Fat old moose announces she's running for President
POSTED BY: whozit
UPDATED: Monday, October 30, 2023 23:56
VIEWED: 9797
PAGE 5 of 8
Touched a nerve, I see.
LOL
Failed to answer the questions and instead resorted to ad hominems - AGAIN! - I see. Surely you're more capable than that!
LOL
So, to get the discussion going -
Well, if INDEFENSIBLE (your word) infidelity isn't a 'moral' issue, then what's your problem with it?
Also, what do Bill and Monica have to do with me? I'm not married to either of them.
And finally, on the 'infidelity' topic, I was wondering - is it only INDEFENSIBLE for democrats? Or is it also INDEFENSIBLE for republicans?
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, well RAPPY and I have a special relationship over the word "supersede", and how it relates to UN Resolutions. He'll NEVER admit to the definition of that word, and I doubt he'll admit to the definition of "indefensible" either. Sigh. He's a knucklehead like that.
AFA Hillary is concerned, I won't vote for her, even if her opponent is the devil incarnate. It has nothing to with her being fat, old, a moose, a democrat, a "socialist" (ha!) or the wife of former President, sleezebag Bill Clinton.
It's because she's evil.
The real scandal about Benghazi wasn't all of the things the Democrats and Republicans yapped about, the REAL scandal was that the CIA ... with the assistance of (Hillary's) State Department, was smuggling arms from Libya to Syria. And you have to realize that Victoria ("Fuck the EU") Nuland ... the one who worked hard to overthrow the Ukraine government and who picked the successor ... was Hillary's (State Department) employee. State Department is still filled with neocons of the Brzezinski mold (think "total world domination at any cost") So, like Bush, she was either completely clueless about what her underlings were doing, or she was complicit in the action.
Stupid?
Complicit?
What a choice!
There's a reason why Hillary used a private email server for her job as head of the State Department, and it wasn't just a reflexive desire for privacy. As far as being a warmonger, she's worse than Obama.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sig, you need to take it up w/ Neal Boortz, who is a lawyer and whine to him.
I personally don't give a flying fornication over the matter. Or under it.
WHY DO WE HAVE TO GO OVER THIS TIME AND TIME AGAIN?
Well, the answer to that question is clear. We have to go over this time after time because there are certain people out there, we'll call them "liberals," who are still in a state of despair and shock over President Bush's successful removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and the liberation of the Iraqi people.
Day after day we read newS stories, columns and various opinion pieces from the Molly Ivins brigade trumpeting Bush's failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This presumably means that the entire Iraqi effort was illegitimate and, perhaps, that Bush ought to be defeated in 2004, at best, or impeached, at worst for his failure.
OK, folks. One more time .. by the numbers ...
Both the UN and the United States had knowledge of Saddam's WMDs.
The UN ordered Saddam to destroy his WMDs.
Saddam agreed to destroy his WMDs.
Saddam agreed to provide evidence of the destruction of his WMDs
Before destroying his WMDs Saddam kicked the UN inspectors out of Iraq.
After Saddam kicked out the inspectors there was evidence that he began a program to hide his WMDs
Saddam now claims that he destroyed his WMDs, after he kicked out the weapons inspectors.
Saddam has never failed any evidence that he destroyed the WMDs.
Three UN resolutions, Numbers 678, 687 and 1441 authorize either the UN or any member state to use force against Saddam Hussein if he fails to abide by his agreements to destroy his WMDs, and to document that destruction.
The United States, Great Britain, Australia, Spain and about 38 other nations banded together to act against Saddam in compliance with those three UN resolutions.
It's just that easy. Any questions?
http://www.wsbradio.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2003/may/07/2003-05-07/
Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
OK, folks. One more time .. by the numbers ...
Both the UN and the United States had knowledge of Saddam's WMDs.
The UN ordered Saddam to destroy his WMDs.
Saddam agreed to destroy his WMDs.
Saddam agreed to provide evidence of the destruction of his WMDs
Before destroying his WMDs Saddam kicked the UN inspectors out of Iraq.
After Saddam kicked out the inspectors there was evidence that he began a program to hide his WMDs
Saddam now claims that he destroyed his WMDs, after he kicked out the weapons inspectors.
Saddam has never failed any evidence that he destroyed the WMDs.
Three UN resolutions, Numbers 678, 687 and 1441 authorize either the UN or any member state to use force against Saddam Hussein if he fails to abide by his agreements to destroy his WMDs, and to document that destruction.
The United States, Great Britain, Australia, Spain and about 38 other nations banded together to act against Saddam in compliance with those three UN resolutions.
I have to say your 'facts' are highly ... hmmm ... untrue.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Oooh, a LAWYER! A LAWYER! Well, I think Hans Blix could give Neal Boor a run for his money, since Blix is not only a lawyer himself, but also a diplomat AND the head of the Iraq UNMOVIC inspection team, and probably knows a fuckuvalotmore than Boor about the topic of Iraq WMD.
]Originally posted by AURaptor:
Sig, you need to take it up w/ Neal Boortz, who is a lawyer and whine to him.
Quote:And then you post...
I personally don't give a flying fornication over the matter. Or under it.
Quote:Yes, just one question- How did you manage to get so derailed from reality on this topic?
