Here, let me clarify.
You: He is simply a lot less likely to fuck things up and when he does fuck up the fuck-ups won't be as big.
You've stated opinion as fact. You've not only stated it as fact that you've completed ignored the utter success Romney attained at every job position he's ever had, while giving credit to a man who's qualification for becoming a Senator was breaking the divorce records open of Jerry Ryan (illegaly) in order to embarrass her husband and make him drop out of the Senate race.
Also, can you actually cite any part of the ACA that was presented and has endured? The "Law" has morphed constantly and any minimal audit would normally send people conducting regulatory compliance with this level of ineptness to a federal penitentiary for a long visit if it were anyone but the Executive Administration. I readily admit I'm making a prediction (based upon previous Democratic Presidents' and Vice Presidents' actions). Do you seriously deny that mandatory insurance purchasing for simply existing doesn't appease the insurance companies? Maybe you still believe everyone will get the mythical $2,500 premium savings or keep their doctors, etc.
I think the most moronic thing you've impressed is that the Republicans had anything to do with the ACA's implementation. It was never non-partisan, and the Democratic Party lost control of both the House and the Senate over these completely partisan decisions. If you liked Romney so much to label all Republicans == Romney, why didn't you vote for him?
No, you are saying that the Dem's aren't at fault, and you're lying by obfuscation.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has
"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime
I will be very disappointed if Clinton opponents don't use some version of an ad that highlights this.
And following that, the Democrats will put up the exact same ad, but featuring Jeb Bush.
There have been a bunch of Republicans who have admitted to using their own (non-governmental) email systems, two of which were also former secretaries of state:
Condoleezza Rice
Apparently not: http://www.politico.com/story/...
Because everyone designated Secretary of State should be able to misplace $6 billion or so.
from the citation:
Clinton has not described her motivation for using a private email account — hdr22@clintonemail.com, which traced back to her own private email server registered under an apparent pseudonym — for official State Department business.
So you're saying it's proper for the third ranking member of the U.S. Government to conduct their office via private e-mail servers?
more:
The New York Times reported Monday that Clinton exclusively used a personal email account it did not specify to conduct State Department business. The disclosure raised questions about whether she took actions to preserve copies of her old work-related emails, as required by the Federal Records Act. A Clinton spokesman, Nick Merrill, told the newspaper that Clinton complied with the letter and spirit of the law because her advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails to decide which ones to turn over to the State Department after the agency asked for them.
So, not only can you not read, you allow the "Clinton advisers" to now be the arbiters of Federal law.
1. Again, you accuse a victim for not wading instantly through mounds of paternity law when the fraud is exacted against them (me). Further evidence the you would rather ruin someone's professional, personal, and legal standing than admit that women are enabled to commit fraud against men by most current paternity laws around the world. Counts as one instance of you advocating illegal activity from my POV. I particularly liked the part where you automatically assumed I would have sex with this person whatsoever and then dictate to me how I must conduct myself intimately.
2. Show me a single
3. I haven't a clue what a SJW is, or the depression comments concern. Maybe you could advocate 'people' instead of LGBTt's because the other 95% + of people tire of your bullshit.
Again, I and plenty of others have posted citations of paternity fraud throughout the thread. It takes less than 5 seconds to make the shortest of google queries about the subject. Someone in most European countries and a large majority of states can simply put my name on paper and I am now a father. This recently happened to me, even though I was in another country for the conception (4,000+ miles away), and the lady said she just felt like protecting her child instead of labeling the correct father, who makes much less money than me. My wife of 30+ years did find it interesting to receive the summons, though.
This is the law in California, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. If you wish to find more modern locations than these I'd love to hear your analogies. Somehow, I think you continue to excuse any sort of illegal activity for your social justice activism.
fortune: No such file or directory