So, about Abbot, firstly she's just resigned because of serious illness (no details yet, this is just on the wires now); secondly, read this:
https://twitter.com/MxJackMonroe/status/872419798017245184

She's had some bad moments in the last few weeks, but honestly she's had a solid career and the other side have had nothing but worse performances all day long and twice everything there's a TV debate (who the **** as a sitting PM doesn't go to a leader's debate but sends a representative whose father died three days earlier?). We're laughing at her grasp of the figures, but the Tories haven't provided any figures at all.

I kinda lean towards the impression myself that the BBC has shafted her completely because (a) female, (b) black and (c) Labour. And I'm not even sure which of those three raised the most BBC ire. I don't know if the BBC even know the answer to that one.

Yeah, I wouldn't agree with her on, well, a shed-load of things, but I can't think of a single politician I would agree with on many things. And most of them are incompetent ****-heels I wouldn't trust with the TV remote. Or just straight-up dog-whistling racists. A competent politician who will listen to data and arguments against something (as opposed to just letting you talk without bothering to listen to the words because they have no intention of changing their mind) - that's the acme, you won't ever get better than it. And you very rarely find even that.

And the BBC is a long way from clean-handed here; they just had a terrorist attack in London, and one of the ****s who did it was a follower of a fairly well-known extremist imam in the UK. Well-known if you actually watch the BBC that is. You wouldn't know the guy if you were muslim because he's been banned from mosques up and down the country for years and has been actively chased out of them if he tried to show up (seriously, it's been caught on youtube a few times, it's like watching what would happen if Gerry Adams had tried to speak during mass in Christchurch during the mid-80s). But stuff like that never makes the media because it's not simple and if it's not simple, you can't sell ad space near it. So they've had some extremist gobdaw on the Beeb for years and now one of the people they let him broadcast to has murdered eight people. And it's hardly the first time you could say that about the beeb.

As to Labour, well, they're not fantastic, but they're nowhere near as bad as the Tories, who are hell-bent on economic suicide and stand a good chance of taking us down with them. They get in and we're going to go from the UK and Ireland to Wangland, Scotland, NI and Ireland, there'll be pressure to reexamine the border up North (there already is some now) and that's economic suicide for us to try a taste of (anyone remember East and West Germany reunifying? Now imagine that if West Germany's economy had been on life support, because that'll be us). We're already in enough fun and games with that with the prospect of the return of a hard border up north, the GDPR meaning we'll have some serious work to do just to keep the internet pipes on (and that's a large chunk of our working economy right now) because they go via the UK, and the logistics of imports driving everything up the price on everything that doesn't come via Europe directly right now (meaning everything from oil to wood to paper) and that has knock-on effects across the board (want a new house? the wood has to be imported because we don't grow enough, and it currently comes from the UK because we're too small to go to the continent so we buy it off importers in the UK - they don't grown enough themselves either - and that goes to the wall with brexit so the lumber price spikes along with all the other materials, so the house price spikes, so the rent prices spike to keep track... it's all one interconnected mess).

For us, selfishly speaking, the best possible course would be for an SNP-Labour government that reran the brexit vote over there, and for that to see the whole idea scrapped. It wouldn't necessarily be something we'd enjoy, but the choice appears for us at the moment to be between being shot in the foot or shot in the stomach.

Both of them appear to have gotten where they are either by weight [Ms Abbott] or by guile [the other one].

Neither of them appear to have clue. Both are world-class hypocrites.

As for the openly-supportive of the IRA person, Corbyn, a good buddy of Mr Adams and well-known in republican circles here in UK for his support for the likes of the late Bobby Sands, who thinks that hamas is hard done-by, and that terrorists in action should not be shot where they stand, but reasoned with, I really can't think of anything more to say.

tac

Coming up to an election is not the time for "bad moments". In more than one interview, and not all the Beeb, she has been accused of booking her own interviews against the party request/demand she run it through the party leaders first.

If she is having a bad time of it then she should have stepped away. She must have a staff. Could none of them say "Hey Diane, you're going a little off script, perhaps take some time, clear your head and come back at it again"?

Politics is all about soundbites, remember Finian McGrath, but her career thus far is for nothing if she continues to cause calamity after calamity now.

That depends if you are a leader,or an autocrat and you actually listen to people you have as advisors,or you have a circle of Yes men and women and sycopantic monkeys and ass kissers.Who are at each others throats in efforts to curry your favour.Or are you man enough to accept that you are fu%king things up and need to change course?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11924431/Revealed-Jeremy-Corbyn-and-John-McDonnells-close-IRA-links.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4528554/Corbyn-s-kick-teeth-IRA-victims.html?mrn_rm=als1

tac

Cass wrote: »

So everyone else is wrong, not her?

I don't know, but it sure looks like piling-on to me, not reporting.

That, to me, is a dangerously scary attitude. Vote for anyone bar the one you hate. It's how we got a FG government in 2011, and while not on the same majority, the same thing last year.

Yup.
Look, we get a choice to bring in the swiss system where we all get to vote on policy, I'm fully onboard for that. But until that point, you have to pick a representative. And for the last few years, "anyone bar the one you hate" tended to leave you with a choice of absolutely nobody anyway. You wound up picking the one you hated the least rather than pick someone you thought you could agree with.
I'm not for that, or happy with it, but I don't know how to fix it. And I have zero interest in not voting because that just makes it easier on the sods.

You know what i meant. Was it her decision or was it made for her? And this is not a recent thing, it's been happening for years.

There's a third option here: namely that she's genuinely ill. At that point it's not her choice but it's also not her being stabbed in the back. And I don't think we're ever going to find out given the way the reporting has been going.

Without indulging the "pay not attention to the man behind the curtain" thing May had her staff who most likely informed her to stay clear. Like the debate. A poor decision, but better to be roasted for not turning up than for making flip flop decisions, or outlandish claims.

Both of what she's done anyway.
But not showing up to a debate and not risking being roasted just says you think you're not able to hack an adversarial environment.

Right before you go to negotiate a few hundred new treaties and trade deals and the actual terms of the UK leaving the EU.

Which, compared to the leaders debates, is going to be a bit more of a slog and a wee bit more difficult. So if you can't hack the former...

It never is. Look to the US. Trump misspells a word and it's a ten day media cycle. Clinton is/was under investigation for four separate offences, and her staff for actually doing illegal things yet nothing.

Er, no.
Trump's Covefefe thing was in the media for two main reasons: one, it was funny and there's been precious little to laugh at over there (apart from the high-pitched Oh-god-we're-all-going-to-die kind of laughter, naturally). But secondly, it seemed obvious that he'd just been overwhelmed by the trip abroad and passed out asleep mid-tweet. This from a guy who promised (in between the moon and the stars) on the campaign trail that he was in great health and had fantastic endurance for the work ahead.

Meanwhile the investigation into Clinton did turn up something - no evidence of any wrongdoing. That's as close to "innocent" as they are legally allowed to determine (investigations not being courtrooms). That bit doesn't get reported so much. Instead someone just says "oh, they didn't find evidence because she's so good at hiding it". FFS. If she was that good at hiding evidence, she'd have drycleaned Lewinski's dress.

I'm not claiming the media is not biased, but if i were a Labour member/MP with this knowledge i'd have a tribunals worth of solicitors examining every word i spoke and studying like when i was in school for any debate or interview.

Yup. But there's only so many of them you can do that for before you burn out, it's only human. Which is why you see more cracks around election time.
And for some reason the Beeb really does point a magnifying lens at the labour cracks and not so much for the tory cracks (with some *magnificent* exceptions, in fairness).
(The LDs and the SNP seem to be mostly ignored completely and the other smaller parties never even get mentioned except for the Monster Raving Loony Party who are always good for a 3-second laugh on election day during the announcements)

A flash in the pan, but one that achieved their goal of getting the UK out of the EU.

That's a 20-year flash in the pan who are still around even though they have no MPs (and the one they used to have is now a person of interest in an FBI investigation which is hilarious).

Have some of "these types" said that all Muslims should be deported, even those born in the country?

Actually, yes. The UKIPers at any rate. And their nastier MP-shooting cousins.

Does being in a country a given amount of years preclude someone from such accusations? If so how many?

In this case, all of the years. Meaning they were born there and were older than the UKIP eejits calling for them to "go back where they came from" (which was Birmingham in the bit I remember laughing at at the time).

And isn't that just a scathing indictment of the gullibility and stupidity of certain people that a woman with her record was still seen as a better choice. The DNP, best PR machine in the world.
There are no trophies in politics for participating.