WHY DO WE HAVE TO GO OVER THIS TIME AND TIME AGAIN?
Well, the answer to that question is clear. We have to go over this time after time because there are certain people out there, we'll call them "liberals," who are still in a state of despair and shock over President Bush's successful removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and the liberation of the Iraqi people.
Day after day we read newS stories, columns and various opinion pieces from the Molly Ivins brigade trumpeting Bush's failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This presumably means that the entire Iraqi effort was illegitimate and, perhaps, that Bush ought to be defeated in 2004, at best, or impeached, at worst for his failure.
OK, folks. One more time .. by the numbers ...
Both the UN and the United States had knowledge of Saddam's WMDs.
The UN ordered Saddam to destroy his WMDs.
Saddam agreed to destroy his WMDs.
Saddam agreed to provide evidence of the destruction of his WMDs
Before destroying his WMDs Saddam kicked the UN inspectors out of Iraq.
After Saddam kicked out the inspectors there was evidence that he began a program to hide his WMDs
Saddam now claims that he destroyed his WMDs, after he kicked out the weapons inspectors.
Saddam has never failed any evidence that he destroyed the WMDs.
Three UN resolutions, Numbers 678, 687 and 1441 authorize either the UN or any member state to use force against Saddam Hussein if he fails to abide by his agreements to destroy his WMDs, and to document that destruction.
The United States, Great Britain, Australia, Spain and about 38 other nations banded together to act against Saddam in compliance with those three UN resolutions.
It's just that easy. Any questions?
Yanno, I could do a point-by-point ... in fact, have done so quite a number of times already .... but facts simply don't sway your from your beliefs. So here's your one point, which is relevant to the word "supersede":
Three UN resolutions, Numbers 678, 687 and 1441 authorize either the UN or any member state to use force against Saddam Hussein if he fails to abide by his agreements to destroy his WMDs, and to document that destruction.
Yanno, I read 1441. Yes, it "mentions" Resolution 678 (which really did authorize use of force) but nowhere does R1441 authorize use of force, nor does it reactivate previous UN Resolutions. That's because UN Resolutions (wait for it ...) ... supersede (i.e. replace) each other. I quoted UN law on Resolutions, and how they are meant to supersede each other. I provided examples of Resolutions which DID authorize use of force, so that you could have examples of what such resolutions look like, and there is no way the R1441 can be mistaken for any of them. I quoted the relevant portions of R1441, after all the "Recalling" and "Deploring" and "Noting", the actual phrase of the decision, here:
Quote:
"Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this
resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under
relevant resolutions of the Council
I provided a link to the document, as I do here ...
http://www.un.org/depts/unmovic/documents/1441.pdf
Now. I can't help it that you can't apparently either read or think, or absorb the relevant inform
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And now, back to "Why we shouldn't vote for Hillary".
In case it gets lost in the shuffle: Because she's a worse war-monger than Bush or Obama, and she's a bought-and-paid-for operative of the unimaginably wealthy. In that sense, she should be right up the right-wing's Republican alley. But they won't vote for her, so they miss their golden oppty.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Cisco Used Clinton Foundation To Cover-up Human Rights Abuse In China
Quote:
In her 2014 memoir “Hard Choices,” Clinton reiterated her support for human-rights advocates in China. She specifically criticized the Great Firewall, writing that after she made comments about the right to dissent in China in 2011, “censors went right to work erasing mentions of my message from the Internet.”
But the issue of Chinese repression — and Cisco’s role — was already known by then. In 2009, weeks after Clinton’s State Department had named Cisco a finalist for the secretary of state’s Awards for Corporate Excellence (ACE), a report from the Electronic Freedom Foundation noted “Cisco’s deep involvement” in building the Chinese government’s censorship system. The report pointed out that “Cisco engineers gave a presentation acknowledging the repressive uses for their technology.”
Daniel Wade, an attorney who represented Chinese dissidents in a lawsuit against Cisco, told IBTimes that “Cisco knew full well that its products were going to be used to suppress and facilitate the torture of democracy activists.”
“Crony capitalism has defined Clinton’s career, from her tenure on the board of Walmart, to the Wall Street execs whom she surrounded herself with at the State Department, to her allegiance to Cisco, even as it violated principles on which she staked her tenure,” said David Segal, executive director of the Internet freedom advocacy group Demand Progress.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-18/more-hillary-cronyism-reveale
d-cisco-used-clinton-foundation-cover-human-rights-abus
See, Republicans? Hillary is nestling cozily in the armpit of big business. She's right up your alley!
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sig - to the contrary, this should shine the light on the dirty little secret that it's not the GOP who is wedded to big business, but it's the Dems.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Sig - to the contrary, this should shine the light on the dirty little secret that it's not the GOP who is wedded to big business, but it's the Dems. -RAPPY
Seriously? I could bring you quite a list of all the big businesses that the Republicans are chained to!
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:
Sig - to the contrary, this should shine the light on the dirty little secret that it's not the GOP who is wedded to big business, but it's the Dems. -RAPPY
Seriously? I could bring you quite a list of all the big businesses that the Republicans are chained to!
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
And I could do the same for the Dems , including Wall Street.
The myth that the GOP are for " big business " , the rich and the powerful , while the Dems are for the little guy, the poor and the great unwashed, is one of the bigger lies of our time.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME