Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   StopHillary2016.org is now a thing. From the creator, a Romney manager, "Obama's 4 year head start let him win" No, not being mentally incompetent helped him win. But go fight your windmills   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 189
    More: Amusing, Mitt Romney, political action committees, executive directors, Republican, Matt Rhoades  
•       •       •

786 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Jun 2013 at 9:14 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



189 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-21 09:42:19 AM  
Hillary is not going to run in 2016.
 
2013-06-21 09:42:30 AM  

FlashHarry: HotWingConspiracy: [www.rumproast.com image 480x239]

ok, please tell me that's real and from pre-election 2012.


It sure is. They actually announced it the day of the election, if I am recalling correctly. Never did go live, can't imagine why.
 
2013-06-21 09:42:46 AM  

ShadowKamui: Philip Francis Queeg: Churchill2004: Philip Francis Queeg: peace

Clinton fought more wars/interventions than Reagan.

Oh do tell what wars Clinton fought.

Uh Bosnia, Somalia and a bunch of random missile strikes


That's an interesting thought.  Off the top of my head:

Official Reagan:  Beirut, Grenada, Libya.
Unofficial Reagan:  Iran arms sales, Iraq arms sales, Contra support, Mujhadeen support

Official Clinton:  Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, al-Qaeda base strikes
Unofficial Clinton:  ?

Both:  Soviet proxy wars. More can of course be attributed to Reagan, but you can't rightly blame the president for maintaining status quo.
 
2013-06-21 09:42:59 AM  

Churchill2004: Philip Francis Queeg: Churchill2004: Philip Francis Queeg: peace

Clinton fought more wars/interventions than Reagan.

Oh do tell what wars Clinton fought.

Really? Somalia, Sudan, Haiti, Afghanistan, Iraq, Bosnia, Serbia/Kosovo.... vs. Libya and Lebanon for Reagan (feel free to tell me any I'm missing for Reagan).


Grenada
 
2013-06-21 09:43:49 AM  

James!: Hillary is not going to run in 2016.


Yeah she is. Unfortunately
 
2013-06-21 09:44:55 AM  
Homies4Hillary.com
biatchesforBiden.com
Castro2016.com
 
2013-06-21 09:45:10 AM  

Churchill2004: Philip Francis Queeg: Churchill2004: Philip Francis Queeg: peace

Clinton fought more wars/interventions than Reagan.

Oh do tell what wars Clinton fought.

Really? Somalia, Sudan, Haiti, Afghanistan, Iraq, Bosnia, Serbia/Kosovo.... vs. Libya and Lebanon for Reagan (feel free to tell me any I'm missing for Reagan).


Yeah, you're missing several for Reagan.

I'm surprised you forgot about his great achievement of invading Grenada as a distraction from the Beirut bombing.
 
2013-06-21 09:45:49 AM  
"Mentally incompetent"?  Are we just going to pretend that means what subby seems to think it does?
 
2013-06-21 09:45:55 AM  

Churchill2004: Philip Francis Queeg: Churchill2004: Philip Francis Queeg: peace

Clinton fought more wars/interventions than Reagan.

Oh do tell what wars Clinton fought.

Really? Somalia, Sudan, Haiti, Afghanistan, Iraq, Bosnia, Serbia/Kosovo.... vs. Libya and Lebanon for Reagan (feel free to tell me any I'm missing for Reagan).



If you set the bar that low, we'll have to include Grenada, Iran, Iraq, and Honduras to the account of the Blessed and Peaceful St. Reagan.
 
2013-06-21 09:45:58 AM  

ShadowKamui: Philip Francis Queeg: Churchill2004: Philip Francis Queeg: peace

Clinton fought more wars/interventions than Reagan.

Oh do tell what wars Clinton fought.

Uh Bosnia, Somalia and a bunch of random missile strikes


...there have been zero wars fought since Vietnam.

/Plenty of police actions, drone attacks, a few mass troop deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, support for conflicts around the world...but no wars.
 
