Deranged Rhino Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 Nice to see how Hillary's record gets whitewashed to suit a narrative. Neocons have a very basic set of beliefs. A free world is a better world, and they support regimes who foster democracies and open markets. Understanding that the world isn't perfect, they also know that a lot of countries who are nominally democratic are anything but, and if those countries present a threat to the US or global markets, they will not support those regimes. She's nowhere near a neocon on almost every point, except voting for the 2003 war, and that vote was near unanimous. So by that stroke every person who voted for the authorization is a neocon. . You're conveniently leaving out Libya and Honduras in this narrative by dismissing it (comically) below. Greggy usually conflates Bill's positions with Hillary's, so for the sake of argument I'll treat them as one. False, but you've been terrible at accurately summarizing my points lately. Memories are very short, but you may recall that among the reasons cited for the 2003 Iraq War was Bill Clinton's ignorance of Saddam's growing belligerence and violations of the '93 agreements. If Greggy insists on calling Bill & Hill neocons, then the 2003 invasion wouldn't have been necessary since he would have taken proper actions much sooner. Erroneous. Honduras coup? Are you kidding me? Does Greggy do any basic research? That was the first major failure of her Foggy Bottom days. Zelaya broke Honduran law, and the government properly acted under its constitutional authority to remove him. The US called it a coup when it was not, essentially throwing the government into turmoil. This was also a time where the LatAm leftists percolated back to the surface with a well timed bet that an Obama administration would be much more inclined to support the socialist causes. Honduras' economy collapsed and all the economic gains the country made over a decade were wiped out. Don't for a second think that this has no effect on the US, because as LatAm countries continue to be basked cases, there's a great incentive to run to the US. So I'm trying to find out exactly how neocons supported the Honduran debacle, Bolivia's decline, Ecuador's leftist tilt, FARC's terrorism in Colombia and the grand godfathers of the progressive thought in LatAm - Chavez & Castro. I'm sure Glenn Greenwald's mouthpiece has an explanation. One of us has done their homework on this issue -- the other hasn't. Europe - Please explain how a reset button with Russia, walking away from Central European allies, and tacitly supporting Putin's thugs in Crimea/East Ukraine is anything but a Chamberlanian appeasement of a despot? Your information here is lacking as well, because you're leaving out the fact the crisis in the Ukraine was started by western backed proxies. MidEast - Why did Greggy ignore Egypt? Hillary threw Mubarak under the bus faster than a knee-hobbled TE, but has no problem with a dictator up the sea who continues to mow down his own people all the way down the red line. Lybia? Yeah, I imagine every neocon would hold off sending reinforcements to protect a US Ambassador and then lie through the teeth about it to the families. You have to stretch SO hard to exclude her from your chosen philosophy, facts be damned. She is the flag bearer for your cause now, whether you embrace her or not. So yeah, based on Greggy's news sources, I can see how he can mistake Hillary for a neocon. And it's real easy to come to that conclusion when you ignore facts and logic while desperately clinging to a proven failure of a political philosophy. It'll be okay, GG. HRC is going to win and the country will continue to move towards the bright future of totalitarianism Neocon philosophy openly endorses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 You're conveniently leaving out Libya and Honduras in this narrative by dismissing it (comically) below. False, but you've been terrible at accurately summarizing my points lately. Erroneous. One of us has done their homework on this issue -- the other hasn't. Your information here is lacking as well, because you're leaving out the fact the crisis in the Ukraine was started by western backed proxies. You have to stretch SO hard to exclude her from your chosen philosophy, facts be damned. She is the flag bearer for your cause now, whether you embrace her or not. And it's real easy to come to that conclusion when you ignore facts and logic while desperately clinging to a proven failure of a political philosophy. It'll be okay, GG. HRC is going to win and the country will continue to move towards the bright future of totalitarianism Neocon philosophy openly endorses. Nice job. Disprove my points, instead of dismissing them. How am I wrong about Honduras? Which power Western brokers started the Ukranian conflict? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 Nice job. Disprove my points, instead of dismissing them. It's easy to dismiss points you're attributing to me that I never made. When you take the time to actually hear what I'm saying, rather than projecting your own issues and nonsense onto me, we can have a real discussion about all of these issues. I look forward to it as I value your contributions to this board How am I wrong about Honduras? Which power Western brokers started the Ukranian conflict? Do your own homework. I've provided plenty of links on both those situations in other threads. When I'm done with work today I'll dig up some more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 The suggestion that Clinton has moved too far to the right for liberals is a commentary on the leftward orientation of Dems, not on Clinton. On balance I fully expect Hillary 16 to run to the left of Hillary 08. Vladimir Putin Has Everything He Needs to Blackmail Hillary Clinton http://observer.com/2016/06/vladimir-putin-has-everything-he-needs-to-blackmail-hillary-clinton/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 The suggestion that Clinton has moved too far to the right for liberals is a commentary on the leftward orientation of Dems, not on Clinton. On balance I fully expect Hillary 16 to run to the left of Hillary 08. Vladimir Putin Has Everything He Needs to Blackmail Hillary Clinton http://observer.com/2016/06/vladimir-putin-has-everything-he-needs-to-blackmail-hillary-clinton/ It certainly is. The entire party, both parties actually, have moved closer to the extremes than towards the center. Clinton, by and large, is a centrist. She's not a progressive by any definition of the term. Opportunist might be a better descriptor. Which is why you're probably correct she will run far to the left of how she ran in '08 -- but that will just be meaningless campaigning. She won't govern that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 It's easy to dismiss points you're attributing to me that I never made. When you take the time to actually hear what I'm saying, rather than projecting your own issues and nonsense onto me, we can have a real discussion about all of these issues. I look forward to it as I value your contributions to this board Do your own homework. I've provided plenty of links on both those situations in other threads. When I'm done with work today I'll dig up some more. Now you're going full gatorman. Explain how DRH espoused neocon principles in the Honduras crisis and in Ukraine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 Now you're going full gatorman. Explain how DRH espoused neocon principles in the Honduras crisis and in Ukraine. Full gatorman is ascribing thoughts and positions to people who never stated them. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/04/19/hillary-clintons-dodgy-answers-on-honduras-coup/ In other words, Clinton had no problem with the forced removal of a democratically elected leader of a country; she only took issue with the fact that things got a little messier than she would have liked. http://www.thenation.com/article/how-hillary-clinton-militarized-us-policy-in-honduras/ http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-clinton-honduras-coup-20160501-story.html ******************************* http://www.globalresearch.ca/washington-was-behind-ukraine-coup-obama-admits-that-us-brokered-a-deal-in-support-of-regime-change/5429142 US President Barack Obama revealed the United States’ involvement in the Ukrainian crisis from its outset and admitted that the United States “had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine.” US President Barack Obama’s recent interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakiria reveals the United States’ involvement in the Ukrainian crisis from its outset and that the country worked directly with Ukrainian right-wing fascist groups, experts told Sputnik. On Sunday, in his interview with CNN, Obama admitted that the United States “had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine.” “Obama’s statement is reiterating something that the world public opinion already knew — the US was involved in the coup of [ex-Ukrainian President] Viktor Yanukovych from the start. History shows us that the US has overthrown numerous governments in Latin America, Asia and Africa and replaced them with leaders that ruled with a fascist ideology that proved useful for Washington’s geopolitical interests,” independent researcher and writer Timothy Alexander Guzman told Sputnik. http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/02/26/hybrid-war-the-real-reason-fighting-stopped-in-ukraine-for-now/ But the risk is well calculated because the stakes are high. Putin has a great deal riding on this. He firmly believes, as he has laid out in many statements, that the battle for the Donbass region of eastern Ukraine is a proxy war with the West. The United States and Europe seek to weaken Russia, Putin’s argument goes, by pulling a key Russian ally, Ukraine, into their sphere of influence. Putin’s goal is to deny Kiev the chance of associating with