B-Man Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 (edited) WITH EVERY MISTAKE, WE MUST SURELY BE LEARNING: Hillary Clinton Has No Regrets About Libya. Edited April 22, 2016 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 (edited) Do those numbers include the people killed by terrorists? Probably. It is obvious to anyone paying attention that ISIS is a direct result from our invasion of Iraq (which Hillary voted for and supported). http://www.vox.com/2014/8/25/6065529/isis-rise The most obvious way in which the US bears responsibility for ISIS's rise is the 2003 invasion of Iraq. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/25/tony-blair-is-right-without-the-iraq-war-there-would-be-no-isis A senior Isis commander has told the Guardian that without the Camp Bucca facility in southern Iraq, in which he and most of the senior leadership were at one point detained, there would be no Isis today. “It made it all, it built our ideology,” he told the Guardian last December, “We could never have all got together like this in Baghdad, or anywhere else,” he said. “It would have been impossibly dangerous. Here, we were not only safe, but we were only a few hundred metres away from the entire al-Qaida leadership.” You can play the Hillary excuse game if you want, but her and everyone else who voted for this is in part either directly or indirectly responsible for over 1,000,000 deaths, many of them innocents. Edited April 22, 2016 by reddogblitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 23, 2016 Share Posted April 23, 2016 Probably. It is obvious to anyone paying attention that ISIS is a direct result from our invasion of Iraq (which Hillary voted for and supported). http://www.vox.com/2014/8/25/6065529/isis-rise http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/25/tony-blair-is-right-without-the-iraq-war-there-would-be-no-isis You can play the Hillary excuse game if you want, but her and everyone else who voted for this is in part either directly or indirectly responsible for over 1,000,000 deaths, many of them innocents. So now we're including Syrian civil war deaths in the Iraq War total? By that logic, all of these deaths should be included in the Iran-Iraq War casualty list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted April 23, 2016 Share Posted April 23, 2016 So now we're including Syrian civil war deaths in the Iraq War total? By that logic, all of these deaths should be included in the Iran-Iraq War casualty list. Did you miss the part about ISIS being a direct result of the Iraq War? Obviously there are a lot of other factors on the chaos that is the Middle East. Can we at least admit that overthrowing Sadaam poured gasoline on the fire? Hillary has another can ready to go. It's time we stop digging IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 23, 2016 Share Posted April 23, 2016 Did you miss the part about ISIS being a direct result of the Iraq War? Obviously there are a lot of other factors on the chaos that is the Middle East. Can we at least admit that overthrowing Sadaam poured gasoline on the fire? Hillary has another can ready to go. It's time we stop digging IMHO. Did you miss the part about the Iraq War being a direct result of Desert Storm, being a direct result of the Iran-Iraq war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted April 23, 2016 Share Posted April 23, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted April 23, 2016 Share Posted April 23, 2016 Did you miss the part about the Iraq War being a direct result of Desert Storm, being a direct result of the Iran-Iraq war? Perhaps the meaning of the word direct is what he missed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted April 23, 2016 Share Posted April 23, 2016 CNN previews the unbelievable pro-Hillary bias it will be pushing American Thinker, by Thomas Lifson Original Article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 23, 2016 Share Posted April 23, 2016 Mentioned this before in an earlier thread, but the "news" broke yesterday on a few official sites. HRC Group spending $1 million to push back against online commentaters Talk about a Twitter war. A group supporting Hillary Clinton says it will spend more than $1 million to “push back” against attacks made against the Democratic presidential front-runner and her supporters on Twitter, Facebook and other platforms. Correct the Record, a super PAC dedicated to defending Clinton from “baseless attacks,” said it is pouring the money into the so-called Barrier Breakers 2016 digital task force. The group said it will more than triple its digital operation “to engage in online messaging both for Secretary Clinton and to push back against attackers on social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Reddit and Instagram.” The super PAC says it’s applying lessons learned from interacting online with “Bernie Bros” — supporters of Clinton’s primary opponent Bernie Sanders — to the rest of the primary season and the general election. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/pro-hillary-clinton-group-spending-1-million-to-push-back-against-online-commenters-2016-04-22 More (super progressive site, fair warning): http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/04/22/clintons-digital-task-force-breaks-barriers-defend-her-donors More: Pro Clinton PAC unleashes a ridiculous $1m plan to "correct" Reddit One of the things that people say they like about the campaigns of candidates like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders is that they seemingly say exactly what they're thinking and they don't follow the advice of well paid political consultants. What's wrong with well paid political consultants, you ask? Well, they often don't seem to understand politics very well, for one. Nowhere is this more apparent than a pro-Hillary Clinton Super PAC's decision to spend $1 million to "correct" misinformation about their favored candidate on Reddit and Facebook. As The Daily Beast reports, the pro-Clinton Super PAC Correct the Record "is pledging to spend $1 million to “push back against” users on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit and Instagram." The project claims that it has already "addressed more than 5,000 people that have personally attacked Hillary Clinton on Twitter" and it's going to do a lot more of this on other social networks. Dear God. There really aren't words to describe how much of a bone-headed move this is... but I'm going to try. One of the staples of online discourse is assuming that the person you're arguing with is a paid shill for the company or person they're advocating. While most people who argue for different positions across the web aren't actually paid shills, it goes without saying that being a paid shill is something that automatically discredits the person making the argument. Correct the Record's plan, in short, is to flood social media with paid shills and brag about it publicly. https://www.yahoo.com/tech/pro-clinton-pac-unleashes-ridiculous-1-million-plan-205647195.html?nhp=1 More: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/21/hillary-pac-spends-1-million-to-correct-commenters-on-reddit-and-facebook.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 23, 2016 Share Posted April 23, 2016 Mentioned this before in an earlier thread, but the "news" broke yesterday on a few official sites. HRC Group spending $1 million to push back against online commentaters Talk about a Twitter war. A group supporting Hillary Clinton says it will spend more than $1 million to “push back” against attacks made against the Democratic presidential front-runner and her supporters on Twitter, Facebook and other platforms. Correct the Record, a super PAC dedicated to defending Clinton from “baseless attacks,” said it is pouring the money into the so-called Barrier Breakers 2016 digital task force. The group said it will more than triple its digital operation “to engage in online messaging both for Secretary Clinton and to push back against attackers on social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Reddit and Instagram.” The super PAC says it’s applying lessons learned from interacting online with “Bernie Bros” — supporters of Clinton’s primary opponent Bernie Sanders — to the rest of the primary season and the general election. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/pro-hillary-clinton-group-spending-1-million-to-push-back-against-online-commenters-2016-04-22 More (super progressive site, fair warning): http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/04/22/clintons-digital-task-force-breaks-barriers-defend-her-donors More: Pro Clinton PAC unleashes a ridiculous $1m plan to "correct" Reddit One of the things that people say they like about the campaigns of candidates like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders is that they seemingly say exactly what they're thinking and they don't follow the advice of well paid political consultants. What's wrong with well paid political consultants, you ask? Well, they often don't seem to understand politics very well, for one. Nowhere is this more apparent than a pro-Hillary Clinton Super PAC's decision to spend $1 million to "correct" misinformation about their favored candidate on Reddit and Facebook. As The Daily Beast reports, the pro-Clinton Super PAC Correct the Record "is pledging to spend $1 million to “push back against” users on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit and Instagram." The project claims that it has already "addressed more than 5,000 people that have personally attacked Hillary Clinton on Twitter" and it's going to do a lot more of this on other social networks. Dear God. There really aren't words to describe how much of a bone-headed move this is... but I'm going to try. One of the staples of online discourse is assuming that the person you're arguing with is a paid shill for the company or person they're advocating. While most people who argue for different positions across the web aren't actually paid shills, it goes without saying that being a paid shill is something that automatically discredits the person making the argument. Correct the Record's plan, in short, is to flood social media with paid shills and brag about it publicly. https://www.yahoo.com/tech/pro-clinton-pac-unleashes-ridiculous-1-million-plan-205647195.html?nhp=1 More: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/21/hillary-pac-spends-1-million-to-correct-commenters-on-reddit-and-facebook.html You should point out to gator that Correct the Record is hiring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 23, 2016 Share Posted April 23, 2016 You should point out to gator that Correct the Record is hiring. Something tells me he already knows... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted April 23, 2016 Share Posted April 23, 2016 The response is already coming out from the Hilary campaign: They said that everyone online is already a paid robot, and they're just the honest ones admitting to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted April 23, 2016 Share Posted April 23, 2016 (edited) Perhaps the meaning of the word direct is what he missed.Can you help me out with this? How did the Iraq-Iran War "directly" lead to Dessert Storm? IIRC Iraq invading Kuwait was what directly led to Dessert Storm. As far as the Bush II invasion, what directly led to that was the vote by Congress. We were in no way threatened unless you believed the WMD/yellow cake/mushroom cloud business. Edited April 23, 2016 by reddogblitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 23, 2016 Share Posted April 23, 2016 Can you help me out with this? How did the Iraq-Iran War "directly" lead to Dessert Storm? IIRC Iraq invading Kuwait was what directly led to Dessert Storm. As far as the Bush II invasion, what directly led to that was the vote by Congress. We were in no way threatened unless you believed the WMD/yellow cake/mushroom cloud business. Iraq invaded Kuwait over a dispute related to the $14B Kuwait loaned Iraq to finance the Iran-Iraq war. And as Dessert [sic] Storm never really ended (combat ops continued through the '90s), OIF was "directly" caused by Desert Storm in that it was pretty much the same damned war. Point being: it's easy to get the casualty count you want, when you arbitrarily lump conflicts together by "direct cause." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted April 24, 2016 Share Posted April 24, 2016 Hillary’s Paid Speech Problem Just Got Worse: An obvious conflict of interests. A new report from the Associated Press says that a significant number of companies which paid Hillary Clinton for speeches had interests in government business. This may explain why she has been so reluctant to release her speech transcripts. Here’s an excerpt from the report: Firms that paid for Clinton speeches have US gov’t interests WASHINGTON (AP) — It’s not just Wall Street banks. Most companies and groups that paid Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to speak between 2013 and 2015 have lobbied federal agencies in recent years, and more than one-third are government contractors, an Associated Press review has found. Their interests are sprawling and would follow Clinton to the White House should she win election this fall. (more…) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted April 24, 2016 Share Posted April 24, 2016 (edited) SHE’S NOT LIKEABLE ENOUGH: Gallup: No interest in Clinton even among Democratic women. Women are increasingly turning their noses up at the 2016 election, including Democratic women despite the likelihood that their party’s nominee will be one of them, according to a new Gallup survey of the gender gap in those closely following the election. Women have never paid as much attention to the current race as men, but Gallup found that the attention gap has expanded in recent months. Once just two points apart, in February, the gap is now 13 points and is seen in both Democratic and Republican ranks as men continue to be engaged in the election dominated by news coverage of Republican Donald Trump. Well, the ZOMG they’re coming for our lady parts! hysteria has worn off, but expect new efforts along those lines. Edited April 24, 2016 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted April 24, 2016 Share Posted April 24, 2016 When The Donald picks Kasich as his running mate, it will all be over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted April 24, 2016 Share Posted April 24, 2016 When The Donald picks Kasich as his running mate, it will all be over. This would certainly be the wise choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted April 24, 2016 Share Posted April 24, 2016 When The Donald picks Kasich as his running mate, it will all be over. Meaning it will seal Trump's defeat? Because that is what it will do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 Meaning it will seal Trump's defeat? Because that is what it will do. How so? With Kasich as Veep, Ohio is in the bag. Who would be a better choice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts