Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

 

Probably ended with Rumsfeld at the bar telling someone "that !@#$er over there just called me an idiot. WTF?!?!?"

 

It was actually in an elevator - Rummy had an office in the same building my wife worked in at the time.

 

And while I didn't call him an idiot...well, let's just say the words "I know more about this **** than you do" were uttered by one of us before the elevator doors opened. I'll let you wonder which one of us.

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

 

It was actually in an elevator - Rummy had an office in the same building my wife worked in at the time.

 

And while I didn't call him an idiot...well, let's just say the words "I know more about this **** than you do" were uttered by one of us before the elevator doors opened. I'll let you wonder which one of us.

So you did call him an idiot. My wife has dozens of ways of calling me a dumbass without ever using the actual word. She does a fantastic job of calling me a dumbass without even uttering a word.

Posted

 

That's a pretty deep bench ya got there, progs. :lol:

 

If Filthadelphia wants to save some cash on next years Democratic Convention they could probably get away with holding it on Senior Day at Country Buffet

Posted

 

Probably ended with Rumsfeld at the bar telling someone "that !@#$er over there just called me an idiot. WTF?!?!?"

 

:lol:

Posted (edited)

Not that I think it will matter because it was too long ago and the desire to elect female president will be more important to many of her supporters, but ....

 

Bernie Sanders Joins Growing Chorus of Clinton Challengers Who Opposed Her on Iraq

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-30/bernie-sanders-joins-growing-chorus-of-clinton-challengers-who-opposed-her-on-iraq

 

........

 

He should go after her more recent tenure as secretary of state, where she had a lot more influence on foreign policy. And with that influence she ramped up the neocon agenda with horrible misadventures in libya and syria

Edited by JTSP
Posted

He should go after her more recent tenure as secretary of state, where she had a lot more influence on foreign policy. And with that influence she ramped up the neocon agenda with horrible misadventures in libya and syria

 

Wait. Libya and Syria driven by Barry and Hillary are actually from the neocon agenda? :lol::lol:

 

You really are working at a gatorman level of intelligence there, Scooter.

Posted

Not that I think it will matter because it was too long ago and the desire to elect female president will be more important to many of her supporters, but

 

It matters to me. If you voted for that boondoggle BS can of worms Iraq War, it's a deal breaker IMHO. If you're too stupid to figure out that it was BS at the time, you're not smart enough. You got snookered by Bush and Cheney. Especially if you didn't read the non slam dunk intelligence report (like Hillary did not).

Posted (edited)

 

Wait. Libya and Syria driven by Barry and Hillary are actually from the neocon agenda? :lol::lol:

 

You really are working at a gatorman level of intelligence there, Scooter.

There was a strong element of neocon agenda in Obamas policy, especially when Hillary was SoS. I pointed it out in the bush thread. And those elements are where policy went terribly astray. I have no problem calling it like it is regardless of party or individual. You're partisan thinking can't seem to grasp that.

 

It matters to me. If you voted for that boondoggle BS can of worms Iraq War, it's a deal breaker IMHO. If you're too stupid to figure out that it was BS at the time, you're not smart enough. You got snookered by Bush and Cheney. Especially if you didn't read the non slam dunk intelligence report (like Hillary did not).

I wish everyone were like that, but sadly I think not. The system is horribly corrupt and foreign policy by and large does not reflect the interests of the citizens. The only potential way out is for citizens to impose their will at the ballot box and stop electing these creeps. Edited by JTSP
Posted

The best part of this is Bernie can go after her without cries of "sexism." The only thing better would be crazy Uncle Joe entering the race.

Posted

The best part of this is Bernie can go after her without cries of "sexism." The only thing better would be crazy Uncle Joe entering the race.

 

Crazy Uncle Joe voted for the Iraq War too, so he's out IMHO.

Posted

Crazy Uncle Joe voted for the Iraq War too, so he's out IMHO.

He can still criticize her. Just not for that.

Posted (edited)

 

It matters to me. If you voted for that boondoggle BS can of worms Iraq War, it's a deal breaker IMHO. If you're too stupid to figure out that it was BS at the time, you're not smart enough. You got snookered by Bush and Cheney. Especially if you didn't read the non slam dunk intelligence report (like Hillary did not).

:thumbsup:

Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or fascist dictorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peace makers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” Hermann Goring

 

heramnn goring

Edited by birdog1960
Posted

 

Crazy Uncle Joe voted for the Iraq War too, so he's out IMHO.

If he hadn't voted for the war he would be a viable candidate in your mind?

Posted

Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or fascist dictorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peace makers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” Hermann

Posted

There was a strong element of neocon agenda in Obamas policy, especially when Hillary was SoS. I pointed it out in the bush thread. And those elements are where policy went terribly astray. I have no problem calling it like it is regardless of party or individual. You're partisan thinking can't seem to grasp that.

I wish everyone were like that, but sadly I think not. The system is horribly corrupt and foreign policy by and large does not reflect the interests of the citizens. The only potential way out is for citizens to impose their will at the ballot box and stop electing these creeps.

I think I've explained this before here ,Obama is not a Neocon but he is a Zbigniew Brezinski disciple - so what's the difference? well they have the same goals American hegemony over the world but they differ in tactics (neocons see tougher talk and military action as the solution to every problem) Brezinskites like a mix of soft power, color revolution, assassination, economic pressure, propaganda, then military action.

 

Posted

Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or fascist dictorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peace makers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country. Hermann

We heard you the first time.

Posted

I think I've explained this before here ,Obama is not a Neocon but he is a Zbigniew Brezinski disciple - so what's the difference? well they have the same goals American hegemony over the world but they differ in tactics (neocons see tougher talk and military action as the solution to every problem) Brezinskites like a mix of soft power, color revolution, assassination, economic pressure, propaganda, then military action.

 

Good insight, thanks
×
×
  • Create New...