[quote]pittbulll wrote:
It is what Benghazi is all about[/quote]
You’re right, it has nothing to do with accountability or the loss of American life.
I can’t imagine the utter lack of intelligence a person would have to possess to believe Hillary Clinton would make a good president. The standards we hold our politicians to these days could not conceivably be any lower.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I personally would bet against a Clinton run , I am thinking Julian Castro[/quote]
A hardcore radical whose mother was one of the founders of La Raza.[/quote]
This La Raza ? the nerve of that woman 
[/quote]
Yes that La Raza(The Race). You know, the one that openly calls for “reconquista”, ethnic cleansing of the South West and the establishment of a sovereign all Latino state where whites, blacks, Asians and anyone else who isn’t Hispanic can’t live. That one.
[/quote]
can you post a link so I can make my own judgement ?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
It is what Benghazi is all about[/quote]
You’re right, it has nothing to do with accountability or the loss of American life. [/quote]
I love it when we agree , eye roll
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
I can’t imagine the utter lack of intelligence a person would have to possess to believe Hillary Clinton would make a good president. The standards we hold our politicians to these days could not conceivably be any lower. [/quote]
I personally don’t think it matters , there is no difference than if Bush would have remained in the white house other than Haliburton would still be making a killing in Iraq
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
The standards we hold our politicians to these days could not conceivably be any lower. [/quote]
It is a lack of informed voter, and lack of enthusiasm to vote/be involved.
People get elected on their last names alone in some states and regions, nothing more or nothing less.
Some of the most intelligent people I know are the worst letter voters I’ve ever come across. I’ve gotten so used to it, it isn’t even a surprise to find a college educated, well paid professional that not only knows nothing of history or civics, but would literally vote for Stalin if he carried the correct letter next to his name.
I see partisan hogwash, projection, and a general lack of critical thought on these boards lol, but it pales in comparison to real life.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
I can’t imagine the utter lack of intelligence a person would have to possess to believe Hillary Clinton would make a good president. The standards we hold our politicians to these days could not conceivably be any lower. [/quote]
I personally don’t think it matters , there is no difference than if Bush would have remained in the white house other than Haliburton would still be making a killing in Iraq
[/quote]
See, this is the problem. You, presumably, would vote for Hillary because she is, in your mind, no different than Bush who you dislike. Whatever happened to voting for someone on their merits and not because of blind allegiance to a party?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
The standards we hold our politicians to these days could not conceivably be any lower. [/quote]
It is a lack of informed voter, and lack of enthusiasm to vote/be involved.
People get elected on their last names alone in some states and regions, nothing more or nothing less.
Some of the most intelligent people I know are the worst letter voters I’ve ever come across. I’ve gotten so used to it, it isn’t even a surprise to find a college educated, well paid professional that not only knows nothing of history or civics, but would literally vote for Stalin if he carried the correct letter next to his name.
I see partisan hogwash, projection, and a general lack of critical thought on these boards lol, but it pales in comparison to real life. [/quote]
I just don’t get it. Why would you vote for someone without having any idea of what they stand for? I sometimes fail to vote, mostly local and county elections, because I didn’t take the time to research the candidates and I don’t wish to be responsible for voting in a turd simply because of political affiliation. I didn’t vote for either Romney or Obama since both were horrible choices in my mind. My write-in candidate obviously didn’t win.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
I just don’t get it. Why would you vote for someone without having any idea of what they stand for?
[/quote]
Well, it is easier than thinking.
Most people today don’t think, young people in particular. They feel. They hear an idea, and if it makes them feel good, plus fits into the neat little narrative they’ve let Hollywood and “main stream” media paint for them, then the idea is “a-go” without a single second to think about the effects of such a change.
Sowell has a quote about it.
Then most politicians just say a bunch of bullshit that either has no meaning or no basis in reality, and people swallow it up. Then, either because of cognitive dissonance, or a conditioning that politicans lie, they ignore the fact that everything the politician said was a lie and vote for them again.
I could really go on and on here, but just follow some on here. It is talking point after talking point about subjects they don’t understand, can’t back it up with factual information, ignore facts that fly in the face of their beliefs and then carry on like nothing happened…
It’s sad really, but I’m not sure it is any different than its ever been.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
I can’t imagine the utter lack of intelligence a person would have to possess to believe Hillary Clinton would make a good president. The standards we hold our politicians to these days could not conceivably be any lower. [/quote]
I personally don’t think it matters , there is no difference than if Bush would have remained in the white house other than Haliburton would still be making a killing in Iraq
[/quote]
See, this is the problem. You, presumably, would vote for Hillary because she is, in your mind, no different than Bush who you dislike. Whatever happened to voting for someone on their merits and not because of blind allegiance to a party?
[/quote]
I know it is hard to fathom , but I have to decide as do most others, by looking at microscopic differences and what might benefit those (us, people like me) rather than those that would microscopically benefit the top %.1 or %.01 .
I was really bucking for Ron Paul on the last election cycle . I don’t agree with everything that he is about but I like his general direction . I will look at his son when it gets closer 2016 but my present impression is politics as usual
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I personally would bet against a Clinton run , I am thinking Julian Castro[/quote]
A hardcore radical whose mother was one of the founders of La Raza.[/quote]
This La Raza ? the nerve of that woman
[/quote]
Yes that La Raza(The Race). You know, the one that openly calls for “reconquista”, ethnic cleansing of the South West and the establishment of a sovereign all Latino state where whites, blacks, Asians and anyone else who isn’t Hispanic can’t live. That one.
[/quote]
can you post a link so I can make my own judgement ?
[/quote]
http://touch.humanevents.com/humanevents/#!/entry/exclusive-the-truth-about-la-raza,5164a71dd7fc7b5670a4c311
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
You say that he launched all-out war against the Soviets, then you list a bunch of shit the U.S. had been doing for more than 20 years already. Ever heard of Guatemala in the early 50’s? What about Cuba between 1960-63?
[/quote]
Right, and what did Ford and Carter do? Besides slashing the military I mean.
I know. But California had a population of 23 million whereas the Soviet Union had a population of 290 million.
Nonsense. The 1973 embargo caused the price to rise from $3 a barrel to $12 a barrel in one year.
Really? Got a source for this claim?
That’s why Reagan overhauled the intelligence agencies when he came to power. Under Ford/Carter they had degenerated.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
You say that he launched all-out war against the Soviets, then you list a bunch of shit the U.S. had been doing for more than 20 years already. Ever heard of Guatemala in the early 50’s? What about Cuba between 1960-63?
[/quote]
Right, and what did Ford and Carter do? Besides slashing the military I mean.
I know. But California had a population of 23 million whereas the Soviet Union had a population of 290 million.
Nonsense. The 1973 embargo caused the price to rise from $3 a barrel to $12 a barrel in one year.
Really? Got a source for this claim?
That’s why Reagan overhauled the intelligence agencies when he came to power. Under Ford/Carter they had degenerated.
[/quote]
Okay, I’ll take your points one at a time.
-
First of all, I don’t know why you brought Ford and Carter into the conversation. I never said anything about them. Much of what was going prior to their administrations slowed down considerably because of the Church Committee investigations into the CIA, including the conviction of former DCI Richard Helms. That was totally out of Ford and Carter’s hands. That ball got rolling during the Nixon era more than anything else.
-
Russia may have had the larger population, but their population was, on average, FAR less educated than California’s, so one Californian was more like 30 or 40 Russians.
-
Okay, so the price rose by 400%. Did the consumption of said oil drop by anything remotely close to that level? Of course not, so the rise in prices was a boon for Russia, if anything.
-
Do I have a source for my claim? Yeah, William Easterly and Stanley Fischer. Overall military spending barely went up in response to Reagan’s buildup. It was the overall backwards, inefficient structure of the Soviet economy that led to its downfall, like finally falling on its own sword. Why else wouldn’t it have? Do you deny that communism is an inherently non-feasible economic structure?
