Hillary's Campaign Kickoff

[DC Tom]

 

You sure? I thought it was anyone who disagrees with Obama's Sally Fields foreign policy?

 

No, from what I've gathered Obama's foreign policy is a neocon foreign policy. Because he invaded Libya (note: he didn't - a common complaint at the time was that we were "leading from behind" and supporting European forces, rather than getting directly involved.) And attacked Syria (because remember that "red line?" That he did nothing about...) And the whole Arab Spring (which, given that that was a series of a sort-of "grassroots" popular uprisings that did not involve the use of force in the pursuit of "American exceptionalism," is hardly "neocon.") And that's just with "neocon" Hillary as Secretary of State. Never mind, under Kerry, the closer relationships with Iran and the progressive alienation of many of our Middle Eastern allies (truly a "neocon" policy), Russia's unopposed annexation of the Crimea, and the "pivot to Asia" (downright counter-productive, given that China's basically annexing the eastern Pacific ocean, the Philippines are disavowing the US, and the Japanese are building aircraft carriers again.)

 

If Hillary's a neocon, all that **** makes her the most thoroughly inept neocon in the history of neoconservatism, given that every single one of those policies is ultimately counter-productive to anything resembling a neoconservative foreign policy goal.

 

TYTT has the right of it: she's a craven opportunist. She voted for the invasion of Iraq when it was popular, she turned against it when it wasn't ("But Bush lied to her!" bull ****. She was on the Senate Armed Services committee - she had access to the same intelligence Bush did.) She's consistently waffled between supporting Afghanistan intervention (not for national security issues, but because of women's rights) and disengaging (because "women's rights") since she was First Lady, depending solely on which portrayed a better image to voting women. She was solidly pro-Putin in 2009 ("reset" button, anyone?), being against Bush's (and Romney's) confrontational foreign policy...but now is against Putin and wants to follow a policy more confrontational than Bush's (and Romney's?) And wants to accuse Republicans of cozying up to Putin? And seems to have absolutely no concept of how she contributed to the situation to begin with?

 

She's not a neocon. She's not anything but a Clinton.

[4merper4mer]

She is angry at the world because she was born unattractive and wants to get back at all the popular boys who paid her no attention.

[GG]

She is angry at the world because she was born unattractive and wants to get back at all the popular boys who paid her no attention.

Why would she be mad at the boys who paid her no attention?

[Magox]

You are bad at math.

 

Dude, you don't even like math.

[4merper4mer]

Why would she be mad at the boys who paid her no attention?

 

 

Do you remember 2nd grade at all?

 

Dude, you don't even like math.

I don't get it.

[Magox]

Hillary is not a neo-conservative.

 

Hillary is a pro-Hillary opportunist and will always do what is best for Hillary, ideology, constituents, country be damned.

 

 

You sir, would be correct. The only reason why she was labeled a Neocon to begin with was because of some her votes, and the only reason why she voted that way is because at the time the country yearned for a more muscular approach, and as usual the country tilted back, ergo her newfound less interventionist position.

[dickleyjones]

I haven't made the argument that individuals shouldn't come out as gay, or even enter into gay relationships.

 

That's the strawman you've introduced.

 

Perhaps you'd like to next like to make the argument that participants in homosexual sex aren't more likely to contract STDs than participants in heterosexual sex, because feelings; and all that needs to happen to fix this is to change the perception about the disparity, and it will all go away.

strawman...not my intention. It was simply an example, and I think it was pertinent but if you don't then just ignore it. My point wasn't to call you homophobic or anything, I apologize if you were insulted. My point was that statistics can change over time, and often do, and that sometimes it is people's attitudes that create the change (and oppose it). No matter the example, the question still remains the same: Can you not see a future where these problems don't exist?

 

And yes, i would make an argument regarding sexual preference and STDs although I realize that presently you are correct, so i wouldn't word it quite the way you did. Not because feelings. Because we as a society have decided to meet STDs head on and fix that problem. Better condoms, better medicine, better prevention. Should we not move towards a future where STD prevention is super effective and the chance of getting an STD is mostly equal for everyone (ie very close to 0)?

