me if she weren't running for President and didn't know she'd be running when she made the choice on this matter.

Davian93
03-21-2016, 11:34 AM
It's got nothing to do with the content of the emails, and everything to do with the piss poor judgement it demonstrates.

She'd have to be incredibly naive or incredibly stupid to think that something like that wouldn't be used against her, and she did it while being 100% sure she'd be running for President. She literally handed her opponents live ammunition to use against her. Whether she was using that account to send emojis to Bill, or to send classified documents to Edward Snowden, is completely immaterial to the point I'm trying to make. It was just so arrogant.

It would be a total non-issue for me if she weren't running for President and didn't know she'd be running when she made the choice on this matter.

The problem is that it was allowed at the time, was the same thing used by previous SecStates and it is a complete non-scandal in a rational world. Same with Benghazi. The GOP really hates her and will simply make up a scandal in the absence of one so its all a moot point.

GonzoTheGreat
03-21-2016, 12:25 PM
However, such fake scandals do have some effect, ludicrous though they are. And when it comes to Hillary, the GOP no doubt has half a dozen or more spare fake scandals lying around, just waiting to grab the headlines just as the Benghazi emails did. With Bernie, on the other hand, they haven't even gotten started fabricating anything, because they haven't done any original work since Obama took office. Thus, just as they have no answer to Trump, they don't have an answer to Bernie either. Trump probably wouldn't have much effect against such an outright socialist either, since calling Bernie a socialist wouldn't achieve more than an "even my opponent agrees with me" from Bernie.

Davian93
03-21-2016, 02:01 PM
However, such fake scandals do have some effect, ludicrous though they are. And when it comes to Hillary, the GOP no doubt has half a dozen or more spare fake scandals lying around, just waiting to grab the headlines just as the Benghazi emails did. With Bernie, on the other hand, they haven't even gotten started fabricating anything, because they haven't done any original work since Obama took office. Thus, just as they have no answer to Trump, they don't have an answer to Bernie either. Trump probably wouldn't have much effect against such an outright socialist either, since calling Bernie a socialist wouldn't achieve more than an "even my opponent agrees with me" from Bernie.

One of the bigger issues in 2008 (other than the economy collapsing 6 weeks before the election to clinch it) was that the GOP had prepped for Hillary for 4-8 years and was caught flat-footed when Obama won the nomination. And then, they were terrified at first to attack him because of his race.

They'll have no such issues with Hillary this time around and have been trying out all the stuff they prepped for 2008 along with the bogus stuff like Benghazi and the emails...neither of which really matter to anyone not already voting for the GOP.

They should try to bully her...I hear that works really well against female opponents. It doesnt piss off other women at all...at all.

yks 6nnetu hing
03-22-2016, 03:02 AM
The problem is that it was allowed at the time, was the same thing used by previous SecStates and it is a complete non-scandal in a rational world. Same with Benghazi. The GOP really hates her and will simply make up a scandal in the absence of one so its all a moot point.

this. It's the same issue as modern readers have with Mark Twain's Huck Finn/Tom Sawyer stories. Yes, such practices and language was commonplace (and actually the handling of the subject matter was rather progressive by Twain) at the time, reading the original texts now kind of gives us the creeps. Now, in the case of Clinton's emails, the standard conventions of data security change extremely fast, so what was normal 20, 15, 10, 5 years ago would be considered insanely dangerous now; and for good reason. However, back then that reason wasn't quite as good just yet.

Davian93
03-22-2016, 06:47 AM
this. It's the same issue as modern readers have with Mark Twain's Huck Finn/Tom Sawyer stories. Yes, such practices and language was commonplace (and actually the handling of the subject matter was rather progressive by Twain) at the time, reading the original texts now kind of gives us the creeps. Now, in the case of Clinton's emails, the standard conventions of data security change extremely fast, so what was normal 20, 15, 10, 5 years ago would be considered insanely dangerous now; and for good reason. However, back then that reason wasn't quite as good just yet.

On a random tangent, I don't think I've ever been more creeped out than I was after reading Gone with the Wind...talk about a blatantly racist novel. I mean, the movie is bad but the book is awful.

Funny thing is that I tend to like southern literature...William Faulkner is one of my favorite authors actually.