Posted on 05/10/2015 10:49:01 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Now, I can understand if you disagree with her views on the deficit, Obamacare, immigration, the budget, etc. etc.
Instead, your whole complaint about Carly is she laid off people and took a bunch of money when she left. Those are grudges and are superficial. We all know about the money. It was all in the news frequently. We all know it went to court and we all know she won. It wasn't like she climbed a fence and broke into a safe at HP headquarters. You are not informing anybody about anything. We KNOW it.
My god, this country is going down the tubes and you are harping on something that makes no difference to policy and the future of this country. Compared to Hillary, Carly glistens like the snow.
And you refuse to address the glowing reevaluations of her record at HP. Further, she is quite good articulating everything that should satisfy your objections.
So in summary, you inform us about something we all know about. You are not contributing to the discourse since we all know what occurred. You just repeat it ad nauseam. Further, your objection is not based on policy, but based on old news, old circumstances and not on anything that is relevant to the current issues facing this country.
It is clear you have a petty grudge because of something personal that happened - a layoff or you are just a paid nuisance. Either way, it cheapens you and your comments.
Except, of course, no evidence to support your claims of a layoff or payment to be a 'nuisance' actually appears here!
Why? They just ain't so.
But just for the sake of continuing the discussion, let's move on, past her personal enrichment for over $20 million by violating re-numeration policies at HP, to other factual aspects of Carly's actual record.
What is your defense of the "demon sheep" ad Carly ran against fellow Republican Tom Campbell in 2010? Is that the sort of "low blow" that you accuse others like me of?
I could explain why I wrote what I wrote, but it is late and maybe another time. I do want to respond to the demon sheep ad. I recall when it was first released when she was running for the senate. I believe Drudge made it his big headline one night and linked to it and I really did not see the big deal. It was an internet ad - I don't believe it played on TV, but it did have an impact. I just rewatched it to refresh my memory and I thought it was full of substance. Granted, the sheep part was a bit odd, but I get the point. The people are sheep (and we are) and Campbell was preying on them. In between, I thought the ad was full of substance. I don't think pointing out what Campbell did and supported is out of bounds. Now, I live on the right coast and I assume you live on the left coast, so you would know better than I if the ad was truthful. I don't know if the charges are true. I do know that people here love Tom Campbell. For years, I have read comments about him and if I recall properly, I think he has run for nearly any and every office possible in the state of California - usually with little success. Back to the ad - I don't see anything wrong with it. In fact, I give it credit for being different. I have to think it was devised to attract attention and it was very successful. She won the nomination.
I don't think every political ad has to be like all the other ads. If her campaign had a large percent of odd ads, then maybe one can draw a conclusion, but I really don't think anyone can make a judgment to either condemn or applaud a campaign based on just one internet ad. Again, your criticism is so narrowly focused that I just don't understand your repulsion to Carly.
Try this from my perspective. Suppose I disliked candidate X (one you like and will vote for) because I thought one ad was weird - one ad out of hundreds. You probably wouldn't get it or understand that I am not supporting candidate X because I did not like the fact it was filmed on Santa Monica pier even though all the other ads were filmed elsewhere.
So, if I can put myself in your brain, are you really trying to communicate that you don't like Carly because you don't trust her judgment (the sheep ad) or her character (the raping of HP)? Because if you had written that, it would have made more sense to me.
I appreciate you engaging in a dialogue. We just don't agree and that is OK. I like Carly, but she is not my first or second choice. I just think she brings something fresh. She is direct (she actually answers questions clearly), articulates well and comes across as a happy warrior (warriorette?). However, I do believe she will be the running mate for reasons I don't have time to go into.
Anyway, thanks for the engagement and again apologies for being too harsh. I'm not really as much of a jerk as I sometimes appear to be one. I hope we will continue to "converse". This race is the most interesting presidential race, at least on the republican side since, well, in a long, long time.
"Full Disclosure: Wife worked for Tom Campbell's brother at a major Chicago Loop Lawfirm. She was a Legal Secretary at the time, worked for two named partners at the lawfirm now known as DLA Piper.
We had the pleasure of meeting the soft spoken Tom Campbell a number of times. A fine man.
The LIES Carly Fiorina unleashed on him were frankly unspeakable and I'd say unbecoming a lady.
But then, Carly Fiorina is no lady. She's a bitch.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3288768/posts
(Post #24)
My exact thoughts from the moment she declared. Thanks for the post Sam.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.