Hillary? Not Gonna Happen!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

“In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn’t such a great idea after all.”

  • Strobe Talbot, President Clinton’s Deputy Secretary of State, Time Magazine, July 20th, l992

“We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans.”

  • Bill Clinton, USA Today on 3/11/93, page 2a

We all KNOW what Hillary and her masters want. Do we want it too?

�??Bankers own the earth; take it away from them but leave them with the power to create credit; and, with a flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again… If you want to be slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let the bankers control money and control credit.�??

  • Sir Josiah Stamp, Director, Bank of England, 1940.
42

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
“In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn’t such a great idea after all.”

  • Strobe Talbot, President Clinton’s Deputy Secretary of State, Time Magazine, July 20th, l992

“We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans.”

  • Bill Clinton, USA Today on 3/11/93, page 2a

We all KNOW what Hillary and her masters want. Do we want it too?

�??Bankers own the earth; take it away from them but leave them with the power to create credit; and, with a flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again… If you want to be slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let the bankers control money and control credit.�??

  • Sir Josiah Stamp, Director, Bank of England, 1940.

[/quote]

Clearly Hillary has no respect for the individual freedoms of the average person. In the recent debates Obama stated he did not agree with Hillary’s plan to force everyone into a government run healthcare system. Obama opted to allow people to choose to participate, while Hillary wanted to make it illegal to not participate.

She is evil!

43

In the Illinois Senate, Obama opposed legislation that would have made it illegal to let a viable baby die that has been born when abortion failed. I.e., living baby, capable of living on its own, outside the womb, and he thinks it is ok to let it die.

He also thinks if you shoot a robber in your own home, while they are robbing your house, that robber should have the right to sue you.

He is every bit as evil as her, and he is able to cover it up a lot better.

44

[quote]tedro wrote:
In the Illinois Senate, Obama opposed legislation that would have made it illegal to let a viable baby die that has been born when abortion failed. I.e., living baby, capable of living on its own, outside the womb, and he thinks it is ok to let it die.

He also thinks if you shoot a robber in your own home, while they are robbing your house, that robber should have the right to sue you.

He is every bit as evil as her, and he is able to cover it up a lot better.[/quote]

So the evil we know is worse than the evil we don’t? Hmmm, that’s an intersting take, but hilda-bitch still scares me more.

45

Said it before, time to say it again:

2008 Dem ticket = Clinton/Obama

If they’re gonna try to elect a woman, they might as well toss a minority onto the ticket as well.

46

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Said it before, time to say it again:

2008 Dem ticket = Clinton/Obama

If they’re gonna try to elect a woman, they might as well toss a minority onto the ticket as well. [/quote]

They are going to hate each other before this campaign is over. I don’t think we will see them on the same ticket.

I see someone like Richardson as the VP.

47

As with pretty much of every election, pick the lesser of the two evils. Which one is that??? I’ll sway towards Obama before Clinton.

48


Cthuhlu 2008!

Why settle for the lesser of two evils?

49

[quote]tedro wrote:
Hillary has no chance to win the general election. Obama, on the other hand, is unbeatable if he wins the democratic nomination.[/quote]

Then I hope you’re right, and I pray that Hillary wins the democratic nomination.

50

So if one (or, god forbid, both) of these evil people are elected, would that make us the Evil Empire?

51

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
So if one (or, god forbid, both) of these evil people are elected, would that make us the Evil Empire?[/quote]

If those two are elected then I am seriously getting my affairs in order, liquidating assets and relocating. I don’t know what would be worse—watching the collapse of our once great nation from afar or being right in the middle of it with the insufferable morons that actually voted for them.

52

I think I’ll have nightmares!!!

53

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
lixy wrote:

It’s more like you “shouldn’t be there in the first place”.

Go take a look at which candidates get the most donations from the US military personnel.

Try to add something - anything - to the conversation other than your robotic “the war was wrong!”.

[/quote]

He’s right, you should have elaborated and made some sort of point, however can it really be said enough?

54

[quote]Mousse wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
lixy wrote:

It’s more like you “shouldn’t be there in the first place”.

Go take a look at which candidates get the most donations from the US military personnel.

Try to add something - anything - to the conversation other than your robotic “the war was wrong!”.

He’s right, you should have elaborated and made some sort of point, however can it really be said enough?[/quote]

Yes, contending that the U.S. shouldn’t have invaded Iraq can be said too many times. In fact, the only way you can say it ONCE is if you follow it up with what YOU would have done as George W. Bush circa 2003.