Hold on, wait a minute, because this just gets under my fingernails a bit. She *was* the better choice. The only person who ever did better than her in the entire DNP was Obama, and even then he only managed it the first time round. She literally outdid everyone else, hands down, no contest. And the end result was so contraversial that seven electoral college electors opted not to vote the way their state opted to vote - that's the same number as did so throughout the rest of US presidential history combined, it's unprecedented.

And that's before we even mention the russians and level playing fields.
There is simply no way that anyone the DNC had as a candidate (including Sanders) could have done better. She beat them all flat out in the primaries, and her per-state voting record beat the historical records of every candidate that the DNC fielded for the primaries.

She's been absolutely hounded in the US media for so long that people just don't seem to be able to remember the actual numbers - the one bit of data there is. She won the majority of the electorate, by an enormous margin, in every demographic apart from "white" and "rich" (no, really, the only demographics where she didn't trounce trump were the caucasian section of the ethnic breakdown and those who were earning twice the national median household income and above or who owned more than a square mile of land. That's just the recorded facts taken on election day).

Now would I agree with her on half her policies? Actually, no, I'd be arguing with her till the cows came home (probably over more than half at that). But here's the point - she'd be competent enough to hold the argument. The buffoon the electoral college put into office can't even finish a thought in a prepared speech, let along hold up his end of an argument. That's not something you want in a person with control over the military and the executive branch. She'd be someone you'd have disagreed with; he's someone who won't tolerate disagreement. I know which I like less.

Call bullsh*t on that. "She owned it". She got caught on the wrong end of a poorly crafted/tasteless sketch and when she didn't get the big pat on the back she was expecting, it went from the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard level of apology to going on the attack.

That's daft. She stood up and said it was a mistake and apologised. That's owning it. That's the bar. The comments on Trump didn't happen until later, *after* he'd gone after her.

I've highlighted the important part.
People seem to disregard the respect for the office that Trump holds simply because of him. If someone held up a severed Barry obama would it have been funny or would there have been Holy hell?

But there was, and worse. The Klan were not particularly happy with the idea of a black president and they were rather vehement about expressing that dislike. Along with a host of other groups you wouldn't want to have a pint with.
We're not talking about a bad comedy joke here either, we're talking about straight up out and out hatred and bile and it was pretty much continous for eight years.

Hell even Chelsea Clinton said it was tasteless and showed no respect for the Office of the President.

Of course it was tasteless and showed no respect for the office of the president, and that doesn't matter; the first amendment is expressly there to allow that to happen and to prevent reprisals. It's literally to stop the leader of the country from having someone punished for what they say.

Cass wrote: »

Your taste of comedy and mine differ, by quiet a margin.

Yeah, but that's what makes life interesting
Hell, if I could ban anything I didn't find funny, we'd never have seen Steptoe and Son and Ben Stiller would be somewhere in a shallow grave wondering what just happened to him.

As opposed, and to take a leaf out your book on looking at the other side, to leaving men to die, lying about the reasons for it, "loosing tens of thousands of e-mails, having staff that did actually commit offences, keeping secure and secret info at home, loosing your blackberry, taking donations from groups associated to terrorists groups, having staffers that are related to groups raising money for terrorist groups, having your foundation under investigation for missing millions, etc, etc.

Those are the things Clinton was accused of (but despite a lot more than four investigations the accusations never proved to have anything worth a court case in them); but they're also the things Trump has been actually proven to have done...

Yeah, she was a real winner. Hadn't even the manners to come out to thank her supporters after she lost.

Nope, did that a few hours later.

Yes they were. It's the first time and not the last, and we had the same thing done to us, but still the result stood. Even the Tories said it would be honoured.

So no, we haven't; we've been lied to by the TDs, but the referendum commission is prohibited from doing that by law (and they've been held to it). That little booklet that has to put both sides forward? The UK doesn't have that.

So as i said above they were either lied to or uninformed. IOW too stupid to understand?

You don't have to be stupid to believe a lie.

So just let the oldies die off, and we'll get our way.

But that's how societies change, for the most part. This just happens to be an extreme example because the margin is so slim and the timeframe so predetermined.

Put it another way; the people who voted to leave and then died don't have to pay the cost of their decision so why should others have to? How's that fair or just?

Ignoring sections of society because their vote does not go with the desired outcome has another word. Rigged.

It's not ignoring. But there's nothing in the rulebook about saying "you can't ever vote on this again", not here and not there. If there was, it'd be monsterous. It'd mean society couldn't ever change its mind about anything, no matter what it learned after making a decision.