[TakeYouToTasker]

strawman...not my intention. It was simply an example, and I think it was pertinent but if you don't then just ignore it. My point wasn't to call you homophobic or anything, I apologize if you were insulted. My point was that statistics can change over time, and often do, and that sometimes it is people's attitudes that create the change (and oppose it). No matter the example, the question still remains the same: Can you not see a future where these problems don't exist?

No, because different choices will always generate different outcomes, and some outcomes will always be worse than others.

 

 

 

And yes, i would make an argument regarding sexual preference and STDs although I realize that presently you are correct, so i wouldn't word it quite the way you did. Not because feelings. Because we as a society have decided to meet STDs head on and fix that problem. Better condoms, better medicine, better prevention. Should we not move towards a future where STD prevention is super effective and the chance of getting an STD is mostly equal for everyone (ie very close to 0)?

"Gentlemen, in the end the microbes will have the last word."

[TakeYouToTasker]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-25/podesta-shocker-cheryl-mills-tells-podesta-we-need-clean-obama-has-emails-her

 

 

 

Cheryl Mills Tells Podesta "We Need To Clean This Up - Obama Has Emails From Her - they do not say state.gov "

[GG]

 

Do you remember 2nd grade at all?

 

 

Yeah, but why are you comparing Hill to me?

 

Let me fix your original statement, because there's a lot more history supporting it:

 

She is angry at the world because she was born unattractive and wants to get back at all the popular girls who paid her no attention.

[4merper4mer]

 

Yeah, but why are you comparing Hill to me?

 

Let me fix your original statement, because there's a lot more history supporting it:

 

She is angry at the world because she was born unattractive and wants to get back at all the popular girls who paid her no attention.

 

 

I'd say girls and boys.

 

I'm not comparing Hillary to you but I'm sure you remember bitter girls from the 2nd grade that hated the popular boys for not paying attention. A lot of them were named Gail for some reason. Wait... neither of those G's stands for Gail does it?

 

And yes I understood the subtle implication of your statement even if you tried to sweep it under the carpet in the closet. I'm just saying that the anger at the boys paying her no attention in the 2nd grade may have led to anger at girls paying her no attention later in life. If only she had found someone to treat her with HUMAanity early on, maybe she would have stayed out of revenge politics and spared us all this.

[GG]

 

 

I'd say girls and boys.

 

I'm not comparing Hillary to you but I'm sure you remember bitter girls from the 2nd grade that hated the popular boys for not paying attention. A lot of them were named Gail for some reason. Wait... neither of those G's stands for Gail does it?

 

And yes I understood the subtle implication of your statement even if you tried to sweep it under the carpet in the closet. I'm just saying that the anger at the boys paying her no attention in the 2nd grade may have led to anger at girls paying her no attention later in life. If only she had found someone to treat her with HUMAanity early on, maybe she would have stayed out of revenge politics and spared us all this.

 

I'm guessing that more anger was directed at the popular girls.

[grinreaper]

I'm guessing that more anger was directed at the popular girls.

I bet she gave them a good tongue lashing!

[4merper4mer]

 

I'm guessing that more anger was directed at the popular girls.

 

 

I know a lot about women and can normally read them exceptionally easily. Hillary is more difficult to figure than most but not too complex. She reminds me of a long lost girlfriend I had named Lee. That's a whole other story.

 

Anyway, I think with Hillary there is a lot of grudge in general. It may have first been directed at boys, then the girls who got the attention of those boys....that would have been a relatively long period of anger so you are probably right. When she got older she was basically out to get everyone...albeit in different ways. Her anger was at boys, girls, and what they had become. She imagined the rich and successful as having been the popular kids at their respective schools, whether that was actually true or not. This mechanism helped her categorize people, rightly or wrongly. She put them into boxes in her mind. Eventually there became fewer and fewer "types" of people in her mind and she hated all of them...some more than others...and some she didn't even realize she hated. You have probably read about the way she treats Secret Service/security details. In her mind these people were all the super jocks who were also dumb from her school days. She hates them the most, followed by rich business people and anyone who is productive. She takes it out on those types by vilifying them.

 

I would estimate that she has only 7-10 different types of boxes that people fit into. She really only enjoys the presence of one type of box but even that the is not truly treated well.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Intelligence Director “Wouldn’t Put It Past” Russia to Fire at U.S. Aircraft in Syria

HILLARY CLINTON HAS PROPOSED establishing a no-fly zone in Syria, but Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said Tuesday that such a move could lead Russia to shoot down U.S. planes.

“I wouldn’t put it past them to shoot down an American aircraft if they felt that was threatening to their forces on the ground,” Clapper said during a talk at the Council of Foreign Relations.

Russia recently deployed mobile S-400 and S-300 missile batteries to Western Syria, which are capable of shooting down aircraft and cruise missiles. Clapper signaled that they posed a threat to American planes should the U.S. try to institute a no-fly zone in Syria.

“The system they have there is very advanced, very capable,” said Clapper, “and I don’t think they’d do it – deploy it – if they didn’t have some intention to use it.”

 

[boyst]

 

Maybe.

 

First, they pressured the Ecuadorian embassy to cut the internet feeds, silencing JA's direct pipeline to the public. A few days later there's a massive DDOS attack that paralyzes much of social media and other notable distribution sites for most of the day, (possibly) designed to prevent any sort of deadman's switch from triggering. This took place while multiple unconfirmed reports claimed JA was seized from the embassy by unknown actors. This story was quelled in the mainstream media by a tweet from WikiLeaks saying Assange was fine -- but he's made no public statement or appearance to back up those claims.

 

Now, for the past week and change, all of WikiLeaks' tweets have taken on a different tone: hyper partisan and alt-right leaning with pro-Moscow overtures... which is exactly how the DNC/Whitehouse has been trying to frame JA for over a year in the public eye.

 

It's possible they've been right all along and nothing has changed.

 

Or, it's possible JA is dead and/or in custody and the WikiLeaks' social media apparatus is disinfo run by whoever snatched him (either US or UK intelligence).

 

Of course if the later is true then the past three Podesta dumps could have been compromised/currated by whomever snatched Assange. All it takes is one edited or falsified email to completely ruin Wikileaks' credibility, and if the US did take over control of his network, that would be an obvious move to make within the next two weeks.

which is why the keys released were huge. But sadly too many ignorant Americans won't understand their significance.

 

There was a time when Hilary would support JA and its telling now that she does not

[Maury Ballstein]

I know a lot about women and can normally read them exceptionally easily. Hillary is more difficult to figure than most but not too complex. She reminds me of a long lost girlfriend I had named Lee. That's a whole other story.

 

Anyway, I think with Hillary there is a lot of grudge in general. It may have first been directed at boys, then the girls who got the attention of those boys....that would have been a relatively long period of anger so you are probably right. When she got older she was basically out to get everyone...albeit in different ways. Her anger was at boys, girls, and what they had become. She imagined the rich and successful as having been the popular kids at their respective schools, whether that was actually true or not. This mechanism helped her categorize people, rightly or wrongly. She put them into boxes in her mind. Eventually there became fewer and fewer "types" of people in her mind and she hated all of them...some more than others...and some she didn't even realize she hated. You have probably read about the way she treats Secret Service/security details. In her mind these people were all the super jocks who were also dumb from her school days. She hates them the most, followed by rich business people and anyone who is productive. She takes it out on those types by vilifying them.

 

I would estimate that she has only 7-10 different types of boxes that people fit into. She really only enjoys the presence of one type of box but even that the is not truly treated well.

 

Just hit the delete button instead of the post button.

 

Solid work on the last two pages filling in for Exill.

[B-Man]

[4merper4mer]

Just hit the delete button instead of the post button.

 

Solid work on the last two pages filling in for Exill.

 

 

The post is about women so it is understandable if you don't comprehend it.

Edited October 26, 2016 by 4merper4mer

[B-Man]

SHIKHA DALMIA: Hillary Clinton: Feminism’s False Prophet.

 

 

 

 

SHOCKER: Private Equity Executives Give To Democrats, But Not A Penny To Trump.

 

 

 

 

ANDREW KLAVAN: “Democrat Corruption is Much Worse Than Trump.