Hillary Clinton: just because she deserves her own thread
POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Saturday, September 27, 2025 01:07
VIEWED: 114591
PAGE 11 of 46
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Your position? After I remove all the inert ingredients? And boil down your position to its radioactive element? Your position is the same as a retweet by Jayne:Quote:
Adam Baldwin Retweeted
Kurt Schlichter @KurtSchlichter 19h19 hours ago
One US Soldier's life > Hiroshima.
Not even close, and why I don't bother talking to you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Hello, military strategy genius and moralist, too! Read what you wrote:
Originally posted by kpo:Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Your position? After I remove all the inert ingredients? And boil down your position to its radioactive element? Your position is the same as a retweet by Jayne:Quote:
Adam Baldwin Retweeted
Kurt Schlichter @KurtSchlichter 19h19 hours ago
One US Soldier's life > Hiroshima.
Not even close, and why I don't bother talking to you.
Quote:www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=59952&mid=1001370#
The allied bombing campaigns might seem cold-blooded and vindictive, and to an extent they probably were. But that doesn't mean they were pointless slaughter. They undoubtedly shortened the war and thereby saved lives, possibly even more than they killed.
1001370
Assume you’re either Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir Arthur Travers Harris or Brigadier General Paul Warfield Tibbets Jr. or General Curtis LeMay. You’re put on trial in Switzerland, a neutral country, because your side lost. Where would your Swiss defense lawyers go to get proof in a Law Court of any of those points you made? Saved more lives than killed? Not vindictive? Undoubtably shortened the war? (You went too far when you wrote “undoubtably”.)
The prosecution could easily prove Harris or Tibbet or LeMay killed thousands of civilians with all the physical evidence that is still available, but the defense team would find it impossible to prove the benefits from killing civilians are comparable to killing soldiers. The facts won’t back you up.
One thing easy for the Swiss prosecution to prove is that the bombing was for the benefit of politicians who need the enemy to be bombed. Politicians and their advisers do love to brag in their war memoirs.
There is an old movie called Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo. “The cost in pilots and aircraft for the Americans may be staggering, but the raid forever shatters the Japanese people's belief that the vast Pacific Ocean protects them from American counterattack.” That is how real bombing campaigns are run. FDR bombs Tokyo for 30 seconds to show the people that the US Army Air Force and US Navy carriers weren’t worthless. Truman bombs Nagasaki to show the people he was in charge. Hermann Göring bombs London to prove he wasn’t an irrelevant fat ass commanding the Luftwaffe. Nixon bombs Vietnam for whatever that crazy man’s motivation was for dropping more bombs than WWII. It’s all about the psychology of politicians, all the time.
After the bombing, the unproven military benefits are trotted out by politicians and military historians paid by War Departments. They are always covering their ass because the bombing cost a very large fortune in explosives, planes, missiles, flight crews and dead civilians. So they write make believe storys to justify want the politicians always want to do: drop bombs rather than sending the Army and starving the enemy of foreign supplies of food, fuel and ammo.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by G:Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I always wondered why Hillary gave me a big case of the willies every time she tried to be charming. Now I know why:
HILLARY CLINTON, WARMONGER
- Stupid, quickie anti-Hillary Video -
I finally watched this... you have to be really all-world stupid to believe any of it. It's obviously extremely edited from a multitude of clips, sources borrowed from different times and places, like a really bad, hack photoshop job. You'd have to be a complete moron to believe any of it or post it as factual.
Enter Signym.
All of that, and it's quite obviously made by some Trump fanboy. I'm looking forward to Siggy's open cheerleading for Donald Trump before the election. And will kiki join her, or go her own way? Fascinating.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You Know Those Missing Hillary Emails? Russia Might Leak 20,000 Of Them
Quote:
But despite Bernie Sanders’ apparent annoyance with the “damn emails,” the scandal just exponentially intensified, when Judge Andrew Napolitano revealed on Monday that Russia has possession of around 20,000 of Clinton’s emails — leaving open the possibility her deletions might not have been permanent after all.
“There’s a debate going on in the Kremlin between the Foreign Ministry and the Intelligence Services about whether they should release the 20,000 of Mrs. Clinton’s emails that they have hacked into,” Napolitano told Fox News’ Megyn Kelly in an interview for The Kelly File.
Really? I doubt an American judge knows what kind of debate is going on in the Kremlin. And even if Russia has those 20,000 emails, it might turn out that Russia doesn't like the Trump alternative any better. Still... it sure would be interesting, wouldn't it?
--------------
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
BTW- this is the unedited version of what creeped me out about Hillary
--------------
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
http://www.salon.com/2016/05/14/this_is_one_weak_nominee_hillary_clint
ons_problem_isnt_bernie_sanders_its_hillary_clinton/
This is one weak nominee: Hillary Clinton’s problem isn’t Bernie Sanders. It’s Hillary Clinton
Clinton's camp thinks her résumé will be enough to carry her to the White House. No one should be that sure
David Niose
No matter what you think about Hillary Clinton as the presidential primaries wind down, there is one undeniable fact that lingers in the background. Despite having had enormous advantages from the start of the campaign—no serious competition from within the party, solid support from national party leaders, a massive war chest and a nationwide grassroots network built over the course of decades in national politics—Clinton has struggled to put away a 74-year-old Jewish socialist who has had almost no establishment support.
Say whatever you want about Clinton’s lengthy résumé—and her credentials are indeed impressive—her performance this primary season is hardly indicative of a strong candidate.
Indeed, Clinton concedes that she’s not a natural politician, lacking the charm of her husband or the charisma of Barack Obama. But what should be troubling to those who hope to see a Democrat in the White House next year is that Clinton seems to suggest that this weakness isn’t problematic, that her résumé and policy-wonk reputation will be enough to carry her on Election Day.
Maybe. But don’t be too sure.
Look no further than the 2000 election, when another policy-wonk Democrat with little charm or charisma—Al Gore—failed to ride his impressive credentials to the White House. Gore, a two-term vice president with prior lengthy service in both the Senate and House, lost to an anti-intellectual GOP opponent with no Washington experience. Sound familiar?
Many Democrats are having difficulty accepting the fact that Clinton, despite her résumé, is a weak politician. In this state of denial, their defense of Clinton becomes aggressive, as they lash out at Bernie Sanders for staying in the race, implying that Clinton has earned the right to glide to the finish line unopposed.
A prime example of this Clinton-entitlement mentality can be found in a recent Boston Globe column by Michael A. Cohen, entitled “Bernie Sanders declares war on reality.” Cohen insists that Sanders is “illogical, self-serving, hypocritical” and “intellectually dishonest” in trying win the nomination by swaying superdelegates away from Clinton. “Instead of coming to grips with the overwhelming evidence that Democratic primary voters prefer Hillary Clinton to be the party’s 2016 presidential nominee,” Cohen writes, “Sanders continues to create his own political reality.”
Unfortunately, Cohen ignores the fact that the “overwhelming evidence” isn’t strong enough to allow Clinton to claim the nomination with pledged delegates alone. Had the evidence been so overwhelming, courting superdelegates would be irrelevant. Because Clinton has been far from dominating in the primaries and caucuses, the true “political reality” is that she will need superdelegate support to secure the nomination. Fortunately for Clinton, she appears to have the support of an overwhelming majority of superdelegates, but those allegiances can change up until the time of the convention vote, so Sanders is alive as long as the race comes down to a fight over them.
Sanders has correctly criticized the superdelegate system as undemocratic, but there is nothing hypocritical or illogical in his continuing the fight within that system. To denounce the rules of a race does not preclude a candidate from competing within those flawed rules. With party insiders having disproportionate power as superdelegates, the system tips the scales strongly in Clinton’s favor, as Cohen surely knows, yet he still cries foul at Sanders pressing on within that system.
Such specious arguments not only distract from the uncomfortable reality that Clinton is an extremely vulnerable candidate, they also fail to recogniz
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So here are some dead reasons why Hillary is so great:
she supports down-ticket candidates
Except, she doesn't. Her campaign has Hoovered-up 99% of that money.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/clinton-fundraising-leaves-littl
e-for-state-parties-222670
Clinton fundraising leaves little for state parties
The Democratic front-runner says she's raising big checks to help state committees, but they've gotten to keep only 1 percent of the $60 million raised
she's a democrat
Who remarkably doesn't care about 45%+ of what voting democrats think. You know, she could put a lot of angst to rest if she seemed like she was the least bit concerned about what the other half of the party wants.
Instead, her strategists and allies make statements like this:
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), told the political website that her campaign couldn't make any more leftward concessions, saying, "I don't know what's left to extract"
Parnes also cites an anonymous Clinton ally who said, "We can't do it," regarding meeting some of Sanders' policy demands.
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/04/29/clinton-camp-says-shes-bee
n-forced-left-enough-already
And rather than courting Democrat voters (what a concept!), Hillary is courting Republicans:
More broadly, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign is repositioning itself, after a year of emphasizing liberal positions and focusing largely on minority voters, to also appeal to independent and Republican-leaning white voters turned off by Mr. Trump.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/07/us/politics/hillary-clinton-republic
an-party.html?_r=0
When push comes to shove, Hillary doesn't give a rat's ass about democrats or their interests, as long as she can easily get them to fall in line.
What DOES that make her, I wonder? A democrapublican? A republocrat?
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:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
http://www.salon.com/2016/05/14/this_is_one_weak_nominee_hillary_clint
ons_problem_isnt_bernie_sanders_its_hillary_clinton/
This is one weak nominee: Hillary Clinton’s problem isn’t Bernie Sanders. It’s Hillary Clinton
Clinton's camp thinks her résumé will be enough to carry her to the White House. No one should be that sure
David Niose
No matter what you think about Hillary Clinton as the presidential primaries wind down, there is one undeniable fact that lingers in the background. Despite having had enormous advantages from the start of the campaign—no serious competition from within the party, solid support from national party leaders, a massive war chest and a nationwide grassroots network built over the course of decades in national politics—Clinton has struggled to put away a 74-year-old Jewish socialist who has had almost no establishment support.
Say whatever you want about Clinton’s lengthy résumé—and her credentials are indeed impressive—her performance this primary season is hardly indicative of a strong candidate.
Indeed, Clinton concedes that she’s not a natural politician, lacking the charm of her husband or the charisma of Barack Obama. But what should be troubling to those who hope to see a Democrat in the White House next year is that Clinton seems to suggest that this weakness isn’t problematic, that her résumé and policy-wonk reputation will be enough to carry her on Election Day.
Maybe. But don’t be too sure.
Look no further than the 2000 election, when another policy-wonk Democrat with little charm or charisma—Al Gore—failed to ride his impressive credentials to the White House. Gore, a two-term vice president with prior lengthy service in both the Senate and House, lost to an anti-intellectual GOP opponent with no Washington experience. Sound familiar?
Many Democrats are having difficulty accepting the fact that Clinton, despite her résumé, is a weak politician. In this state of denial, their defense of Clinton becomes aggressive, as they lash out at Bernie Sanders for staying in the race, implying that Clinton has earned the right to glide to the finish line unopposed.
A prime example of this Clinton-entitlement mentality can be found in a recent Boston Globe column by Michael A. Cohen, entitled “Bernie Sanders declares war on reality.” Cohen insists that Sanders is “illogical, self-serving, hypocritical” and “intellectually dishonest” in trying win the nomination by swaying superdelegates away from Clinton. “Instead of coming to grips with the overwhelming evidence that Democratic primary voters prefer Hillary Clinton to be the party’s 2016 presidential nominee,” Cohen writes, “Sanders continues to create his own political reality.”
Unfortunately, Cohen ignores the fact that the “overwhelming evidence” isn’t strong enough to allow Clinton to claim the nomination with pledged delegates alone. Had the evidence been so overwhelming, courting superdelegates would be irrelevant. Because Clinton has been far from dominating in the primaries and caucuses, the true “political reality” is that she will need superdelegate support to secure the nomination. Fortunately for Clinton, she appears to have the support of an overwhelming majority of superdelegates, but those allegiances can change up until the time of the convention vote, so Sanders is alive as long as the race comes down to a fight over them.
Sanders has correctly criticized the superdelegate system as undemocratic, but there is nothing hypocritical or illogical in his continuing the fight within that system. To denounce the rules of a race does not preclude a candidate from competing within those flawed rules. With party insiders having disproportionate power as superdelegates, the system tips the scales strongly in Clinton’s favor, as Cohen surely knows, yet he still cries foul at Sanders pressing on within that system.
Such specious arguments not only distract from the uncomfortable reality that Clinton is an extremely vulnerablNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Because if I post it as an observation ONEOFTHETHREESTOOGES will demand a cite.
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