Reply With Quote
If it wasn't a fact, why would you believe it?
I thought I would bring something that appears real into the eyes of others:
from Nealz Nuze"
And yes, I believe this. Sure, no real proof, but unlike some of you, I will state it as a belief rather than a fact.HILLARY'S REAL CONCERN
I frankly don't know what makes me madder, Hillary Clinton's whining about how much it will help Republicans if we have another terrorist attack before the election, or John Edwards insipid speech.
Hillary is concerned about a terrorist attack.. a terrorist attack in the U.S. before the next election. Is she concerned about what such an attack might do to our economy? Nope. Is she concerned about what an Islamic attack might cost us in terms of human life? Sorry, but no. She's concerned that another terrorist attack might give the Republicans a better chance of keeping the White House in 2008.
That's Hillary. It's never about this county. It's never about the people. It's always about her and her endless quest for power.
The link is a page that changes daily. It will shortly be in the archives for August 24 here:
archives
I will edit the link location after it changes.
If it wasn't a fact, why would you believe it?
Stop and re-read that please.
I did not say it wasn't a fact. I said I would not state it as fact! How does one claim to factually know the workings of anothers mind?
I don't know, but that's a good question for your blogger friend that you cited.
How are we supposed to take seriously any website with a name like "Nealz Nuze"?
I don't think Hillary is that concerned. The Republicans are in near-complete disarray.
I will state it as my belief that you are now hoping for a terrorist attack to hurt Hillary's chances of being elected.
Agreed that he should be taken to task about stating it in a factual manner. However, I am one that sees past such things, an pointed that out right up front, unlike others who quote other peoples words.
Neal Boortz is a libertarian radio host, not a blogger. He does some pretty good research, and may have more evidence to support such a contention than I am aware of. He shouldn't be redily dismissed.
Sadly, there may be some with that viewpoint.
Wouldn't such a good researcher cite his evidence in his "nuze" blog?He does some pretty good research, and may have more evidence to support such a contention than I am aware of.
Like you.
That is my belief.
Maybe he should make a better case.
Corroboration from the NY PostAugust 24, 2007 -- WASHINGTON - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday raised the prospect of a terror attack before next year's election, warning that it could boost the GOP's efforts to hold on to the White House.
Discussing the possibility of a new nightmare assault while campaigning in New Hampshire, Clinton also insisted she is the Democratic candidate best equipped to deal with it.
"It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself, 'What if? What if?' But if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world," Clinton told supporters in Concord.
"So I think I'm the best of the Democrats to deal with that," she added.
The former first lady made the surprising comments as she explained to supporters that she has beaten back the GOP's negative attacks for years, and is ready to do so again.
No, part of his style is to enrage people then get them as callers on his show. He then explains things out.
She was making an explaination regarding idiots like you.
should I call his blog so he can explain his editorial better?
Thanks for doing Nealz reazearch for him.
It's not surprising at all. This is a Clinton we're talking about. Every campaign angle is going to be covered. Of course in context she's saying she's the best Democratic candidate in that scenario.
There is no real need to defend the statement.
I thought I pointed out he was a talk show host?
Atlanta: 404.872.0750
Elsewhere 1.877.310.2100
He is live 8:30 AM to 1:00 PM Eastern time, Tuesday to Friday.
Why would I want to listen to Nealz talk zhow?
So that your new view points and opinions can be channeled directly into your brain.
I wouldn't worry if I were the repubs. Hillary is unelectable. The republicans could run a monkey, again, and win the election.
I doubt it. There is evidence to show the democrats have learned how to cheat with the electronic voting.
Yes, zolid evidenze.
Some of you might be interested in this YouTube clip about Boortz:
The Neal Boortz Show - Behind the Mouth
WC and my boy 101A are voting Fred Thompson 110%^
"The Republicans are in near-complete disarray."
I have no doubt that the Repugs have ability to get un-disarrayed, but that's not really their problem, if it is a problem.
The overwhelming Repug problem is rubber-stamping the start of the Iraq war and continuing to support it after it's been lost, and in the face of overwhelming unpopulatiry.
The war is also a huge problem for the current session of 2006 Congressional Dems, who have not done enough to force the Repug-lost war to a conclusion. They are back home for the recess and apparently getting an earful from unhappy voters about their under-performance in stopping the war.
Going into the Nov 2008, the Repugs will have NO PROGRESS to show over 8 years on domestic issues, except enriching and protecting the corps and super-rich, while ignoring the rest of us. The Repugs have their earmarks, but so do the Dems.
If the economy, which has been strong only for the corps and top 2%, really goes sour by November 08, the election will be dangerous for both parties.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