Don’t bring it weak. You’d better have a great plan.

To date, I’ve seen exactly zero viable alternatives in nearly five years.

Surprise me.

JeffR

55

[quote]JeffR wrote:

Yes, contending that the U.S. shouldn’t have invaded Iraq can be said too many times. In fact, the only way you can say it ONCE is if you follow it up with what YOU would have done as George W. Bush circa 2003.

Don’t bring it weak. You’d better have a great plan.

To date, I’ve seen exactly zero viable alternatives in nearly five years.

Surprise me.

JeffR

[/quote]

Honestly, my position is shifting. If I was George W. Bush, looking at the intel, I would have done things totally different. I would have signed some kind of non-aggression treaty with him, removed the sanctions, and informed the UN we would no longer participate in policing or enforcing resolutions against Saddam.

56

[quote]Sloth wrote:
JeffR wrote:

Yes, contending that the U.S. shouldn’t have invaded Iraq can be said too many times. In fact, the only way you can say it ONCE is if you follow it up with what YOU would have done as George W. Bush circa 2003.

Don’t bring it weak. You’d better have a great plan.

To date, I’ve seen exactly zero viable alternatives in nearly five years.

Surprise me.

JeffR

Honestly, my position is shifting. If I was George W. Bush, looking at the intel, I would have done things totally different. I would have signed some kind of non-aggression treaty with him, removed the sanctions, and informed the UN we would no longer participate in policing or enforcing resolutions against Saddam.[/quote]

Sloth,

I’m worried about you. Lately you seem to have come un-glued.

What exactly would signing a non-agression treaty have done? Remember this is the same guy who was violating the CEASE FIRE he signed.

So you leave the hapless u.n. in charge? You know what would have happened? 1998 all over again. No inspections. Nothing.

Again, I’m worried about you.

JeffR

57

[quote]JeffR wrote:

Sloth,

I’m worried about you. Lately you seem to have come un-glued.
[/quote]
Thanks for the concern, but I’m doing well.

Well, it would of said “Hey, we don’t actually believe you’re a mortal threat to our American way of life. Therefore, we agree to end all hostilities, if you can do so.” I’m just not concerned that Saddam violated the cease fire, anymore. You see, I just don’t feel the need to police the region against secular dictators or theocrats. Let them have at each other.

I grow weary of the notion that the US is about to be conquered or destroyed unless we’re out patrolling. Instead of playing policeman, I’d like see our wealth come back home. I’d like to see us focus on national defense and not foreign defense. I’d like the borrowing, needed to finance our police role go to paying off debt, and getting our own house in order.

Yes, I’d leave the hapless U.N. in charge. Hell, I’d leave the U.N. period. Let other nations sink much more of their citizens’ hard earned wealth into nation building and democratization. In my mind there is one, and only one, nation worth spending our tax dollars on. And, certainley only one nation worth the single life of a US patriot. That nation isn’t in the Mid-East, nor Africa or Asia. No, not even Europe is worthy of our protection.

I’ve concluded that 9/11 caused me to abandon Conservatism. I intend to correct that by demanding a strong national defense. National.

58

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Mousse wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
lixy wrote:

It’s more like you “shouldn’t be there in the first place”.

Go take a look at which candidates get the most donations from the US military personnel.

Try to add something - anything - to the conversation other than your robotic “the war was wrong!”.

He’s right, you should have elaborated and made some sort of point, however can it really be said enough?

Yes, contending that the U.S. shouldn’t have invaded Iraq can be said too many times. In fact, the only way you can say it ONCE is if you follow it up with what YOU would have done as George W. Bush circa 2003.

Don’t bring it weak. You’d better have a great plan.

To date, I’ve seen exactly zero viable alternatives in nearly five years.

Surprise me.

JeffR

[/quote]

Have you read anything on the war besides moronic polemics? Go get Thomas Ricks’ book to name just one example, where you’ll see that General Anthony Zinni, USMC, head of Centcom in the the 90’s, was convinced containing Saddam worked. He wasn’t the only one.

I was for the war in 2003. But you’d expect the president to be wiser and slightly better informed than a (then) 21 year-old who reads the paper.

59

[quote]Sloth wrote:
JeffR wrote:

Sloth,

I’m worried about you. Lately you seem to have come un-glued.