the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. In Putin’s view, the West stoked regime change in Kiev in February 2014 for the same reasons that the United States supported the mujahedeen in Afghanistan in the 1980s — to undermine Moscow’s authority throughout the region. Putin also asserts that the West aided and abetted the Chechens throughout the 1990s and into the 2000s to destabilize the Russian Federation. So according to Putin’s logic, Afghanistan was the West’s proxy war with the Soviet Union. Ukraine is the West’s proxy war with Russia. This being a proxy war, Putin is intent on helping the side that best serves Russia’s interests. In this case, that side is the “armed formations,” as the February Minsk agreement describes them, of Ukraine’s Donetsk and Lugansk regions. http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2014/11/22/biden-in-kiev-on-us-regime-change-victory-tour.html I'm mobile currently, I'll compile more sources when I get back to my files. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 Full gatorman is ascribing thoughts and positions to people who never stated them. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/04/19/hillary-clintons-dodgy-answers-on-honduras-coup/ In other words, Clinton had no problem with the forced removal of a democratically elected leader of a country; she only took issue with the fact that things got a little messier than she would have liked. http://www.thenation.com/article/how-hillary-clinton-militarized-us-policy-in-honduras/ http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-clinton-honduras-coup-20160501-story.html ******************************* http://www.globalresearch.ca/washington-was-behind-ukraine-coup-obama-admits-that-us-brokered-a-deal-in-support-of-regime-change/5429142 US President Barack Obama revealed the United States’ involvement in the Ukrainian crisis from its outset and admitted that the United States “had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine.” US President Barack Obama’s recent interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakiria reveals the United States’ involvement in the Ukrainian crisis from its outset and that the country worked directly with Ukrainian right-wing fascist groups, experts told Sputnik. On Sunday, in his interview with CNN, Obama admit1ted that the United States “had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine.” “Obama’s statement is reiterating something that the world public opinion already knew — the US was involved in the coup of [ex-Ukrainian President] Viktor Yanukovych from the start. History shows us that the US has overthrown numerous governments in Latin America, Asia and Africa and replaced them with leaders that ruled with a fascist ideology that proved useful for Washington’s geopolitical interests,” independent researcher and writer Timothy Alexander Guzman told Sputnik. http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/02/26/hybrid-war-the-real-reason-fighting-stopped-in-ukraine-for-now/ But the risk is well calculated because the stakes are high. Putin has a great deal riding on this. He firmly believes, as he has laid out in many statements, that the battle for the Donbass region of eastern Ukraine is a proxy war with the West. The United States and Europe seek to weaken Russia, Putin’s argument goes, by pulling a key Russian ally, Ukraine, into their sphere of influence. Putin’s goal is to deny Kiev the chance of associating with the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. In Putin’s view, the West stoked regime change in Kiev in February 2014 for the same reasons that the United States supported the mujahedeen in Afghanistan in the 1980s — to undermine Moscow’s authority throughout the region. Putin also asserts that the West aided and abetted the Chechens throughout the 1990s and into the 2000s to destabilize the Russian Federation. So according to Putin’s logic, Afghanistan was the West’s proxy war with the Soviet Union. Ukraine is the West’s proxy war with Russia. This being a proxy war, Putin is intent on helping the side that best serves Russia’s interests. In this case, that side is the “armed formations,” as the February Minsk agreement describes them, of Ukraine’s Donetsk and Lugansk regions. http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2014/11/22/biden-in-kiev-on-us-regime-change-victory-tour.html I'm mobile currently, I'll compile more sources when I get back to my files. You are using Hillary's recent statements about Honduras as your position? Could you imagine a universe where Hillary could have changed her talking points in 2016 compared to what actually transpired in 2009? I mean that would be very very much unlike Hillary to change the narrative 180 degrees. Funny how your Ukrainian history starts with Yanukovich's ouster and not earlier. Do you want to do your own homework or should I? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 The suggestion that Clinton has moved too far to the right for liberals is a commentary on the leftward orientation of Dems, not on Clinton. On balance I fully expect Hillary 16 to run to the left of Hillary 08. Vladimir Putin Has Everything He Needs to Blackmail Hillary Clinton http://observer.com/2016/06/vladimir-putin-has-everything-he-needs-to-blackmail-hillary-clinton/ It's a commentary on the current political spectrum. Obama, who was considered a far left liberal during his campaign, is now seen as a middle-right president. McCain, also historically liberal, was his right wing opponent. Now we have Trump, a life-long democrat, nominated as the GOP candidate. The loony left of today will be seen as the right wing conservatives of tomorrow. Liberalism succeeds by continuously moving the goalposts left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 It's a commentary on the current political spectrum. Obama, who was considered a far left liberal during his campaign, is now seen as a middle-right president. McCain, also historically liberal, was his right wing opponent. Now we have Trump, a life-long democrat, nominated as the GOP candidate. The loony left of today will be seen as the right wing conservatives of tomorrow. Liberalism succeeds by continuously moving the goalposts left. Only a nutsucking nobbler still clings to the fantasy that Obama is middle right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 You are agreeing with something I didn't say. Sorry--was being sarcastic. The people I am agreeing with are those Rs quick to condemn Trump's statements in the wake of the Orlando shooting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 Sorry--was being sarcastic. The people I am agreeing with are those Rs quick to condemn Trump's statements in the wake of the Orlando shooting and anything he ever says in the future while at the same time ignoring not only the things Hillary says but also the things she does. Fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 Hillary ClintonVerified account @HillaryClinton Jun 13 If the FBI is watching you for suspected terrorist links, you shouldn’t be able to just go buy a gun with no questions asked. What about if the FBI is watching you for espionage and political corruption? Asking for a friend. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 What about if the FBI is watching you for espionage and political corruption? Asking for a friend. . You win the Internet today B-Man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 What about if the FBI is watching you for espionage and political corruption? Asking for a friend. . I've found myself replying more and more to her insipid tweets, just because they're so childishly easy to deconstruct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 After the first round of votes were counted, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were deadlocked. Instead of going through a recount, the two agreed to a week-long ice fishing contest to settle the election. Whoever caught the most fish at the end of the week would be the President. The candidates decided a remote frozen lake in northern Wisconsin would be the ideal place. No observers were allowed on the fishing rounds, but both candidates would need to have their catches verified and counted each night at 5PM. After Day 1, Trump returned with 5 fish. Hillary came back with nothing. Day 2 finished, and Trump caught another 5 fish, but Hillary once again came back with nothing! On Day 3, Hilary decided to send an intern to follow Trump, figuring that he must be cheating. Day 3 finished up and Trump had an incredible day, adding 10 fish to his total! The following day, Hillary calls a press conference, calling Trump a cheat. While showing a video of Trump fishing, she proudly exclaims, "Can you believe this? He’s cutting holes in the ice!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 After the first round of votes were counted, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were deadlocked. Instead of going through a recount, the two agreed to a week-long ice fishing contest to settle the election. Whoever caught the most fish at the end of the week would be the President. I haven't finished yet, and I already hate this joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted June 18, 2016 Share Posted June 18, 2016 I haven't finished yet, and I already hate this joke. Good move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 18, 2016 Share Posted June 18, 2016 http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-06-18/hackers-targeting-clinton-aides-struck-across-political-system Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 Clinton emails on trade deal will be held until after the election -- because transparency is for suckers: http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2016/06/06/obama-administration-state-dept-holding-clinton-emails-until-after-election-jake-tapper-the-lead.cnn/video/playlists/hillary-clinton/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts