Hillary Clinton: just because she deserves her own thread

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Saturday, September 27, 2025 01:07
VIEWED: 114591
PAGE 8 of 46

PREV PAGE 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT PAGE

KPO

Friday, April 29, 2016 12:32 AM

Second/Two, we had the "ethics of nuclear weapons" debate back in the Hiroshima thread. Well we didn't, but I tried for a while.

Quoted for anti- post-editing posterity:

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
I hear you Sig, warmongers are the worst.

Except Russian ones <3 <3

#PutinFangirlsForever

Yes, because defending one nation from jihadists is so much worse than destabilizing two nations and destroying another, to the benefit of jihadism.

Yanno what they say, KthirdstoogePO - "the proof of the pudding". Since peace has broken out in Syria and all of the enemies are holding hands in Geneva and singing kumbayah (except the Kurds, who really need to be included) ... what are you bitching about THIS time? Care to compare Syria to the USA projects: Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and Sudan ... to Syria - which was a former USA project and heading into the toilet along with the rest?

Or do you think the USA might suffer in the process?

Nevermind, I know the answer already.

SECOND

Friday, April 29, 2016 1:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Second/Two, we had the "ethics of nuclear weapons" debate back in the Hiroshima thread. Well we didn't, but I tried for a while.

Without my checking that worthy thread, General Curtis LeMay, known for nuking Japan and for running the Strategic Air Command and George Wallace's VP choice, said, "There are no innocent civilians. It is their government and you are fighting a people, you are not trying to fight an armed force anymore. So it doesn't bother me so much to be killing the so-called innocent bystanders."

Or this LeMay gem: "Native annalists may look sadly back from the future on that period when we had the atomic bomb and the Russians didn't. Or when the Russians had acquired (through connivance and treachery of Westerns with warped minds) the atomic bomb - and yet still didn't have any stockpile of the weapons. That was the era when we might have destroyed Russia completely and not even skinned our elbows doing it." - https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay

Do I need to editorialize about how much money, material, and manpower Curtis LeMay wasted? And how much danger this guy caused for America, all while claiming he was making America safer? And him being a liar for all his life about his "contribution" to winning WWII?

A government that puts one guy like LeMay in charge of nukes is a government that has much bigger problems than Hillary. On the other hand, some 21st Century Americans are eager to drop more nukes. For Example:

Bobby Knight: Like Truman, Trump would have 'guts to drop the bomb'
By Nick Gass 04/28/16
www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/
04/bobby-knight-donald-trump-nuclear-bomb-222595

Quote:
"And Harry Truman, with what he did in dropping and having the guts to drop the bomb in 1945 saved, saved millions of American lives," Knight said. "And that's what Harry Truman did. And he became one of the three great presidents of the United States. And here's a man who would do the same thing, because he's going to become one of the four great presidents of the United States."

"Such a great guy. Wow. How do you top that? How do you top that?" Trump said. "You should be very proud of him in Indiana ... That is a national treasure, OK?"

Oh, the world is so much safer when the USA is always ready and willing to nuke hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions, of noncombatants, women, and children.

KPO

Friday, April 29, 2016 7:31 PM

Quote:
Do I need to editorialize about how much money, material, and manpower Curtis LeMay wasted?

No, because that's not how you conduct a debate. That was the problem with the last time. I'll remind you, from the old thread:

KPO: "I have opined quite a lot in this thread, giving my thoughts on this matter and others. You have not paid attention even when I've responded directly to your questions, so I don't see the point in doing so again."

I might as well turn on my television and try to argue with it.

KPO

Friday, April 29, 2016 8:02 PM

Bump for kiki and Signy.

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
What, if anything, is factually wrong with the article?

you had NOT A SINGLE THING TO SAY ABOUT THE FACTS LISTED IN THE ARTICLE.

So Sig, kiki, are you guys prepared to side with the predictions made by this article you keep going on about?

From the article:

"Hillary Clinton... would likely be the most reckless president in American history... Hillary’s arrogant self-confidence is likely to result in over-reach that ends in conflict between NATO and Russia. Considering the extraordinary destructive force of nuclear weapons, Hillary as president could mean the end of life on earth."

SECOND

Friday, April 29, 2016 9:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
Do I need to editorialize about how much money, material, and manpower Curtis LeMay wasted?

No, because that's not how you conduct a debate. That was the problem with the last time. I'll remind you, from the old thread:

KPO: "I have opined quite a lot in this thread, giving my thoughts on this matter and others. You have not paid attention even when I've responded directly to your questions, so I don't see the point in doing so again."

I might as well turn on my television and try to argue with it.

You made your position clear at
www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=59952&mid=1001370#
1001370

I'll make my position clear: Nuking Japan and (please note that and) threatening to nuke Stalin cost the USA $11 trillion.
www.nytimes.com/1998/07/01/us/us-nuclear-arms-cost-put-at-5.48-trillio
n.html

The USA could have saved itself many trillions of dollars if that fucking moron Truman had continued to use fire bombs rather than nukes on Japan. But Truman was incapable of imagining what would happen next.
http://longstreet.typepad.com/thesciencebookstore/2012/08/truman-and-t
he-cry-baby-scientist-oppenheimer-in-the-oval-office-october-1945.html

THGRRI

Saturday, April 30, 2016 8:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Bump for kiki and Signy.

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
What, if anything, is factually wrong with the article?

you had NOT A SINGLE THING TO SAY ABOUT THE FACTS LISTED IN THE ARTICLE.

So Sig, kiki, are you guys prepared to side with the predictions made by this article you keep going on about?

From the article:

"Hillary Clinton... would likely be the most reckless president in American history... Hillary’s arrogant self-confidence is likely to result in over-reach that ends in conflict between NATO and Russia. Considering the extraordinary destructive force of nuclear weapons, Hillary as president could mean the end of life on earth."

1kiki and SIG the doom and gloom bitches. Its always doom and gloom with them.

SIGNYM

Saturday, April 30, 2016 9:35 AM

Quote:
1kiki and SIG the doom and gloom bitches. Its always doom and gloom with them.

I'll be more than happy to say "I told you so" when the time comes.

Just keep that in mind so when you read it you'll remember what you said now.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

SECOND

Saturday, April 30, 2016 7:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by G:

Going to be a little moot if "Hillary as president could mean the end of life on earth."

Free One: It's planet Earth - there's always going to be doom and gloom. You don't get points for predicting that.

Quoting the Operative: "It's worse than you think." According to the Atlantic Monthly:

Human Extinction Isn't That Unlikely

“A typical person is more than five times as likely to die in an extinction event as in a car crash,” says a new report.

Nuclear war. Climate change. Pandemics that kill tens of millions.

These are the most viable threats to globally organized civilization. They’re the stuff of nightmares and blockbusters—but unlike sea monsters or zombie viruses, they’re real, part of the calculus that political leaders consider everyday. And according to a new report from the U.K.-based Global Challenges Foundation, they’re much more likely than we might think.
www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/04/a-human-extinction-isnt
-that-unlikely/480444/

Hillary is gonna kill you if you don't watch out! Or it might be Putin, since drunkard Yeltsin died:

Quote:
In 1995, Russian systems mistook a Norwegian weather rocket for a potential nuclear attack. Russian President Boris Yeltsin retrieved launch codes and had the nuclear suitcase open in front of him. Thankfully, Russian leaders decided the incident was a false alarm.

REAVERFAN

Saturday, April 30, 2016 11:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
Republicans traditionally love war, and so does Hillary. . . .

She talks of "smart power," which is essentially constant permawar forever. That's the dream of the 1%, and they are who she serves.

. . . we will have permawar forever. Good job, sheep.
"Smart power" means don't let hot-heads and stupid-asses decide military policy. Hillary might be unwilling to let a bunch of angry, dim-bulb Admirals and Generals ruin the next eight years of her life.

I can't prove it but it’s possible that Hillary is cynical about the Pentagon’s truthfulness and competence. She might not trust the Pentagon to solve her problems, since she has seen how it has, instead, created enormous problems for all Presidents since WWII. For the amount of money poured into the military and the amount of time Presidents have to take to managing it, there is not much achieved by it in the last 70 years. The Pentagon took credit for the end of the Cold War, but those guys are liars and Hillary knows it.
www.ushistory.org/us/59e.asp

I'd like to believe that Hillary is smart enough to avoid war, but her record on the matter suggests otherwise.

She's never met a war she wouldn't vote for, and her claim that she wouldn't have supported it if she knew then what she knows now is a blatant lie. I knew it was a lie, and I'm nobody special. It wasn't hard to figure it out.

Hillary, like Maggie Thatcher before her, yearns to prove she's as tough as any man, and she'll gladly blow people up to prove it. She's more of a war hawk than any other candidate running. If the 1% want more war, she'll give it to them on a silver platter.

Hillary = more war. She'll start one somewhere, for sure. That's "smart power."

THGRRI

Sunday, May 1, 2016 12:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by G:

Going to be a little moot if "Hillary as president could mean the end of life on earth."

Free One: It's planet Earth - there's always going to be doom and gloom. You don't get points for predicting that.
Quoting the Operative: "It's worse than you think." According to the Atlantic Monthly:

Human Extinction Isn't That Unlikely

“A typical person is more than five times as likely to die in an extinction event as in a car crash,” says a new report.

Nuclear war. Climate change. Pandemics that kill tens of millions.

These are the most viable threats to globally organized civilization. They’re the stuff of nightmares and blockbusters—but unlike sea monsters or zombie viruses, they’re real, part of the calculus that political leaders consider everyday. And according to a new report from the U.K.-based Global Challenges Foundation, they’re much more likely than we might think.
www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/04/a-human-extinction-isnt
-that-unlikely/480444/

Hillary is gonna kill you if you don't watch out! Or it might be Putin, since drunkard Yeltsin died:
Quote:
In 1995, Russian systems mistook a Norwegian weather rocket for a potential nuclear attack. Russian President Boris Yeltsin retrieved launch codes and had the nuclear suitcase open in front of him. Thankfully, Russian leaders decided the incident was a false alarm.

Because I am capable of reason my extinction is the one must on my mind, and I fear it is approaching far to soon.

PREV PAGE 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT PAGE