2013-06-21 09:46:16 AM  
Everybody tying Clinton to Somalia...um, thing is, you know who initially sent US troops into Somalia, right? Now, it's easy to forget, given that it was a rare occasion when a Democratic president had to start his tenure in office cleaning up the mess from when the previous president was in over his head.
 
2013-06-21 09:46:49 AM  

ShadowKamui: Grenada


Yup, forgot that one. Clinton still beats Reagan for number of military interventions, though. According to those here though, Grenada wasn't "big enough" to be a "real war".

It's only from the post-Iraq perspective that the 90's look "peaceful" for America.
 
2013-06-21 09:46:57 AM  

WTF Indeed: James!: Hillary is not going to run in 2016.

Yeah she is. Unfortunately


Nope.
 
2013-06-21 09:47:53 AM  

ShadowKamui: Philip Francis Queeg: Churchill2004: Philip Francis Queeg: peace

Clinton fought more wars/interventions than Reagan.

Oh do tell what wars Clinton fought.

Uh Bosnia, Somalia and a bunch of random missile strikes


Weren't those NATO actions, and not exclusively a US decision? (unlike Iraq)
 
2013-06-21 09:48:13 AM  

Churchill2004: Really? Somalia, Sudan, Haiti, Afghanistan, Iraq, Bosnia, Serbia/Kosovo.... vs. Libya and Lebanon for Reagan (feel free to tell me any I'm missing for Reagan).


So, basically, a bunch of U.N. enforcement operations, most of which resulted in little to no casualties on the U.N. side and hardly any for the U.S., count as "wars" in your book?

Aside from Somalia, that's a pretty shiatty list if you're trying to argue against the "peace" angle, especially considering what proceeded him and it's just completely incomparable to most of the rest of the 20th century.

Yea, I'll take the Clinton years, thanks.
 
2013-06-21 09:48:34 AM  
Haiti

I wouldn't call our intervention in Haiti a war.
 
2013-06-21 09:48:44 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Iran, Iraq, and Honduras


None of these had American military involved- and I'm not trying to say Reagan was great. His wars sucked too. I'm saying it's a myth that Clinton was an unusually "peaceful" President.
 
2013-06-21 09:49:05 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: FlashHarry: HotWingConspiracy: [www.rumproast.com image 480x239]

ok, please tell me that's real and from pre-election 2012.

It sure is. They actually announced it the day of the election, if I am recalling correctly. Never did go live, can't imagine why.


so awesome.

you know, i used to hate the right-wing echo chamber, but now it brings me endless pleasure.
 
2013-06-21 09:52:16 AM  

James!: Nope.


She's already locked down all the Iowa committee members for her and her people are currently making calls into New York, New Jersey, and PA.  She's either running or is locking everyone ahead of time so the Clinton's can pick the next President of the United States.
 
2013-06-21 09:53:14 AM  
stophillary is a website consisting of nothing but a non-flattering picture of Hillary Clinton, two short paragraphs and a pledge form which allows you to enter credit card info.  How can I get into that business?
 
2013-06-21 09:54:10 AM  
Da fuq is that headline even trying to say? Headline is shiat, submitter.
 
2013-06-21 09:54:38 AM  

Churchill2004: Philip Francis Queeg: Iran, Iraq, and Honduras

None of these had American military involved- and I'm not trying to say Reagan was great. His wars sucked too. I'm saying it's a myth that Clinton was an unusually "peaceful" President.


Yes, as a matter of fact they did have US military involved. You might recall that we were blowing things up on a pretty regular basis in the Persian Gulf during the Iran-Iraq war, and occasionally got blown up in return (i.e. USS Stark). As for Honduras, we deployed troops from the 7th Infantry Division and the 82nd Airborne in March of 1988.
 
