80
   

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

 
 
giujohn
 
  -1  
Thu 8 Sep, 2016 01:08 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
This may come as a complete shock to you but being less in the eyes of the bleeding heart liberal revisionist leftists is not one of my great concerns

The greatest Danger to a free Society is a progressive liberal
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Thu 8 Sep, 2016 01:11 pm
@giujohn,
Quote:
The greatest Danger to a free Society is a progressive liberal


And what is that great danger to a free society?
roger
 
  0  
Thu 8 Sep, 2016 01:15 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
You know, you've really become quite moderate in your responses this time around.
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  2  
Thu 8 Sep, 2016 01:15 pm
@giujohn,
About what-a hearing aid? We actually don't know what that was, it could be anything from an earring to a Photoshop job on the photo-remember, Finn's source for the pic was friggin' Alex Jones.
georgeob1
 
  0  
Thu 8 Sep, 2016 01:21 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Quote:
The greatest Danger to a free Society is a progressive liberal


And what is that great danger to a free society?


That it will become an ant hill and cease to be free.
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  3  
Thu 8 Sep, 2016 01:26 pm
But what I really love is Trump's answer to him saying he knew more about Iraq than the generals. Then Trump said he a plan to end the war there except he's not telling what-and also that he's going to ask the generals to submit their plan to do it and he'll decide at a future time which plan is better. Meanwhile, vote for Trump because he has a plan to end the Iraq War.

Meanwhile, under Obama ISIS the Iraq Army has taken back Raqqa and Fallujah and the push into Mosul is being prepared. When they take Mosul, ISIS will be on the run.
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Thu 8 Sep, 2016 01:27 pm
@giujohn,
Quote:
bleeding heart liberal revisionist leftists


Odd that you would make that statement, not knowing the first thing about me.

Cycloptichorn
georgeob1
 
  0  
Thu 8 Sep, 2016 01:29 pm
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:

Quote George:
Quote:
You missed the essential points. The Soviet Union collapsed largely on its own internal contradictions, though the strength of our military deterrent accelerated the process, in spite of the failure of our NATO allies to live up to their military committments.

You continue to miss the whole picture. The Soviet Union would have been a lot stronger if it had taken over Western Europe, or part of it, during the postwar period. If the US had a President Trump during that time making speeches about we won't defend Western Europe unless the financial obligations are met, (and they aren't being met), it would have been far more likely that Russia would have moved into Western Europe.

Sorry George, when you are eyeball-to-eyeball with an opponent, that is not the time to start sending signals about "maybe we will defend Western Europe, maybe we won't". Russia stayed away only because they knew the US and the NATO allies would be coming after them immediately after any incursion. Thanks to Trump, Russia now knows that if he takes office, if Russia arms some rebels in Western Europe, backs them politically, and then makes noise about backing them with troops, the response will NOT be immediate counterforce, but negotiations, "based on mutual interests".


I think it is you who misses the picture here. Indeed you've got it all backwards.

How well has our current administration protected Western interests ? One of Obama's first acts with regard to NATO was to cancel the positioniong of previously committed air and missile defense systems in Poland and other areas of (now NATO) Eastern Europe. He has in addition removed virtually all of our air and ground forced from continental Europe and ended a decades long continuous presence of major U.S. naval assedt in the Mediterranean. Meanwhile the Europeans, pressed as always by the financing of their social welfare systems and relatively slow exconomic growth have allowed their milirary forses to atrophy even faster than we. The whole system needs invigorating and it appears to me that Trump is advocating just that.
Baldimo
 
  -2  
Thu 8 Sep, 2016 01:30 pm
@Blickers,
Quote:
Meanwhile, under Obama ISIS the Iraq Army has taken back Raqqa and Fallujah and the push into Mosul is being prepared. When they take Mosul, ISIS will be on the run.


Meanwhile, under Obama, ISIS was able to take all those towns and kill thousands while Obama referred to them as the JV team who wasn't a threat to anyone.
Blickers
 
  1  
Thu 8 Sep, 2016 01:30 pm
Obama is winning the war against ISIS as it is. Trump lives in fantasy land, nothing new there.

Inside ISIS: Quietly preparing for the loss of the ‘caliphate’

https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_1484w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2016/07/09/National-Security/Images/Mideast_Bloody_Ramdan-d2d36-0579.jpg?uuid=bM54UEX7EeaIVvJt4lN6nQ
This June 26 image — made from Associated Press video — shows Iraqi troops turning the Islamic State flag upside down in Fallujah, Iraq. (Uncredited/AP)
By Joby Warrick and Souad Mekhennet July 12

Even as it launches waves of terrorist attacks around the globe, the Islamic State is quietly preparing its followers for the eventual collapse of the caliphate it proclaimed with great fanfare two years ago.

In public messages and in recent actions in Syria, the group’s leaders are acknowledging the terrorist organization’s declining fortunes on the battlefield while bracing for the possibility that its remaining strongholds could fall.

At the same time, the group is vowing to press on with its recent campaign of violence, even if the terrorists themselves are driven underground. U.S. counterterrorism experts believe the mass-­casualty attacks in Istanbul and Baghdad in the past month were largely a response to military reversals in Iraq and Syria.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/inside-isis-quietly-preparing-for-the-loss-of-the-caliphate/2016/07/12/9a1a8a02-454b-11e6-8856-f26de2537a9d_story.html
Baldimo
 
  -1  
Thu 8 Sep, 2016 01:34 pm
@Blickers,
What about the JV team comments? Was Obama living in fantasy land at that time?
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Thu 8 Sep, 2016 01:35 pm
@georgeob1,
Hi George,

The important piece that you're forgetting to mention here is the gigantic fiscal problems Obama inherited. It's natural and completely understandable that at a time our budgets, including military budgets, are heavily constrained, that we would be forced to lessen our forward projection of strength somewhat. Not only that but there are serious questions about the effectiveness of said missile systems.

Quote:
The whole system needs invigorating and it appears to me that Trump is advocating just that.


No, he's not. He makes noises intended to sound good to Hawks such as yourself, but he has no actual plans for how to do so. I mean, none. When questioned on his proposals and plans in this area, he has no coherent answers. He also has no answer as to how he would plan to pay for said military buildup.

Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn
 
  4  
Thu 8 Sep, 2016 01:37 pm
@Baldimo,
Baldimo wrote:

What about the JV team comments? Was Obama living in fantasy land at that time?


They're still the JV team. We could wipe them out, and I do mean literally wipe them off the face of the planet, anytime we chose to seriously do so.

Now, doing so would come with its' own set of problems, which is why Obama and the generals have wisely chosen a more prolonged method. But don't fool yourself: they are no real threat to the US. Acts of terrorism are annoyances, not an indication of a strong military power or country.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  3  
Thu 8 Sep, 2016 01:39 pm
@Baldimo,
Quote Baldimo:
Quote:
Meanwhile, under Obama, ISIS was able to take all those towns and kill thousands while Obama referred to them as the JV team who wasn't a threat to anyone.

Obama simply withdrew American forces on the date agreed upon by the US under Bush and the Iraq government that Bush's Administration brought about. When Obama abided by the agreement-and the Iraq government DID want us to leave-Mosul was defended by 30,000 Iraqi Army soldiers.

Then 600 ISIS fighters defeated the 30,000 Iraqi Army soldiers supposedly "defending" Mosul. The Iraq Army soldiers' method of "defending" Mosul consisted of dropping one's weapon and running. Bush's "nation-building" program was a sham, the Iraq Army collapsed. Obama is picking up the pieces and putting things in order-it's hard work.
Baldimo
 
  -1  
Thu 8 Sep, 2016 01:48 pm
@Blickers,
Nice story, too bad it isn't the full story. You forget about Obama's 2012 victory tour touting his success in ending the the Iraq war and bringing home our soldiers. He claims in his own words that he did it. No one else, only him. I'm sure I can find about a dozen instances of him boasting about ending the war. He didn't mention Bush in any of it. It wasn't until the rise of ISIS under Obama that he started to backtrack on his "success". You guys drank it up and now parrot what Obama claims is history.

Obama in his own words:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DpBwmN66As
giujohn
 
  -1  
Thu 8 Sep, 2016 01:55 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Quote:
The greatest Danger to a free Society is a progressive liberal


And what is that great danger to a free society?


More than one Progressive liberal
Blickers
 
  3  
Thu 8 Sep, 2016 01:59 pm
@Baldimo,
Yes, and that was Obama's plan, to bring the troops home. The agreement was already signed to leave by 2011, we abided by it and the Iraqi Government wanted us to leave as well.

Only problem was, the "nation-building" program Bush spent all his time on turned out to be a sham. Mosul was "defended" by 30,000 Iraqi troops who lost the city to 600 ISIS fighters. Obviously, the Iraqi Army was a mirage, they just dropped their weapons and bolted. Iraq looked like it was under control under Bush, but it really wasn't. Now Obama is doing the hard work of throwing ISIS out.
0 Replies
 
giujohn
 
  1  
Thu 8 Sep, 2016 01:59 pm
@Blickers,
Well that might be a good argument except for two things 1 her campaign said it was reflection and 2 its not a hearing aid it's too far down in the ear... if it was a hearing aid it would be in the ear canal if it's a receiver it would be in that position as to leave her ear canal open so she could still hear people talking in the room
farmerman
 
  3  
Thu 8 Sep, 2016 02:00 pm
@giujohn,
gooey likes a "free society" so long as his guy is in charge. His narcissistic, nationalistic, mysogynistic, racist douche bag who will probably start WWIII and try to buck the US Constitution by "returning (Christian) prayer to public schools"
giujohn
 
  -1  
Thu 8 Sep, 2016 02:02 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Me thinks you're being a little bit too sensitive because I never said you were in that category
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

The Pro Hillary Thread - Discussion by snood
get this woman out of my view/politics - Discussion by ossobuco
Hillary Clinton hospitalized - Discussion by jcboy
Has Hillary's Time Come? - Discussion by Phoenix32890
I WANT HILLARY TO RUN IN 2012 - Discussion by farmerman
Hillary's The Secretary Of State..It's Official - Discussion by Bi-Polar Bear
Hillary the "JOKESTER"?? - Discussion by woiyo
Hillary Rebuked by Iraqi Leader - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 09/19/2024 at 03:04:50