This guy got fired for reporting that HRC's health is questionable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7ufuAPVRIY
Printable View
This guy got fired for reporting that HRC's health is questionable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7ufuAPVRIY
Honey, I listened to a couple of minutes of this, skipping thru it, but it is impossible to see what you are talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xmac
I heardhim blather on about the Federal Reserve, the Rothchilds, Bitcoin, and yadda near the end whrn I tried to figure out where the Hillary piece was.
so, ok. Whatever.
Maybe there are just people who figure they can get rich (or at least get by) playing professional victim of an elite meant to sabotage them and a conspiracy theorist. The latter pays off for Alex Jones. Add an ideological angle and stir. I mean does the HuffPo even care about some two bit commentator out there, doesn't it have tons of them? I never said there aren't real conspiracies, and real mechanisms to quiet dissent. I just suspect that the angle can be played all the way to the bank.
If he reported Hillary's health is questionable what evidence did he bring? Just some old videos? What is questionable is whether that is reporting in that case. The well known lack of press conferences is troubling, but may just mean she fears that any publicity is bad publicity. Well look she's running against a guy that is almost destined to lose and yet she still has super high unfavorables, any publicity may be bad publicity, health problems or not.
Being too squirrely for the Puffington Host is quite an achievement, but this guy seems to have risen to the challenge.
He left out any mention of how the reptilian elite and the Freemasons have conspired to rig the Oscars, or the CDC's secret plan to vaccinate us without our knowledge using genetically modified mosquitoes, so you know he's not a serious journalist.
The "Hillary health problems""story was swirling around last week but this youtube guy doesn't give it or anything else any credibility.
He memtions that HuffPo is in her pocket. Well, there's some news. Not.
She looked strong and healthy at that endless Benghazi hearing. For hours.
Obviously, she should find some random physician to attest that she's the fittest presidential candidate in the history of the world. :~)
they are both too old for my tastes.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
one thng I like about our current prez is that he is a good age.
I like the old leaders, like Churchill. Jefferson was 54 when he became president in 1797. In 1800, the average life expectancy was 40. So did that make him seem "old" at the time-- comparatively speaking, current life expectancy is 79 in US. So Hillary would have to be 107 to be the same "age" as Jefferson was when he became president.
Bernie had fantastic stamina when he was running. He was older than either of these.
Average life expectancy has much to do with infant and childbirth mortality and infectious diseases. People can and did live long and prosper throughout the ages. Franklin lived to be 84.
I'd like to see younger candidates, but Bernie would have been fine with me--regardless of his age.
I think it's great that this reporter has been telling everyone that he is NOT suicidal. Smart.
I get my news from The Young Turks and Wikileaks.
Jim Taranto's "Best of the Web" blog weighs in on the Hilary's health meme here: http://www.wsj.com/articles/c-is-for...ion-1473182664
Personally, I'm more inclined to view her various memory lapses as more tactical than physiological in nature.
yea but that's what they said about Ronald ("I don't remember") Reagan :0!Quote:
Personally, I'm more inclined to view her various memory lapses as more tactical than physiological in nature.
God, I miss that guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore
I'm trying like crazy to find a wonderful essay by Anna Quindlen I once read. I've quoted it numerous times, so when I actually find the article I'll have to see if I've quoted it correctly, or morphed it into my own ideas of what it should have said.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
But essentially, I think she wrote it shortly after Bush 43 became President and she was weighing the chances of his success, and she boiled it down to one thing: how much he loved his job. She basically theorized that the country somehow gets the vibes of their president, who somehow leads the collective consciousness of the country with either a joie de vivre or its opposite, whatever that may be.
Who we don't want as President is someone like Jimmy Carter, who she said carried his responsibilities as president as if they were the Stations of the Cross.
OTOH, think about the times when America did best... when it was led by people who CLEARLY loved their jobs. Reagan was one, and Clinton another. (I personally feel that Reagan's optimism was the best thing he had going of him.) So her bottom line was, we'd have to see how much Bush loved his job to determine how well we would do under him.
History has spoken... (I guess he's probably much happier painting pictures of his dog.)
It's probably too early to believe that history has rendered a verdict on GWB, but I think you're right on the optimism thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by catherine
I think you're on target there, and it's reflected in both current candidates low approval ratings. Guys like Reagan or Hubert Humphrey actually seemed to be having fun. Right now, it's a contest between an insatiable ego and a pathological obsession with power. It's painful to watch either of them.
OP, it seems that Dr Drew suffered the same fate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xmac