Jump to content

Hillary


greg775
 Share

Recommended Posts

Anyone else would have been fired, ie forced to resign, after Bengazi. Take off your party blinders on just that for a moment and see that you would have been SCREAMING about the dereliction of duty had it come out that Condi ignored requests for more security claiming that they didn't have enough money, yet spent the same amount of money to 'green up' an embassy in Europe. Especially when it resulted in the deaths of several people. But the Dems seem to fail upward. She handled that situation poorly at best. And her screaming at people 'what does it matter!', well, it certainly does matter, especially to the people who were killed under your watch. That whole situation will be hung around her neck when she runs. And all the coverups won't be enough to shut everyone up. They can hide the survivors for a while, but sooner or later they will be found.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 497
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Bush let 9/11 happen on his watch and he was re-elected.

 

Most people cant remember 3 years ago. Of all the reasons Hillary wont be president, Benghazi probably doesnt even register.

 

Im pretty sure #1 reason is: Hillary is a woman and there is X percentage of the population who wont vote for a women. Thus for Hillary to win shell have to do X percentage better than a normal candidate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im not being tricked. Freedom comes first, freedom comes first, freedom comes first.

 

Id rather burn it all to the ground then compromise on freedom. Because if we are not free, this country is meaningless, the money is meaningless.

 

What good is it to be rich if we arent free?

 

The answer is, no good.

 

So if this is a game of chicken, I guarantee you that I will take it further. And in that respect, its time for the Republican party to realize that they are going down the path of the Confederacy. You can only fight the tide of freedom and equality for so long.

 

Ive been saying this for years, but if they want to be the party of "limited govt" perhaps it would be a fine time to realize that "limited govt" applies to religious ideals.

How free are we when the same people who publicly support gay marriage also tap our phones, monitor our every move and very blatantly justify their right to kill us from the sky without due process? Because if you want to look for threats to our freedom that's what they really are. A wild out of control government that has nothing but contempt for its people and is slowly eroding our rights to install a universal policy of total control and unflinching brutality.

 

You dont see the writing on the wall? The direction this s*** is headed? You'd have to be either stupid or delusional not to. They are trying to take all of freedom away from us while trying to cover it up by saying that since they support gay marriage they cant possibly against freedom.

 

Its a lie. They aren't going to do anything to further gay marriage because like you guys are saying you'll vote for them as long as its an issue and as long as they support it. What if it comes to fruition? What then? Then you stop being attached to the hip with their abhorrent platform of state worship and might start thinking for yourself and understanding what the f*** freedom actually is and the contempt our leaders have for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush let 9/11 happen on his watch and he was re-elected.

 

Most people cant remember 3 years ago. Of all the reasons Hillary wont be president, Benghazi probably doesnt even register.

 

Im pretty sure #1 reason is: Hillary is a woman and there is X percentage of the population who wont vote for a women. Thus for Hillary to win shell have to do X percentage better than a normal candidate.

Oh good, let's favorably compare Hillary Clinton to George Bush.

 

Besides, there's enough s*** that's been covered up about Benghazi and if it were ever brought to light half the Obama Admin would be brought up on charges. An election might bring those details into the public world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 26, 2013 -> 11:28 AM)
Bush let 9/11 happen on his watch and he was re-elected.

 

Most people cant remember 3 years ago. Of all the reasons Hillary wont be president, Benghazi probably doesnt even register.

 

Im pretty sure #1 reason is: Hillary is a woman and there is X percentage of the population who wont vote for a women. Thus for Hillary to win shell have to do X percentage better than a normal candidate.

 

Yep, and we'll never have a black president either. GMAB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess you've missed all of the states that have legalized this, the Supreme Court decisions, the ending of DADT, the ending of DOMA?

A little taste here and there. Enough to keep people interested and enough to claim they've made progress.

 

Also the end of DOMA basically cemented the idea that the federal government cant do anything to regulate or deregulate marriage anyways so taking this issue into account when voting for president, your senator and house rep is really only self-serving "at least I'm part of the solution not problem XDDDDD" egoism so you can claim to be on the right side of history.

 

Earlier somebody said they want to return us to the confederacy. I wonder if he meant the South (which were never really "in" since they lost their war of secession) or a country that is largely governed by the states with a federal government only there to ensure free commerce between the states and a unified defense against foreign aggression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Aug 26, 2013 -> 11:34 AM)
How free are we when the same people who publicly support gay marriage also tap our phones, monitor our every move and very blatantly justify their right to kill us from the sky without due process? Because if you want to look for threats to our freedom that's what they really are. A wild out of control government that has nothing but contempt for its people and is slowly eroding our rights to install a universal policy of total control and unflinching brutality.

 

You dont see the writing on the wall? The direction this s*** is headed? You'd have to be either stupid or delusional not to. They are trying to take all of freedom away from us while trying to cover it up by saying that since they support gay marriage they cant possibly against freedom.

 

No I see the direction this country is heading. You just cant see that your side is very willing to hand over those rights.

 

The Patriot Act was signed in 2001...

 

Perhaps it would be wise to take a historical look at what party Jim Sensenbrenner belongs too.

 

Gay marriage has nothing to do with it. This was started a long time ago by fear mongers.

 

IMMIGRANTS BAD

TERRORISTS BAD

 

NEED MORE LAWS AND GOVT POWER TO STOP BAD

 

Those are the facts, you can either accept them and perhaps try and fix the issue, or you can keep ragging on gay rights which has nothing to do with govt taking our freedoms away.

 

But this isnt about "true freedom" its about "select freedom", in that if you are a good white god follower, you deserve to be free, if you are anything else, you dont deserve the same rights.

 

Its the same old tired argument. But weve won before, we won in the Revolutionary War, we won in the Civil War, we won in World War II and we will win again.

 

Its just a question of how high the cost will be before the bigots relent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 26, 2013 -> 11:48 AM)
Yep, and we'll never have a black president either. GMAB.

 

Yeah because bringing up history and facts has no place in a scholarly debate.

 

lol

 

You know because historically women got the right to vote before black men...

 

lol

 

15 still comes before 19

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 26, 2013 -> 11:51 AM)
No I see the direction this country is heading. You just cant see that your side is very willing to hand over those rights.

 

The Patriot Act was signed in 2001...

 

Perhaps it would be wise to take a historical look at what party Jim Sensenbrenner belongs too.

 

Gay marriage has nothing to do with it. This was started a long time ago by fear mongers.

 

IMMIGRANTS BAD

TERRORISTS BAD

 

NEED MORE LAWS AND GOVT POWER TO STOP BAD

 

Those are the facts, you can either accept them and perhaps try and fix the issue, or you can keep ragging on gay rights which has nothing to do with govt taking our freedoms away.

 

But this isnt about "true freedom" its about "select freedom", in that if you are a good white god follower, you deserve to be free, if you are anything else, you dont deserve the same rights.

 

Its the same old tired argument. But weve won before, we won in the Revolutionary War, we won in the Civil War, we won in World War II and we will win again.

 

Its just a question of how high the cost will be before the bigots relent.

 

Lol, you are so full of it.

 

There are two sides to every coin. You talk about freedom in an absolute sense and yet you're perfectly fine defining "life" as you see fit and allowing abortions. You're fine taking the freedom of gun owners away. There are all sorts of freedoms you would take away from people based on X belief of yours and conservatives are no different. At the end of the day the line drawn in the sand between acceptable and not acceptable is arbitrary. To pretend like one side chooses that line based on the right things while the other does not is a joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 26, 2013 -> 06:06 AM)
Eight quotes from eight different books about HIllary….These are her actual words. What a sweet -lady?

 

(1) “Where is the G*damn flag? I want the G*damn f**king flag up every morning at f**king sunrise.” From the book “Inside the White House” by Ronald Kessler, p. 244; Hillary to staff at the Arkansas Governor’s mansion on Labor Day 1991.

 

(2) “F**k off! It’s enough I have to see you s***-kickers every day! I’m not going to talk to you, too!! Just do your G*damn job and keep your mouth shut.” From the book ” America Evita” by Christopher Anderson, p. 90; Hillary to her State Trooper bodyguards after one of them greeted her with “Good Morning.”

 

(3) “If you want to remain on this detail, get your f**king ass over here and grab those bags!” From the book “The First Partner” p. 259; Hillary to a Secret Service Agent who was reluctant to carry her luggage because he wanted to keep his hands free in case of an incident.

 

(4) “Stay the f**k back, stay the f**k back away from me! Don’t come within ten yards of me, or else! Just f**king do as I say, Okay!!?” From the book “Unlimited Access” by Clinton ’s FBI Agent-in-Charge, Gary Aldrige, p. 139; Hillary is screaming at her Secret Service detail.

 

 

(5 )”Where’s the miserable c**k sucker?” (otherwise known as “Bill Clinton.” From the book “The Truth about Hillary” by Edward Klein, p.5; Hillary shouting at a Secret Service officer.

 

(6 )”You f**king idiot” From the book “Crossfire” ~ p. 84; Hillary to a State Trooper who was driving her to an event.

 

(7) “Put this on the ground! I left my sunglasses in the limo. I need those f**king sunglasses! We need to go back! From the book “Dereliction of Duty” p. 71-72; Hillary to Marine One helicopter pilot to turn back while en route to Air Force One.

 

(8) “Come on Bill, put your d**k up! You can’t f**k her here!!” From the book “Inside the White House” by Ronald Kessler, p. 243; Hillary to Gov. Bill Clinton when she spots him talking with an attractive female

 

You could compile such a list about literally anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I see the direction this country is heading. You just cant see that your side is very willing to hand over those rights.

 

The Patriot Act was signed in 2001...

 

Perhaps it would be wise to take a historical look at what party Jim Sensenbrenner belongs too.

 

Gay marriage has nothing to do with it. This was started a long time ago by fear mongers.

 

IMMIGRANTS BAD

TERRORISTS BAD

 

NEED MORE LAWS AND GOVT POWER TO STOP BAD

 

Those are the facts, you can either accept them and perhaps try and fix the issue, or you can keep ragging on gay rights which has nothing to do with govt taking our freedoms away.

 

But this isnt about "true freedom" its about "select freedom", in that if you are a good white god follower, you deserve to be free, if you are anything else, you dont deserve the same rights.

 

Its the same old tired argument. But weve won before, we won in the Revolutionary War, we won in the Civil War, we won in World War II and we will win again.

 

Its just a question of how high the cost will be before the bigots relent.

My philosophy in general is if (1) it doesn't violate someone's right as dictated by the Constitution or (2) doesn't violate someone's property rights there doesn't need to be a law about it. I've been pretty clear on this, I dont think the state should be in charge of almost anything.

 

You're the one who needs your beloved government/deity hybrid to validate your beliefs by legislating your political stance into a universal reality for everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 26, 2013 -> 11:57 AM)
Lol, you are so full of it.

 

There are two sides to every coin. You talk about freedom in an absolute sense and yet you're perfectly fine defining "life" as you see fit and allowing abortions. You're fine taking the freedom of gun owners away. There are all sorts of freedoms you would take away from people based on X belief of yours and conservatives are no different. At the end of the day the line drawn in the sand between acceptable and not acceptable is arbitrary. To pretend like one side chooses that line based on the right things while the other does not is a joke.

 

Jenks.

 

Ive never said people cant own guns. Ive said multiple times that it should be up to each state to determine what their gun policy is. If Texas wants to allow rocket launchers, go for it.

 

Abortion. Im sorry but I cant protect something that is not alive. It would require completely changing science and law, which seems unreasonable. As soon as something is "born" it is alive and it has rights. Until then, it should not.

 

It may be cold, it may be harsh, but it is fair.

 

But unlike the people fighting gay marriage, I am willing to agree to an alternative that would give the potential life protection, if it could be done in a way that does not infringe on the the person who is alive and has rights. If science can find a way that instead of an abortion the fetus is saved, Id have no problem with that. But as of now, that option is not available.

 

In comparison, the option of allowing gay people the right to marry, is very much available. It in no way hurts anyone else. Its like arguing that Christians getting married hurts Jews. It just doesnt. So there is legitimately no argument against gay marriage except for bigotry.

 

And to compare a legitimate argument like gun rights and abortion to gay marriage, just shows that you dont really care about freedom, you just care about yourself.

 

Ive been pro-life, but it just does not make sense to give rights to an non-living entity. Its to speculative and does not reflect the actual state of the issue, which is prior to a X days/weeks/months, its not a live and therefore should not be protected by the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Aug 26, 2013 -> 12:02 PM)
My philosophy in general is if (1) it doesn't violate someone's right as dictated by the Constitution or (2) doesn't violate someone's property rights there doesn't need to be a law about it. I've been pretty clear on this, I dont think the state should be in charge of almost anything.

 

You're the one who needs your beloved government/deity hybrid to validate your beliefs by legislating your political stance into a universal reality for everyone.

 

Eh you dont know me.

 

Im a utilitarian, I believe that you should be allowed to do whatever you want so long as you dont infringe on someone else's right to do what they want.

 

Im supremely anti-govt, and I dont even care about (1) because the constitution was created by men hundreds of years ago.

 

I dont need the govt to legislate any of my stances. I dont care if you dont want to have an abortion, Im not asking the govt to force you to get one. I dont care if you want to get married to a gay man or straight woman, Im not asking the govt to get involved.

 

See how my beliefs are in-line with my anti-govt stance. And on most issues, its just picking the tallest midget, I dont trust Democrats or Republicans when it comes to general govt power. Most of them could care less about me or freedom, they just want to make money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Aug 26, 2013 -> 11:49 AM)
A little taste here and there. Enough to keep people interested and enough to claim they've made progress.

 

Enough to give millions equal rights. But being straight, you don't really care.

 

Also the end of DOMA basically cemented the idea that the federal government cant do anything to regulate or deregulate marriage anyways so taking this issue into account when voting for president, your senator and house rep is really only self-serving "at least I'm part of the solution not problem XDDDDD" egoism so you can claim to be on the right side of history.

 

Presidents appoint federal judges. That is a very, very important when it comes to protecting rights.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 26, 2013 -> 12:08 PM)
Jenks.

 

Ive never said people cant own guns. Ive said multiple times that it should be up to each state to determine what their gun policy is. If Texas wants to allow rocket launchers, go for it.

 

Abortion. Im sorry but I cant protect something that is not alive. It would require completely changing science and law, which seems unreasonable. As soon as something is "born" it is alive and it has rights. Until then, it should not.

 

It may be cold, it may be harsh, but it is fair.

 

But unlike the people fighting gay marriage, I am willing to agree to an alternative that would give the potential life protection, if it could be done in a way that does not infringe on the the person who is alive and has rights. If science can find a way that instead of an abortion the fetus is saved, Id have no problem with that. But as of now, that option is not available.

 

In comparison, the option of allowing gay people the right to marry, is very much available. It in no way hurts anyone else. Its like arguing that Christians getting married hurts Jews. It just doesnt. So there is legitimately no argument against gay marriage except for bigotry.

 

And to compare a legitimate argument like gun rights and abortion to gay marriage, just shows that you dont really care about freedom, you just care about yourself.

 

Ive been pro-life, but it just does not make sense to give rights to an non-living entity. Its to speculative and does not reflect the actual state of the issue, which is prior to a X days/weeks/months, its not a live and therefore should not be protected by the law.

 

My point is you can't keep claiming "freedom is the most important thing" when you know damn well every political party ever has drawn a line for whatever reason infringing on freedoms. Party A has priority X. Party Y has priority Z. That's the way it always works. It's simply wrong to point out that one party does this while the other is simply preserving freedom. Taxes and dictating how people spend their money or how much of their money they should keep is infringing on a freedom. Any sort of restriction whatsoever on gun ownership is infringing on a freedom. Limiting abortions to the 1st trimester and not allowing it later is still infringing on the freedom of a woman and her body.

 

And how is be being against abortion caring about myself and not freedom? That makes no sense.

Edited by Jenksismybitch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 26, 2013 -> 11:20 AM)
My point is you can't keep claiming "freedom is the most important thing" when you know damn well every political party ever has drawn a line for whatever reason infringing on freedoms. Party A has priority X. Party Y has priority Z. That's the way it always works. It's simply wrong to point out that one party does this while the other is simply preserving freedom. Taxes and dictating how people spend their money or how much of their money they should keep is infringing on a freedom. Any sort of restriction whatsoever on gun ownership is infringing on a freedom. Limiting abortions to the 1st trimester and not allowing it later is still infringing on the freedom of a woman and her body.

 

And how is be being against abortion caring about myself and not freedom? That makes no sense.

 

so back to Hillary....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Presidents appoint federal judges. That is a very, very important when it comes to protecting rights.

Yup so XYZ judge who the president can trot out to the country for his progressive and tolerant stance on homosexuality can turn around and burn the constitution and let his Administration start killing Americans with drones!

 

#RightSideofHistory

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Aug 26, 2013 -> 12:24 PM)
Yup so XYZ judge who the president can trot out to the country for his progressive and tolerant stance on homosexuality can turn around and burn the constitution and let his Administration start killing Americans with drones!

 

#RightSideofHistory

 

It's amazing how short your memory is.

 

Remind me who was it created the Patriot Act? Drone strikes on American citizens is just an expansion of that policy created by your side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Reddy @ Aug 26, 2013 -> 12:25 PM)
It's amazing how short your memory is.

 

Remind me who was it created the Patriot Act? Drone strikes on American citizens is just an expansion of that policy created by your side.

 

And yet all the people b****ing and whining about it (

) have continued and ENLARGED the policy.

 

But keep up with the "It's George Bush's fault." It'll work 50 years now too i'm sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 26, 2013 -> 12:28 PM)
And yet all the people b****ing and whining about it (
) have continued and ENLARGED the policy.

 

But keep up with the "It's George Bush's fault." It'll work 50 years now too i'm sure.

 

but you, of course, know that I'm very anti-Obama for this very reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Aug 26, 2013 -> 12:24 PM)
Yup so XYZ judge who the president can trot out to the country for his progressive and tolerant stance on homosexuality can turn around and burn the constitution and let his Administration start killing Americans with drones!

 

#RightSideofHistory

 

See, here's the thing. I agree with you, at least broadly, that our surveillance state, drone policy, etc. are s***. Our national political landscape is such that both parties largely support these programs. Even Champion of Liberty Rand Paul doesn't care about drone policy beyond his minor objection; he is still 100% onboard with how we are using them internationally.

 

So I can choose to between two candidates, both of whom have troubling civil liberties an foreign policy ideas, but one of which supports gay marriage etc. I have no reason to believe that Republicans wouldn't be just as bad if not worse these grounds as the Democratic candidate, plus they'll bring a whole host of terrible social and economic policies with them.

 

You can keep saying "drones!" all you want, but it's a really shallow criticism because it doesn't actually give me a reason to support your chosen party/candidates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...