Chef Jim Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 Thanks, I'll try and watch my 80's flip overs or whatever...are you drunk or something?? Sorry. Is English your second language? Maybe read it sloooooowly next time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 So all this could possibly of led to a conflict. Nice change of subject but all a bit speculative. Trump is taking us down a dangerous path, now https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/25/hillary-clinton-syria-no-fly-zones-russia-us-war Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prickly Pete Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 Of course, in the name of honesty, the other candidate was running a campaign calling for open war with the world's largest nuclear power. If I have to chose between a loud-mouth neophyte who likes to posture and act tough with Iran versus a known and accomplished war monger hell bent on starting a shooting war with Russia to "save" Syria... well, then I do what I did. Choose a third party. I think there is a lot of posturing right now from Trump, because he has to establish himself, and the other major powers are going to test him a bit. On the other hand, Hillary was all set to escalate what she and her pals had been implementing for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 (edited) I think there is a lot of posturing right now from Trump, because he has to establish himself, and the other major powers are going to test him a bit. On the other hand, Hillary was all set to escalate what she and her pals had been implementing for years. I don't disagree. Clinton would have been the continuation of established policy that predated even her term as SecState. She was chosen to carry the water for the neocon establishment. And because of that and her experience, Clinton already had the infrastructure in place in terms of personnel in the CIA and Foggy Bottom to swiftly move the country onto a war footing in Syria by January 21st. HRC did not hide her desire for war with Russia, hell she boasted about it and cocooned herself in the neocon/neoliberal regime change establishment -- the same folks who have wanted a regime change in Moscow for years. The neocon/neoliberal establishment mentioned above, of course, has been the loudest voice speaking out about Putin's ties to Trump since the election. This isn't just political gamesmanship, it's a deliberate and desperate attempt to push through the agenda and campaign promise HRC was going to deliver them: war with Russia. That the democratic party and the progressive left don't see they were the ones backing the war candidate is one of the greatest pieces of irony in the entire election year... Which says a lot considering a reality show star won said election. Edited February 4, 2017 by Deranged Rhino Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beef Jerky Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 Threatening Mexico with invasion, putting Iran "On notice." This can't end well. He has even said we might get another chance at taking Iraq's oil! Then last night he took Iran to task for taking over Iraq. How long before we have a war? Hey, let's elect a crazy man, what could go wrong? Wouldn't mind a war, it lowers the world's population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.Sack Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 Hillary also had the backing of a majority of Bush's foreign policy advisers. It's quite clear that the establishment Democrats have become two faced on the issue of war. This used to be the party that condemned war, and voted protested against it. Now they vote for illegal wars, drone citizens without due process, and conduct 7 interventions while dropping 26k bombs a year, so much so that they ran out of them. This is not your grandfathers Democratic Party. They are pro-fracking, pro-war, pro-regime change, pro-Wall Street bailouts, pro-big Pharma, pro-private health insurance, pro-a $7.25 minimum wage. Their entire platform was platitudes and PC outrage. They paid lip service to the millennials that voted enmasse for Sanders, and after getting his endorsement ran towards the center hoping to gain the endorsement of surbia traditionally white Republicans. Bill Clinton said they wouldn't need Sanders voters. Chuck Schumer falsely predicted for every white working class voter they'd gain two surburbian Republicans. The strategy failed epically. If no one was paying attention Hillary's entire campaign message was Donald Trump is a horrible person. What was her campaign message outside of that? When given the choice between and Republican in policy and a real Republican, voters will pick the Republican every time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 These arguments would humor me except that liberal pundits spew this crap, and people like Gator repeat them. Yeah, I know, Obama ended 2 wars didn't he? Has conflict ended in either Iraq or Afghanistan? Of course it hasn't, but PBO announced they were ended, so it must be so... Dr Sack eloquently mentions above: This is not your grandfathers Democratic Party. They are pro-fracking, pro-war, pro-regime change, pro-Wall Street bailouts, pro-big Pharma, pro-private health insurance, pro-a $7.25 minimum wage. And while all correct, I want to emphasize the regime change part... Remember when Dems condemned the war in Iraq on those very grounds publicly? Yet under Obama, we initiated, and supported regime change in Egypt, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, and Syria... All of them, except Egypt, are still embroiled in civil war thanks to liberal and PBO policy. So with Iraq and Afghanistan still in turmoil, along with the Obama instigated mess in 4 other countries, PBO is now personally responsible for war in 6 nations. I'm sure the Nobel Laureates are so very proud of that peace prize now before really getting to know the man that would plunge the world into such chaos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 