Thanks for the concern, but I’m doing well.

What exactly would signing a non-agression treaty have done? Remember this is the same guy who was violating the CEASE FIRE he signed.

Well, it would of said “Hey, we don’t actually believe you’re a mortal threat to our American way of life. Therefore, we agree to end all hostilities, if you can do so.” I’m just not concerned that Saddam violated the cease fire, anymore. You see, I just don’t feel the need to police the region against secular dictators or theocrats. Let them have at each other.

I grow weary of the notion that the US is about to be conquered or destroyed unless we’re out patrolling. Instead of playing policeman, I’d like see our wealth come back home. I’d like to see us focus on national defense and not foreign defense. I’d like the borrowing, needed to finance our police role go to paying off debt, and getting our own house in order.

So you leave the hapless u.n. in charge? You know what would have happened? 1998 all over again. No inspections. Nothing.

Yes, I’d leave the hapless U.N. in charge. Hell, I’d leave the U.N. period. Let other nations sink much more of their citizens’ hard earned wealth into nation building and democratization. In my mind there is one, and only one, nation worth spending our tax dollars on. And, certainley only one nation worth the single life of a US patriot. That nation isn’t in the Mid-East, nor Africa or Asia. No, not even Europe is worthy of our protection.

I’ve concluded that 9/11 caused me to abandon Conservatism. I intend to correct that by demanding a strong national defense. National.

[/quote]

Friend,

First of all, I can understand being weary and saddened by losing American lives. I can understand feeling the tax pinch to support the effort.

However, all the “hide behind our borders” ended in about 1800.

We can’t maintain trade without policing the trade routes. We can’t compel others to trade fairly without the threat of the stick. We can’t keep prices down without a credible threat of force.

Finally, 2001 SHOULD have shown you how vulnerable we are. It SHOULD have shown you how small the world has become.

While it might feel liberating to suggest we withdraw to within our borders, the results on our economy and our physical well-being would be disastrous.

Until human nature rejects the notion of aggression, we’ll be forced to confront it.

JeffR

P.S. saddam would have viewed that overture as weakness. He didn’t and wouldn’t have forgiven his humbling during Gulf War I. If he wasn’t a “mortal” threat in 2003, he would have become one.

60

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Mousse wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
lixy wrote:

It’s more like you “shouldn’t be there in the first place”.

Go take a look at which candidates get the most donations from the US military personnel.

Try to add something - anything - to the conversation other than your robotic “the war was wrong!”.

He’s right, you should have elaborated and made some sort of point, however can it really be said enough?

Yes, contending that the U.S. shouldn’t have invaded Iraq can be said too many times. In fact, the only way you can say it ONCE is if you follow it up with what YOU would have done as George W. Bush circa 2003.

Don’t bring it weak. You’d better have a great plan.

To date, I’ve seen exactly zero viable alternatives in nearly five years.

Surprise me.

JeffR

Have you read anything on the war besides moronic polemics? Go get Thomas Ricks’ book to name just one example, where you’ll see that General Anthony Zinni, USMC, head of Centcom in the the 90’s, was convinced containing Saddam worked. He wasn’t the only one.

I was for the war in 2003. But you’d expect the president to be wiser and slightly better informed than a (then) 21 year-old who reads the paper.[/quote]

Mr. Independent:

Okay, pal, what “turned you against the war?”

If it’s tactical errors or faulty intelligence, then you not only are admitting total ignorance of the course of ANY WAR, you are also showing your support was skin deep.

How exactly was saddam contained? Pray tell.

Be careful, if you say inspections, you are going to have to tell me next that you’d be fine with keeping the troops on highest alert and at high numbers in the region.

Remember that’s the ONLY reason inspections were allowed to resume Nov, 2002.

You are going to have to tell me you’d be fine with the bill, the sacrifice of those extended deployments, and the disquieting rumblings of what was going on inside the regime in 2003.

Futher, to say he was contained in a post-911 world, you are going to have contend that he wasn’t in bed with terrorism including al qaeda.

I’ve never liked your name dropping. If you want, I can certainly produce 5,000 names who agreed with the invasion.

It doesn’t make you wise to cherry-pick your authors without having an argument of your own.

When you cite others, it should be a minor portion of your work. It should be support and not the meat of your post.

One must not allow your argument to become drowned in other people’s work.

It makes you look unable to come up with your own.

JeffR