2013-06-21 09:55:22 AM  

WippitGuud: Weren't those NATO actions, and not exclusively a US decision? (unlike Iraq)


Almost everything on his list was NATO intervention (although, as usual, we were the bulk of forces in those types of operations) or cruise missile strikes and most of them resulted in few if any casualties for NATO forces in general and our troops in particular. I'd be willing to bet that in most of those cases more U.S. soldiers were injured or killed in routine training during the time periods of those 'wars' he rattled off.

Compared to the prior century what with World I, II, Korea, Vietnam, numerous skirmishes in South America, Libya, Lebanon and significant internal strife in the 60s and 70s and the two wars that followed from 2001 to today, you'd have to be pretty damn stupid to argue that Clinton's tenure, particularly the last 3/4 or so of it, weren't an unusually quiet time.
 
2013-06-21 09:56:07 AM  

WTF Indeed: James!: Nope.

She's already locked down all the Iowa committee members for her and her people are currently making calls into New York, New Jersey, and PA.  She's either running or is locking everyone ahead of time so the Clinton's can pick the next President of the United States.


I find the second one more likely.
 
2013-06-21 09:57:13 AM  

Halli: Romney had been running for the presidency since 2005. Didn't help him.

 
2013-06-21 09:57:45 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2013-06-21 09:58:30 AM  
Romney started running for president in 2005, halfway through his term as governor.  His campaign is whining about Obama's headstart?
 
2013-06-21 09:58:56 AM  
"America Rising"? They're running Bob Dole again?

img.fark.net
 
2013-06-21 09:59:32 AM  
Another misfired Republican strategy.  They are focusing solely on the other side's leaders without building up any leaders of their own.  Who do they support?  Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are not going to run.  If the focus is all about Hillary, she already dominates the discussion and will win.

That leaves the Republicans with Bobby Jindal (idiot) and Marco Rubio (idiot).  Good luck with those guys.
 
2013-06-21 09:59:48 AM  
The stophillary site is brought to us by the AmericaRisingPAC which nothing but a website that asks for money and promises they'll provide some content in the future.  Gotta love the GOP  money raising scam complex.
 
2013-06-21 10:00:59 AM  

skozlaw: Almost everything on his list was NATO intervention


I don't see what difference this makes. If we'd had NATO on our side in Iraq it wouldn't have made the war any less stupid.

skozlaw: or cruise missile strikes and most of them resulted in few if any casualties for NATO forces in general and our troops in particular.


Only an American could say launching cruise missiles and killing people is "not big enough" to be a "real war".

skozlaw: I'd be willing to bet that in most of those cases more U.S. soldiers were injured or killed in routine training during the time periods of those 'wars' he rattled off


So only American casualties count?

skozlaw: particularly the last 3/4 or so of it


Serbia would like a word with you.
 
2013-06-21 10:01:10 AM  
What difference does it make now! I say lets make Chelsea Clinton the next Ambassador to Libya
 
2013-06-21 10:02:57 AM  

WTF Indeed: James!: Nope.

She's already locked down all the Iowa committee members for her and her people are currently making calls into New York, New Jersey, and PA.  She's either running or is locking everyone ahead of time so the Clinton's can pick the next President of the United States.


Probably her only real challenge might be Julian Castro, which I would much rather see him become her Vice Presidential pick. Put him in the stable for a few years, let him have two terms of executive branch experience then you have a prime candidate right in the middle of a latino surge in demographics. You have the transition of Obama to Clinton to Castro, which are three strong candidates if they can keep their noses clean. Because lets be honest, 2016 is gonna be a powerhouse year for Democrats. Obamacare is going to be in effect for two years, Afghanistan is gonna be done, the deficit will be lower, you have tons of money already established in the coffers, permanent grassroots organizations for national campaigns, and most importantly TWO Democratic Presidents who have favorable ratings. If the republicans cannot pick up steam then they will not be able to step outside the arena of state politics for a good while. 

/State politics is the only area where republicans seem to be gaining ground.
 
2013-06-21 10:03:35 AM  

James!: I find the second one more likely.


Imagine yourself in 2015. You're leading in most polls, the GOP candidates are pathetic at best, and you can raise $100m at the drop of a hat. You have a choice between running for President(something you've already done, and done well) or giving it all up to someone else. Do you really think a Clinton would give up the easiest shot at President anyone has had since Nixon in '72?
 
2013-06-21 10:04:37 AM  

Rapmaster2000: Philip Francis Queeg: America Rising was formed to prevent Americans from ever having to see another Clinton in the White House.

Yes, the peace and prosperity of the Clinton years truly was a dark time in American history.

[www.joeydevilla.com image 620x458]
Nice foresight, Onion.


I'm convinced that article was written by a time traveler.
 
2013-06-21 10:05:09 AM  
Obama had a 4 year head start on Romney?
The same Romney who also started campaigning for the Presidency in 2008?
The one who was also unemployed betwixt 2008 and 2012, and didn't have to spend time on little things like running the country?
That's the Mitt Romney were talking about, right?
 
2013-06-21 10:05:27 AM  

James!: WTF Indeed: James!: Hillary is not going to run in 2016.

Yeah she is. Unfortunately

Nope.


To what flash of insight do you credit this unskewed conclusion?
 
2013-06-21 10:05:38 AM  

Churchill2004: I'm saying it's a myth that Clinton was an unusually "peaceful" President.


You're saying something that's not true. You can't just rattle off a list of things and completely ignore their intensity then declare yourself correct solely by quantity. The vast majority of things you listed off had very small theaters of operations that lasted only briefly and were NATO operations to boot. None resulted in mass causalities and as a whole there were only a few U.S. casualties at all. The Haiti example is particularly bullshiat since the entire thing was resolved before the damned troops even landed. And even the one particularly violent example you listed, Somalia, resulted in only about 100 U.S. casualties including wounded.

You're full of crap. The United States is constantly enforcing its interests around the world and that didn't change under Clinton, but what you didn't see under Clinton, which you did see under many other administration through the 20th and 21st centuries, were any large, full-scale conflicts, particularly after Mogadishu made him gun-shy about putting boots on the ground in dangerous situations.

Hell, more U.S. casualties occurred just in Grenada than in the entire 9 years we spent in Bosnia. More Americans were killed in Beirut than in all the Clinton interventions combined.

Again, I say, you're full of crap.
 
2013-06-21 10:06:26 AM  
Hillary Clinton for Senator from Illinois, 2016. She'd crush Mark Kirk in the election and be able to serve 2 or 3 terms before retiring. That'd be a much better use of her time than fighting a losing battle for POTUS.

She can't win. Too much baggage. Too old in 2016. GOP hates her with a passion.
 
2013-06-21 10:06:27 AM  

tinderfitles: Probably her only real challenge might be Julian Castro, which I would much rather see him become her Vice Presidential pick. Put him in the stable for a few years, let him have two terms of executive branch experience then you have a prime candidate right in the middle of a latino surge in demographics. You have the transition of Obama to Clinton to Castro, which are three strong candidates if they can keep their noses clean. Because lets be honest, 2016 is gonna be a powerhouse year for Democrats. Obamacare is going to be in effect for two years, Afghanistan is gonna be done, the deficit will be lower, you have tons of money already established in the coffers, permanent grassroots organizations for national campaigns, and most importantly TWO Democratic Presidents who have favorable ratings. If the republicans cannot pick up steam then they will not be able to step outside the arena of state politics for a good while.


Who knew Julian Castro was a Farker? Seriously though, you have no shot.
 
2013-06-21 10:06:28 AM  
I think she'll run unless health problems prevent it. But it'd be hilarious if she fakes it long enough to distract the GOP and leave it completely unprepared for the actual Democratic candidate.
 
2013-06-21 10:06:30 AM  
I just want to see Hillary win so I can watch the TeaTards wet themselves for another 4 years.
 
2013-06-21 10:07:04 AM  

WTF Indeed: You have a choice between running for President(something you've already done, and done well) or giving it all up to someone else.


Let's be honest, Hillary did not run well in 2008. Her campaign was pretty much constantly in reaction modes, one step behind the Obama campaign. Her campaign neglected the smaller primary states to a large degree, and they simply did not build up the ground organization they needed to win. They assumed they would get the nomination, and that made them very complacent.
 
2013-06-21 10:07:09 AM  

Churchill2004: So only American casualties count?


When you're talking about peace in America, yea, any more dumb questions?
 
2013-06-21 10:07:32 AM  

Churchill2004: ShadowKamui: Grenada

Yup, forgot that one. Clinton still beats Reagan for number of military interventions, though. According to those here though, Grenada wasn't "big enough" to be a "real war".

It's only from the post-Iraq perspective that the 90's look "peaceful" for America.


Or, you know, a post-Vietnam perspective.

I don't really remember anyone saying that Clinton's era was more peaceful than Reagan's. Your brought up that canard.
 
2013-06-21 10:07:45 AM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: MichiganFTL: Satan's Bunny Slippers: I.....I don't even know what to say to things like this anymore.  the GOP has completely, collectively, absolutely lost it's entire frikkin' mind.  This kind of pants wetting, bed shiatting crying to mommie antic is now their norm.  And they will lose again, and blame everyone but themselves, just like they do now.

I need more coffee, or vodak, or something.  Maybe acid.

Well thanks for playing into their strategy jerk. They know if they're insane long enough they'll drive you to drink acid/kill yourself and then they'll have one less voter against them.

Now that I've mopped the coffee off the keys...thank you for making their diabolical plan clear and saving me from furthering their cause!  How could I have been so blind?


Actually, smart money says this is just a regular old shake-down, collecting money from rubes who have hated Hillary since they were first told to in the 90s and don't even know WHY, they just do.
 
2013-06-21 10:09:01 AM  
"Obama's 4 year head start let him win"

Romney has been running for President longer than 4 years.
 
2013-06-21 10:11:15 AM  

skozlaw: The United States is constantly enforcing its interests around the world and that didn't change under Clinton, but what you didn't see under Clinton, which you did see under many other administration through the 20th and 21st centuries, were any large, full-scale conflicts


Which is equally true of Reagan. Again, the point is that Clinton was more than willing to use military force, and for domestic political gain at that. And I think it's ridiculous to say what happened in Serbia wasn't a war- and an unconstitutional war at that.

skozlaw: Hell, more U.S. casualties occurred just in Grenada than in the entire 9 years we spent in Bosnia. More Americans were killed in Beirut than in all the Clinton interventions combined.


Again, so only American casualties count? What a myopic view.
 
2013-06-21 10:13:05 AM  

WTF Indeed: James!: I find the second one more likely.

Imagine yourself in 2015. You're leading in most polls, the GOP candidates are pathetic at best, and you can raise $100m at the drop of a hat. You have a choice between running for President(something you've already done, and done well) or giving it all up to someone else. Do you really think a Clinton would give up the easiest shot at President anyone has had since Nixon in '72?


She's utterly incompetent at managing and has a massive superiority complex; her campain is going to screw up again in the primaries
 
2013-06-21 10:13:10 AM  

Churchill2004: skozlaw: The United States is constantly enforcing its interests around the world and that didn't change under Clinton, but what you didn't see under Clinton, which you did see under many other administration through the 20th and 21st centuries, were any large, full-scale conflicts

Which is equally true of Reagan. Again, the point is that Clinton was more than willing to use military force, and for domestic political gain at that. And I think it's ridiculous to say what happened in Serbia wasn't a war- and an unconstitutional war at that.

skozlaw: Hell, more U.S. casualties occurred just in Grenada than in the entire 9 years we spent in Bosnia. More Americans were killed in Beirut than in all the Clinton interventions combined.

Again, so only American casualties count? What a myopic view.


So the new GOP talking points was that Clinton was a war monger? Really?
 
Displayed 50 of 189 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report