These arguments would humor me except that liberal pundits spew this crap, and people like Gator repeat them. Yeah, I know, Obama ended 2 wars didn't he? Has conflict ended in either Iraq or Afghanistan? Of course it hasn't, but PBO announced they were ended, so it must be so... Dr Sack eloquently mentions above: And while all correct, I want to emphasize the regime change part... Remember when Dems condemned the war in Iraq on those very grounds publicly? Yet under Obama, we initiated, and supported regime change in Egypt, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, and Syria... All of them, except Egypt, are still embroiled in civil war thanks to liberal and PBO policy. So with Iraq and Afghanistan still in turmoil, along with the Obama instigated mess in 4 other countries, PBO is now personally responsible for war in 6 nations. I'm sure the Nobel Laureates are so very proud of that peace prize now before really getting to know the man that would plunge the world into such chaos. Again: to most Americans, it's not a war unless we have combat troops on the ground, in combat. ISIS, not a war. Iraq, no longer a war. Libya, not a war. Yemen...wasn't a war, now it is. "Pax Americana" has been very similar to "Pax Britannica" a century-plus ago: Victorian England was at war for all but three years of Queen Vic's reign...but none of those wars counted, because they weren't against Europeans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 5, 2017 Author Share Posted February 5, 2017 Again: to most Americans, it's not a war unless we have combat troops on the ground, in combat. ns. Right, with bodies coming home, a massive increase in defense spending, soldiers doing unAmerican things. That tends to make people pay attention more and realize a war is going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 Right, with bodies coming home, a massive increase in defense spending, soldiers doing unAmerican things. That tends to make people pay attention more and realize a war is going on. Yup because people are idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maury Ballstein Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 Yeah, you would like him. Like a moth to a flame. What part of it did you disagree with ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prickly Pete Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 (edited) What part of it did you disagree with ? He didn't watch. Milo Y. makes fun of feminists, and doesn't want Muslims to overrun his country, so he is a "neo-nazi". I haven't seen him advocate violence, and he says he believes most Muslims are nice, fine people. While he is snarky, and often mean, to call him a neo-nazi, or white supremacist is nonsense. Mostly he points out contradictions from Progressives. Edited February 5, 2017 by HoF Watkins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 He didn't watch. Milo Y. makes fun of feminists, and doesn't want Muslims to overrun his country, so he is a "neo-nazi". I haven't seen him advocate violence, and he says he believes most Muslims are nice, fine people. While he is snarky, and often mean, to call him a neo-nazi, or white supremacist is nonsense. It's what leftist scumsuckers do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 Right, with bodies coming home, a massive increase in defense spending, soldiers doing unAmerican things. That tends to make people pay attention more and realize a war is going on. [This is an automated response.] You're an idiot. Created by DC Tom-bot, beta version 0.61. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 5, 2017 Author Share Posted February 5, 2017 [This is an automated response.] You're an idiot. Created by DC Tom-bot, beta version 0.61. Federal reserve You are such a loser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Franklin Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 What part of it did you disagree with ? The part where he blames LGBT violence on the LGBT community? You know, extrapolate a handful of bad actors to blame the entire community? Logic with appeal to the mouth breather. And no, if you think I watched the entire video, I didn't. I'd rather read one of DR's conspiracy pieces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prickly Pete Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 (edited) The part where he blames LGBT violence on the LGBT community? You know, extrapolate a handful of bad actors to blame the entire community? Logic with appeal to the mouth breather. And no, if you think I watched the entire video, I didn't. I'd rather read one of DR's conspiracy pieces. Gee, you are very sensitive, and over dramatic. A gay man can't point out that there are lesbians faking attacks, or he is a neo-nazi and shouldn't be allowed to speak at colleges. Ironic that he wants Gay advocacy groups to take a harder line against Muslims, who virtually all condemn homosexuality, and who commit real violence against homosexuals Edited February 5, 2017 by HoF Watkins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maury Ballstein Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 (edited) The part where he blames LGBT violence on the LGBT community? You know, extrapolate a handful of bad actors to blame the entire community? Well gay bashing went out of style in the 70's and he provided names and cited actual cases. How dare he go after the leftys unmentionables known as gays and Islam. Those are protected species. Edited February 5, 2017 by Ryan L Billz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Franklin Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 Yes you love him. No shock there. Low wattage ideas powering dim bulbs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prickly Pete Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 (edited) Yes you love him. No shock there. Low wattage ideas powering dim bulbs. Not an argument. Edited February 5, 2017 by HoF Watkins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts