reddogblitz Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 So, if tomorrow we find WMD in Iraq that were buried 15 years ago you will reconsider your position and possibly vote for Hillary? While i'm at it, if Hillary refused to vote for the war after she had seen credible evidence of WMD would you think her prudent or reckless? ????? Why do you keep asking me thiese what ifs? We were lied to by Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfeld into (some) believing SH was somehow a threat to us. They sold us hard. WMDs, violating UN Sanctions, he works with Osama, mushroom cloud, tried to kill my Dad, he's gonna give a nuke (within days, not months) to a terrorist. etc. Common sense should tell anyone that if someone is trying to sell something that hard, it's BS. As far as WMDs go, even if he had 'em, wasn't reason enough to attack a sovereign nation IMHO. A lot of countries have WMDs. Why don't we attack them too?
Doc Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 (edited) Wait, I thought they found the WMD's...in Syria (where they were rumored to have been moved), last year? Edited July 10, 2015 by Doc
truth on hold Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 (edited) here you go folks, what victims of Iraq war really look like. Most of you are simply ignorant cowards who keep posting away with no clue or concern for the costs, far removed from the actual consequences. Edited July 10, 2015 by JTSP
Keukasmallies Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 Thank you so much, JTSP, for sharing your all-knowingness with those of us who make up the great unwashed. Please share with us any (and all) other segments of society's transgressions that you deem necessary for us to understand. After all, you represent yourself as the fount of all knowledge while we ignorant cowards merely wander in the desert of ignorance seeking your level of enlightenment. I'll spend the weekend reexamining my seventy-five years of experiences in an attempt to realign them with your incisive point of view....and laughing my ass off at your smug post.
3rdnlng Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 ????? Why do you keep asking me thiese what ifs? We were lied to by Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfeld into (some) believing SH was somehow a threat to us. They sold us hard. WMDs, violating UN Sanctions, he works with Osama, mushroom cloud, tried to kill my Dad, he's gonna give a nuke (within days, not months) to a terrorist. etc. Common sense should tell anyone that if someone is trying to sell something that hard, it's BS. As far as WMDs go, even if he had 'em, wasn't reason enough to attack a sovereign nation IMHO. A lot of countries have WMDs. Why don't we attack them too? Maybe you should take your own advice. You shy away from my question(s) because to respond would either make you look silly or disingenuous.
B-Man Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 Back to the campaign part of the thread.................... Estrangement From the Truth Is a Problem for Hillary by Jonah Goldberg Hillary Clinton lies. This is a widely acknowledged fact among people who pay attention and aren’t on her payroll. Nearly 20 years ago, New York Times columnist William Safire wrote, “Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our first lady — a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation – is a congenital liar.” Younger folks probably have little to no memory of the lies Safire had in mind, though some might have heard about Hillary Clinton’s infamously implausible explanation for how she managed to make a 10,000 percent profit in cattle futures simply by reading the Wall Street Journal. Suffice it to say that she’s been honing her craft for decades. And that’s turning into a problem for her, perhaps her biggest problem. After ducking the press for months, Clinton sat down for an interview with CNN’s Brianna Keilar. It was a savvy choice. Keilar covers the Clinton campaign and has every incentive not to offend her famously vindictive sources 16 months before the election{snip} Clinton even flatly denied that voters distrust her when polls clearly show Americans do, and — as usual — blamed all her problems on right-wing conspirators. Reacting to the interview, Carl Bernstein, of Woodward and Bernstein fame, offered an odd analysis of Clinton’s deceptions, conceding on CNN that Clinton has a “difficult relationship with the truth.” Mrs. Clinton is more like a veteran coach — she’s adept at telling others how to lie on her behalf. But she’s not a natural liar herself, and it shows. At a time when the Democratic base craves authenticity (hence the mobs at Bernie Sanders rallies), Clinton seems utterly fabricated (hence her inability to get a capacity crowd at her announcement speech last month in New York City). Her best hope now would be to stop pandering to Sanders’s fans and instead explain where she and Sanders differ on policy. But that would require a level of political authenticity she’s forgotten how to fake convincingly. Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420963/hillary-clinton-lies-emails-subpoena ‘I Never Had a Subpoena’ and Other Hillary Fables by Shannen W CoffinRead more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420964/i-never-had-subpoena-and-other-hillary-fables-shannen-w-coffin .
truth on hold Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 And what does it say about our country that someone so transparently FOS and incompetent is leading in the polls?
reddogblitz Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 Maybe you should take your own advice. You shy away from my question(s) because to respond would either make you look silly or disingenuous. Good point. But if we did that, we'd probably have to shut down PPP. Is there a particular question you have in mind? I'll do my best to answer it.
IDBillzFan Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 And what does it say about our country that someone so transparently FOS and incompetent is leading in the polls? Nothing we didn't learn by electing the most severely under-qualified president ever simply because of his skin color.
Doc Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 Nothing we didn't learn by electing the most severely under-qualified president ever simply because of his skin color. This.
truth on hold Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 Nothing we didn't learn by electing the most severely under-qualified president ever simply because of his skin color. I don't agree with the first premise, he clearly separated himself in the dem primary, and mccain-palin ticket was a farce. But at least on my limited sample, thw people I've asked who support her concede its due to gender. They say nothing about her positions....but realistically what can be said?
IDBillzFan Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 I don't agree with the first premise, he clearly separated himself in the dem primary, and mccain-palin ticket was a farce. But at least on my limited sample, thw people I've asked who support her concede its due to gender. They say nothing about her positions....but realistically what can be said? If Barack Obama was a white man, he'd still be a stoner in Hawaii.
Nanker Posted July 10, 2015 Author Posted July 10, 2015 If Hillary Clinton were a man, she'd have woken up in the Lincoln bedroom with a sore azz, a funny taste in her mouth and a quarter in her hand.
3rdnlng Posted July 11, 2015 Posted July 11, 2015 Good point. But if we did that, we'd probably have to shut down PPP. Is there a particular question you have in mind? I'll do my best to answer it. 3rdnlng, on 09 Jul 2015 - 9:39 PM, said: So, if tomorrow we find WMD in Iraq that were buried 15 years ago you will reconsider your position and possibly vote for Hillary? While i'm at it, if Hillary refused to vote for the war after she had seen credible evidence of WMD would you think her prudent or reckless?
DC Tom Posted July 11, 2015 Posted July 11, 2015 What does she stand for? How will things change for the better with her as president? Where has she shown leadership capabilities? Nothing. They won't. She hasn't. If there's anyone out there planning on voting for her, serious question: why? Because I give up. "Rule of law" in this country has been replaced by "People in authority making **** up as they go along." May as well support the monarchy.
truth on hold Posted July 11, 2015 Posted July 11, 2015 If you thought Obama was a socialist, wait till hillay gets elected. Hillary Clinton to center campaign on raising middle-class incomes In a major address in New York, the Democratic front-runner will lay out a diagnosis for why wages have been stuck and a framework to ensure that economic growth benefits more ordinary workers, according to campaign officials. She believes that making sure the real incomes of everyday Americans are rising steadily and strongly is the defining economic challenge of our time, said one campaign official, who previewed Clintons remarks only on the condition of anonymity. Clinton will endorse a host of popular Democratic policies such as raising the minimum wage and investing more in infrastructure. She will emphasize proposals tailored toward working women, one of her most important bases of support, such as expanding access to child care and providing workers with paid family and sick leave. The ideas, in many ways, sound similar to the second-term agenda of President Barack Obama, who faced an economic crisis in his first term and in his second started to more directly to address the nations long-running economic problems. But he has struggled to pass major legislation with a Republican-dominated Congress. Clinton will say she wants to build on his agenda, and, in working to craft an economic vision of her own, she goes further in her emphasis on giving women more flexibility to enter the workforce and on new government efforts to change the investment and pay decisions of corporations. Read more here: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2015/07/11/3717900/hillary-clinton-to-center-campaign.html#storylink=cpy
keepthefaith Posted July 12, 2015 Posted July 12, 2015 If you thought Obama was a socialist, wait till hillay gets elected. Hillary Clinton to center campaign on raising middle-class incomes In a major address in New York, the Democratic front-runner will lay out a diagnosis for why wages have been stuck and a framework to ensure that economic growth benefits more ordinary workers, according to campaign officials. She believes that making sure the real incomes of everyday Americans are rising steadily and strongly is the defining economic challenge of our time, said one campaign official, who previewed Clintons remarks only on the condition of anonymity. Clinton will endorse a host of popular Democratic policies such as raising the minimum wage and investing more in infrastructure. She will emphasize proposals tailored toward working women, one of her most important bases of support, such as expanding access to child care and providing workers with paid family and sick leave. The ideas, in many ways, sound similar to the second-term agenda of President Barack Obama, who faced an economic crisis in his first term and in his second started to more directly to address the nations long-running economic problems. But he has struggled to pass major legislation with a Republican-dominated Congress. Clinton will say she wants to build on his agenda, and, in working to craft an economic vision of her own, she goes further in her emphasis on giving women more flexibility to enter the workforce and on new government efforts to change the investment and pay decisions of corporations. Read more here: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2015/07/11/3717900/hillary-clinton-to-center-campaign.html#storylink=cpy Not surprising. Her team has probably surveyed many people and determined that many votes can be bought for about $500 and paid for through higher taxes on the rich or deficit spending. Brilliant!
reddogblitz Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 So, if tomorrow we find WMD in Iraq that were buried 15 years ago you will reconsider your position and possibly vote for Hillary? While i'm at it, if Hillary refused to vote for the war after she had seen credible evidence of WMD would you think her prudent or reckless? That hasn't happened, so really it's a moot point. I'll play along however to be a good sport. Even if Saddam had those WMDs (allegedly), it's not reason enough for the kind of war we waged on Iraq IMHO Didn't buy that argument then and still don't. So if we find weapons buried for 15 years I still won't vote for Hillary because I dislike her for other reasons like her fakeness for example. 1 1/2 years ago she hawled in $1,600,000 for chumming up with and sucking up to Chase, Goldman Sachs, etc and today she is for the little guy and against the rigged system (in part perpetuated by the very same banks she chummed up with and took scads of cash from). Her whole avoiding the Freedom of Information Act with her personal eMail server doesn't help her case with me either.
B-Man Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 (edited) What if Hillary gave a speech and nobody cared? Judging from Memeorandum, that's what happened. The trending stories are about about Scott Walker's announcing his candidacy, President Obama commuting 46 drug sentences, a bit of the Donald-and-Bernie hijinks, Ted Cruz versus the NYT best-seller list, 50 Cent filing for bankrupcy, El Chapo's escape, and the prospects for a "mini ice age" in 15 years and an earthquake that "will destroy a sizable portion of the coastal Northwest" who knows when.I do see one Reuters piece, "Clinton bashes Wall Street, pledges U.S. income equality." What? I thought she said, in that CNN interview I wasted my time on last week, that she was going to be laying out her economic policies in her speech today. Clinton will unveil more specifics of her economic policy in a series of speeches in coming weeks... Putting some meat on the bones of her economic policy could divert focus from issues dragging on Clinton's popularity.... The substance is always coming later. And there's this in Politico, which seems to think the story of Hillary is insufficient by itself. "Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush renew sparring match over worker hours, pay." Had to put Jeb in there. I turned this up too. It's not about the speech that was supposed to be important. It's Richard Cohen at The Washington Post saying: [T]he incessant attacks on her, the parsing of every sentence, the jumping on her characteristic but harmless overstatements like “dead broke,” brings out the Sir Lancelot (or is it Galahad?) in me. She might not be a damsel in distress, but her enemies are making her into one. Oh, get that, Hillary opponents? Better not attack her or Richard Cohen, et al., will be moved to — gasp! — defend her. What bilge! You know, if we have to hold back attacking a woman lest men feel the need to defend her simply because she's a woman, then we shouldn't have a woman President. Edited July 13, 2015 by B-Man
Doc Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 How unfair! They didn't incessantly attack, or parse every sentence and jump on overstatements by Romney. Oh, wait a minute...
Recommended Posts