If 13 million people couldn't be bothered, or my personal favorite, didn't vote to make a point, then they are morons.

Yes, I completely agree.
I just don't think that that bans you ever having a second vote on something.
And I wouldn't want it to.

And i'm sure those assurances included the fact the UK was in the EU, but unfortunately things change and you cannot throw the dummy from the pram because you don't like the changes.

Actually, you can. It's kindof a tenant of contract law. The UK said "stay in, we'll give you X". Then reneged on it. So the deal is off (this is a massive oversimplification but you see what I'm saying).

The majority voted to stay and while they have devolved government, that meant they (whether knowingly or not) gave London the power to make decisions which would include them.

But after London had given them assurances about the decisions they would make; and then London chose to break those assurances.
And now you have the entirety of Scotland voting to stay in the EU, and the SNP being voted into almost every seat of government they have; and it's kindof following from that that they'd want another vote.

And honestly, I kinda think that since we're Irish, we can't really begrudge them that, what with the whole war of independence and all

Alex Salmon left after loosing the vote and the "cranky" took over.

Oh come on, she's a damn sight more competent than any of the rest of them out there, she doesn't deserve to be called names over it.

Regardless of it's basis the leave won. There is no allowance for "we didn't know", or "nobody explained it to us well enough".

Yup. But by the same token, there's also no rule against voting again.

If we allow voting to be redone because we don't like the outcome then what is the point. You're never going to please both sides and each side will have a reason for it to remain as it is, and the other for it to be changed.

It's not best two out of three and should never be.

It's not, it's always best one out of one, but in this case, the leave side lied through their teeth, won by a very slim margin, and subsequently were shown to have had no plan for what to do in case they won. And the UK is now facing economic disaster (dragging us in with them unless we're very lucky) and possible partition of the UK. To say nothing of little things like throwing out the legal underpinning of the good friday agreement.

This is one of those cases where I wouldn't mind seeing them go "Jaysus, what were we thinking? Let's not do that.".

Cass wrote: »

That is the public appetite. To see someone being made look foolish. It doesn't help when the "target" is pouring fuel on the fire.

Yeah, but just because the public wants to see Jeremy Beadle back on the air doesn't mean you make up slapstick during political reporting, that leads to some fairly dark laneways.

That could very well be the case, but then it's a party wide failure to recognise that one of their leading figures (cause lets face it if it were some back bencher representing johnny bog land no one would care).

Yup, not disagreeing there.

Look at Corbyn. Seen him at a rally on TV today and he looks ill, frail, and one thing caught my eye. He shook hands with the MC of the event, gave a finger tip shake, which is a pet hate, and then pulled (quiet hard) out of the handshake. The only thing missing was for him to wipe his hand on his trouser leg.
Optics will kill you in politics.

Depends on who reports it though. If Corbyn stood up and mocked a disabled reporter, he'd be out of a job before he sat down; with Trump, the reporter gets demonised by Fox and Friends. When Abbot fluffs figures she gets called on it (and that's right), but when May is on tape as Home Secretary being told by Manchester police that her cutbacks will make it impossible to spot extremists planning attacks and she goes ahead with them anyway, she doesn't get anywhere near the level of gutting that Abbot gets for forgetting numbers. Hell, you had Met officers in London after the last attack saying on live national television that she was lying about policing figures in the press, but there's still not the same level of a kicking that Abbot or Corbyn got. It's just unbalanced.

Hate doing it, but as opposed to this picture of health (after which she disappeared for days):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVDyciOQCak

Hang on, she has pneumonia in that shot. Trump's health is down to him being in his 70s, eating like a 12-year-old at a buffet without adult supervision and actually believing that exercise is bad for you. He's cutting short foreign trips because he's exhausted in the first few hours according to official statements. And this is in the first hundred days or so, at this rate he's going to die in office from bad health alone.

Erm, nope.
They say they could not prvoe intent which is afar cry from innocent.
And that only related to the e-mails.

They're not allowed say they've proven someone guilty or innocent; only that they can go to court or there's no grounds to. They're the police, not the courts, if they could say guilty or innocent, why have judges at all?
Now the congressional hearings, they could have said someone was guilty or innocent; and they did, they cleared her of all wrongdoing.

Which MPs? Would like to read/watch that.

No, I mean as in shooting a member of parliment (Jo Cox) during the brexit campaign.

What i'm asking is does nationality forgive view points. If someone is British/English, born there or lived for 40 years, but holds extremist views are they outside of the purview of accusation or scrutiny?

No, but the UKIP lot weren't questioning their views, they were questioning their location on the ronseal colour swatch.

She hired the woman that was fired for manipulating votes away from Sanders.
Look at the investigations (multiple) into her, her dealings and her foundation. Look at the links i posted above in response to Grizzly. Look at the ties she has to middle eastern oil and businesses. Businesses that have direct and indirect links to terrorist groups or groups that raise money for terrorist groups.

Firstoff, there's a shedload of stuff out there about her that just doesn't hold up or has "unnamed source" tagged to it:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/hildabeast.asp
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/statements
Secondly, how can there have been both links and investigations into those links that say she did nothing wrong?

The only difference between her and Trump is she had 40 years to learn the craft.

That's just wrong. They're not even in the same ballpark.
Politifact has it pretty well summarised in their summaries for each:




She's not perfect (find me one who is) but she's a damn sight better than Trump (but then so is most of congress and probably half the people in the US). Seriously, they've caught her telling fibs about 25% of the time. They've caught him telling the truth about 25% of the time. One of these things is not like the other.

Again, where is the proof. I hear about the Russians doing this, the Russians doing that. Where is the proof. Everyone is talking like it's a done deal and all that is left is the impeachment.

You won't see the proof until they're in court. But what they have so far has seen a national security advisor gone inside the first hundred days for talking to the russians, senior white house staff like kushner apparently about to follow him for the same reason, public statements by everyone on these things, and hell, they are actually opening the bars early tomorrow so people can watch Comey's testimony live (that's 3pm our time).
This stuff grinds slow, but even so, it took years for watergate to get this far, Trump's gotten there so fast it's surreal.

No one has pointed at something and said "Here, here is the proof he done this".

No, they're doing that pretty regularly, but they're doing it the same way they did for nixon - starting with the people who did the dirty work and working their way up the chain.
It's just that this time they're seeing in days what took months the last time around.

And by the way, that's just the russian thing. It's not like that's the only scandal attached to this guy, you actually need a cheatsheet to keep up with these things. Sexual assault (over the last forty years), scandals tied to the beauty pagents, lawsuits settled for $100 million over racist discrimination, mafia ties, the entire Trump University scandal, intimidation, bankruptcies, illegal immigrant workers being forced to work in substandard conditions, operating casinos illegally, antitrust violations, his staff assaulting people, SLAPP cases, refusing to pay workers all over the place, using political donations from the presidential campaign to buy his own book to push it up the bestseller lists, hiring models who had no visa to work in the US, and a half-dozen scandals surrounding the Trump Foundation ranging from "the IRS wants a word" to the most recent one of siphoning off cash donated to help kids with cancer.
And that's just the stuff they've turned up documents on, testimony on, or court cases on.

Debbie Wasserman.

Yeah, but Sander's record in the south. Where Clinton won states comfortably where he never did well in what, thirty years of trying?

You think thats unfounded or unfair?

Yes. If she'd been found to have done something wrong like Bill Clinton was, then they'd have justification for it, but all you get with her is a series of "Hilary did X", an investigation and the investigation finding she didn't do X. Over and over. I mean, at some point you have to start asking why they keep putting the boot in with such relish.

Considering all she has done, been accused of, and lied about. You think it's unfair?

See, you say "done". Except if she'd done half of what she's accused of, she'd be in jail. Selling uranium to the russians, running paedophile rings out of pizza shops, taking donations for their foundation from ISIS, and on and on.

People call him a racist, facist, etc. Show when he done this or displayed those features.

So, signing an executive order for a ban on muslims travelling to the US that was struck down in court as unconstitutional because he kept saying openly that it was a ban on muslims? That's a public domain case right there.
Facist? Pick a feature, it'll be on his twitter account (honestly, it'd be the funniest thing on that site if they hadn't actually given him the launch codes).
A general asshat personally? How about the latest one, where he's diverting money from a charity event to raise funds for children with terminal cancer into his own bank account, according to his own son. I mean, we could keep going but I need sleep at some time tonight The man is a dumpster fire.

As for buffon, while i won't argue he won't win a nobel, what did he promise that Bill Clinton, Obama and others did not? The Wall, they all called for it, control on immigration, that too.

Yup. See above on "I wouldn't agree with them".
Mind you, they all changed their mind and rolled back those measures, and they didn't present them by calling all Mexican immigrants rapists and murderers...

How about the "muslim ban". Yup, they called for that too.

Nope. You're thinking of a bill that listed several muslim countries that Obama introduced but it didn't ban them; it caused a six month delay as interviews were re-done. And it didn't carry exemptions for non-muslims from those countries.

How come all the snowflakes are not so upset that 16 muslim countries have bans on any Jews entering their country?

Because the "snowflakes" don't live there, I'm guessing.

Oh while i'm on Nobel, why did Obama win it? No President has spent so many of their years in office at war as Obama. The prize was a mistake and an insult.

Yup. But at the time he got it for not being Bush and letting us hope things might get a bit less insane. I mean, seriously, George W Bush. It took Donald Trump to make him look like not the worst US president in history, and still to this day it looks like there's something wrong with the guy north of his shoulders.
And lots of people did say that at the time (about Obama not having earned the Nobel that is).

In his terms he incited/increased race tensions,

That's like when your grandmother used to say you shouldn't go to the hospital because it'll just give you cancer. No, it's exactly like that. Blaming something that shows you a preexisting problem for causing the problem when it had been around a long, long time before that.

made the police the enemy

No, I think they did that themselves by shooting the people they're supposed to protect and not prosecuting the police who did that. That's not even conjecture, that's been documented over and over and over and over to the point where you just want to build a wall along all their borders and then roof them in and forget about them. You can't see video after video after video of unarmed people being shot by police for no reason when they're not a threat - when they're literally lying on the ground with their hands in the air saying they surrender, or when they're twelve ****ing years old or when they're nurses trying to calm down mentally ill people, or any of the other cases that keep happening there.
And they've been on that road since forever. They don't have clean hands here.

invited terrorist styled movements to the white house

Yup. Same way previous presidents all did. I don't like it but at least it tends to end less horribly than when they go off and create them...
...though I'm not sure that'll work so well with that lunatic from the Philippines.

, started or continued in multiple wars, failed miserably in foreign affairs (Syria), and Obamacare

The foreign affairs stuff is right on and you missed the entire deportation thing and the reduction in checks and balances and more than a few others, but Obamacare is a big improvement on what was there before.
If it wasn't, the republicans wouldn't be hiding from their own constituents who are terrified of losing healthcare.
And this replacement they were talking about in the house was finally costed - it dropped nearly 30 million americans on the floor for healthcare access in the first few years and had nowhere near enough money set aside to pay for it.

I mean, if FG tried to bring in obamacare here, I'd be one of the first protestors on the streets because that **** is horrific by our standards, but we're used to the idea that if you fall and break a wrist, you get treated and you don't have the use of the wrist for a few weeks while you heal; in the US, that's between forty and sixty thousand dollars in debts and you get the bill in the first week unless your HMO agrees to cover it. It's like something from a Dickens novel, it's toxic.

Yeah, her secret service men can attest to that.

No, they can say she's not nice.
They can't say she fired them purely for saying something they're explicitly allowed to say under US law. It's a massive difference.

If more people had of laughed than complained would she have apologised.?
I think not.

No, of course not because that's how you tell if a joke's funny - if people laugh.

So someone stood up with a decapitated head of Obama? If not then it's not worse.

And Ted Nugent was running around calling for Obama to be lynched and hung and shot repeatedly for years.
And he wasn't alone, this was 2008:

And that was happening all over the place. He was getting an average of 30 death threats a day for eight years, a rate 400% higher than his predecessors. For pete's sake someone was trying to build a dirty bomb to assassinate him with in '08.
But Nugent didn't earn the personal ire of the sitting US president, no matter how hard he tried. That's the difference.

Frankly she is of little concern to me as i find her unfunny and repugnant.

She's not my cup of tea either, but when they start to string up the court jester, it's not good news whether or not you like his jokes. It's like when Biffo lost it over that nude portrait of him someone hung in the national gallery; yeah, it's not a fantastic joke, but you boo them if you think it's not funny, you don't arrest or persecute them.

Clinton....gun ownership.....Great choice...Not.
Obama gun ownership...Google operation Fast&furious...A genuine conspircy theory that leads right to his door along with Eric Holder...More subopenas and warrents have been issued for that just today.