• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Hillary Flip-Flopping Again..

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I don't have a problem with the gist of the OP, but I do have to wonder why the flip-flopping charge was just aimed at Hillary? Not only did Romney become a rather notorious flip-flopper, so was Reagan. How many times did Reagan's press secretary have to give a press conference the next day after a Reagan speech or press conference trying to explain what Reagan "really meant". Does anyone remember the Iran-Contra scandal? How about taking conservative but spending like a drunken sailor, and then trying to blame it all on the Dems? [even if the Dems supposedly were to blame, there's something called a "veto"]

And how about the current field or Pubs? We've seen Bush get caught with his flip-flopping just in the last couple of weeks, for one example.

So, if it's one's own party that's flip-flopping, that seemingly is OK because it's just him/her "being political", but if it's the other party's candidate(s) that flip-flopping, they're "lying sacks of dung".
 

esmith

Veteran Member
I don't have a problem with the gist of the OP, but I do have to wonder why the flip-flopping charge was just aimed at Hillary? Not only did Romney become a rather notorious flip-flopper, so was Reagan. How many times did Reagan's press secretary have to give a press conference the next day after a Reagan speech or press conference trying to explain what Reagan "really meant". Does anyone remember the Iran-Contra scandal? How about taking conservative but spending like a drunken sailor, and then trying to blame it all on the Dems? [even if the Dems supposedly were to blame, there's something called a "veto"]

And how about the current field or Pubs? We've seen Bush get caught with his flip-flopping just in the last couple of weeks, for one example.

So, if it's one's own party that's flip-flopping, that seemingly is OK because it's just him/her "being political", but if it's the other party's candidate(s) that flip-flopping, they're "lying sacks of dung".
Because at the present time neither Romney nor Regan are running to be the next President of the U.S. and I would rather see Bonnie Parker as president than Hillary; at least I know what we would be getting with Ms. Parker
 

Marisa

Well-Known Member
Because at the present time neither Romney nor Regan are running to be the next President of the U.S. and I would rather see Alfred E. Numan as president than Hillary.
Wasn't Romney considering another run? I could have sworn I heard that a few months back.
 
Wasn't Romney considering another run? I could have sworn I heard that a few months back.
This is Romney right after he lost the race in the last election.For a very rich man he sure does keep it real.

romney-pumping-gas.jpg
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Some interesting Hillary stuff.....
FLYING BRISKET WHACKS WOMAN AMID BEEF AT BBQ FESTIVAL...

Oops!
That's not the link I intended.
Here's the correct one....
http://www.theamericanmirror.com/ex...doubts-hillarys-new-sex-assault-survivors-ad/
Hillary Clinton believes victims of sexual assault have “a right to be believed.” Except, of course, if the accusations are made against her husband and could complicate her political aspirations.

In Clinton’s new web ad, titled “Hillary’s Message to Survivors of Sexual Assault,” the candidate claims:

I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault.

Don’t let anyone silence your voice. You have a right to be heard. You have a right to be believed. We’re with you.
 
Top