-
Like I said earlier, the degeneration of the intelligence community had literally nothing to do with Ford and Carter. Certain revelations about the CIA had come about during Nixon’s second term during some early investigations into the Watergate affair. Although the connection between the CIA and Nixon was actually non-existent, what investigators for Congress found was enough to ALSO send them off into some the Agency’s closets looking for more skeletons. I’m sure you’re aware of the Family Jewels file, which was not commissioned by Ford but by the DCI at the time, James Schlesinger, although it was actually William Colby who saw it through.
And I laugh at the notion that the CIA or the intelligence community began to work all that more efficiently after Reagan took office. You must have forgotten that Aldrich Ames was running loose in the CIA throughout Reagan’s entire tenure. And Robert Hanssen. And John Walker. And James Hall III.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I personally would bet against a Clinton run , I am thinking Julian Castro[/quote]
A hardcore radical whose mother was one of the founders of La Raza.[/quote]
This La Raza ? the nerve of that woman
[/quote]
Yes that La Raza(The Race). You know, the one that openly calls for “reconquista”, ethnic cleansing of the South West and the establishment of a sovereign all Latino state where whites, blacks, Asians and anyone else who isn’t Hispanic can’t live. That one.
[/quote]
can you post a link so I can make my own judgement ?
[/quote]
http://touch.humanevents.com/humanevents/#!/entry/exclusive-the-truth-about-la-raza,5164a71dd7fc7b5670a4c311
[/quote]
That is about the Santa Barbara killings ?
Points 3 and 4 are absolute nonsense. Most of my library is in storage at the moment so I don’t have access to source material.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I personally would bet against a Clinton run , I am thinking Julian Castro[/quote]
A hardcore radical whose mother was one of the founders of La Raza.[/quote]
This La Raza ? the nerve of that woman
[/quote]
Yes that La Raza(The Race). You know, the one that openly calls for “reconquista”, ethnic cleansing of the South West and the establishment of a sovereign all Latino state where whites, blacks, Asians and anyone else who isn’t Hispanic can’t live. That one.
[/quote]
can you post a link so I can make my own judgement ?
[/quote]
http://touch.humanevents.com/humanevents/#!/entry/exclusive-the-truth-about-la-raza,5164a71dd7fc7b5670a4c311
[/quote]
That is about the Santa Barbara killings ?
[/quote]
What? No it’s about La Raza. What have you been smoking? Crack?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Points 3 and 4 are absolute nonsense. Most of my library is in storage at the moment so I don’t have access to source material.[/quote]
Sure. I’ll sit here and wait for your non-existent source showing that the Soviets did NOT increase military spending as a percentage of overall spending by a significant amount.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Points 3 and 4 are absolute nonsense. Most of my library is in storage at the moment so I don’t have access to source material.[/quote]
Sure. I’ll sit here and wait for your non-existent source showing that the Soviets did NOT increase military spending as a percentage of overall spending by a significant amount.[/quote]
You can disagree with what I say or the sources I provide but don’t be a dick and say they’re non-existent.
“[W]e will be pulled into an arms race that is beyond our capabilities, and we will lose it because we are at the limit of our capabilities… If the new round [of an arms race] begins, the pressures on our economy will be unbelievable.” - Gorbachev, 1986
Gorbachev and Reagan both deserve credit for mitigating the wind down of the Cold War.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I personally would bet against a Clinton run , I am thinking Julian Castro[/quote]
A hardcore radical whose mother was one of the founders of La Raza.[/quote]
This La Raza ? the nerve of that woman
[/quote]
Yes that La Raza(The Race). You know, the one that openly calls for “reconquista”, ethnic cleansing of the South West and the establishment of a sovereign all Latino state where whites, blacks, Asians and anyone else who isn’t Hispanic can’t live. That one.
[/quote]
can you post a link so I can make my own judgement ?
[/quote]
http://touch.humanevents.com/humanevents/#!/entry/exclusive-the-truth-about-la-raza,5164a71dd7fc7b5670a4c311
[/quote]
That is about the Santa Barbara killings ?
[/quote]
What? No it’s about La Raza. What have you been smoking? Crack?
[/quote]
no , The title is “Don’t stigmatize murders”