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 10:13:39 AM  

Churchill2004: Again, the point is that Clinton was more than willing to use military force, and for domestic political gain at that.


And here it comes....
 
2013-06-21 10:13:47 AM  

TheBigJerk: 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.


Oh I agree completely.  Which of course is right back to the bed wetting pants shiatting antics they are so fond of.  Everything that isn't babby jeezus/rich old white man approved is skeeeery!  Must collect more money for the rich!  We don't know why, but they tell us it's what we must do!

I used to weep for them.  Now I just can't wait for them to finish imploding.  Even the shills here don't have much to say anymore.
 
2013-06-21 10:13:50 AM  
Seriously, what is with the pure hatred they have with Hillary?  That she was married to Bill?  That she is a woman?  Lawyer?  Honestly, is there a real rational reason?

/I'm serious
//I don't think she's any more of a lying coont than the rest of em
 
2013-06-21 10:13:51 AM  

IlGreven: 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.


Vietnam (and Korea too) was a police action.

Last declared war for a lotta countries was WW2.
 
2013-06-21 10:14:35 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: 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.


Hillary's campaign was run well. Her downfall was that no one saw Obama's fundraising system coming. She got unlucky in 2008.  Her ground game was just fine and again, was defeated by an opponent who pulled in hundreds of thousands of new volunteers. You can't plan for or defeat that level of influx. Saying she ran a bad 2008 campaign means you have no idea how that primary was run.
 
2013-06-21 10:14:58 AM  
You know what?  I'm gonna give him every single thing he mentions as a "Clinton War".  Because that means Clinton was the mega-uber-super-war god - and Reagan was a lily-livered hippie coont
 
2013-06-21 10:15:32 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?


Me?  Sure, I'd run.  Hillary? No way in hell.  She's going to spend the next three years with a giant flashing target on her back because everyone believes she's going to run (despite her saying she won't) and once the GOP has spent all their rage on her she'll reiterate that she doesn't want to run and a whole new flight of dem candidates will appear.
 
2013-06-21 10:16:22 AM  

jakomo002: Seriously, what is with the pure hatred they have with Hillary?  That she was married to Bill?  That she is a woman?  Lawyer?  Honestly, is there a real rational reason?

/I'm serious
//I don't think she's any more of a lying coont than the rest of em


Yes
Yes
Yes

She makes them very very scared.  Almost as much as the blah man in the WH right now.  Not because of any real threat, but because she's not a rich old white man.
 
2013-06-21 10:16:29 AM  
My early prediction is she will run, and she will win.  Unless the GOP has an electable candidate hidden somewhere.  Maybe Christie, if he can navigate the primaries without going all wing nutty.
 
2013-06-21 10:16:32 AM  

ShadowKamui: 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


She's utterly competent at managing and doesn't have a massive superiority complex; her campaign is going to pull ahead in the primaries.

You see... if you just make a statement without including an reasons or facts, it's easy to just state the counter argument and it's as valid as yours.  You are really just name calling at this point.
 
2013-06-21 10:17:02 AM  

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.


It allowed the poors and riffraff a chance to pull even with the wealthy. Why, they even had to tolerate some of the filthy unwashed at their country clubs.

Thank Hayek for Bush, though. He returned the world to its proper order.
 
2013-06-21 10:18:05 AM  

jakomo002: Seriously, what is with the pure hatred they have with Hillary?  That she was married to Bill?  That she is a woman?  Lawyer?  Honestly, is there a real rational reason?

/I'm serious
//I don't think she's any more of a lying coont than the rest of em


She killed a man while whitewater rafting or something. It has never been clear.
 
2013-06-21 10:18:51 AM  

max_pooper: So the new GOP talking points was that Clinton was a war monger? Really?


Who said anything about the GOP? I just don't think a man who bombed several countries and launched an illegal war in Serbia should be held up as an exemplar of "peace."

Philip Francis Queeg: Churchill2004: Again, the point is that Clinton was more than willing to use military force, and for domestic political gain at that.

And here it comes....


So Bill Clinton isn't a politician?
 
2013-06-21 10:19:01 AM  

WippitGuud: 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)


Clearly you've forgotten Poland.
 
2013-06-21 10:19:08 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: 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.


While we're being honest, let's remember that she ran a neck and neck race with Obama to the very end, and he is a magnificent campaigner.  Against anyone else it would have been a slam dunk.
 
2013-06-21 10:19:27 AM  

James!: 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?

Me?  Sure, I'd run.  Hillary? No way in hell.  She's going to spend the next three years with a giant flashing target on her back because everyone believes she's going to run (despite her saying she won't) and once the GOP has spent all their rage on her she'll reiterate that she doesn't want to run and a whole new flight of dem candidates will appear.


This is what I see coming too.  Although I'd vote for her, I dont' see her running.  But she'll be the shiny flashy thing the GOP chases for the next three years, and then they (GOP) will be caught totally off guard by the Dem that does run, and will trip over themselves trying to defend against the newcomer.  And they will fail miserably.  Again.


I can't wait!!!  :D
 
2013-06-21 10:19:51 AM  

Churchill2004: Which is equally true of Reagan


Out of curiosity, who, aside from you, pushed this comparison anyway? You seem to be the only person debating that angle.

Churchill2004: And I think it's ridiculous to say what happened in Serbia wasn't a war


Who said it wasn't? The point is that it was a particularly low-key war for the U.S. and resulted in few casualties. According the wiki article, in fact, there were only two U.S. deaths and they were non-combat; it would appear we mostly lost equipment.

You can't just ignore the intensity of the war if you're going to argue about the relative status of peacefulness. Two wars are not automatically equally violent just because they're both wars.

Churchill2004: Again, so only American casualties count


Again, yea, if you're going to talk about the peacefulness of AMERICA.

I can only assume your goalpost-shifting and strawmen are an implicit admittance that you're completely wrong?
 
2013-06-21 10:19:57 AM  

WTF Indeed: Philip Francis Queeg: 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.

Hillary's campaign was run well. Her downfall was that no one saw Obama's fundraising system coming. She got unlucky in 2008.  Her ground game was just fine and again, was defeated by an opponent who pulled in hundreds of thousands of new volunteers. You can't plan for or defeat that level of influx. Saying she ran a bad 2008 campaign means you have no idea how that primary was run.


Still wallowing in that complacency, huh?

She didn't get unlucky, she got beat, despite starting with almost all of the advantages.
 
2013-06-21 10:21:05 AM  

Churchill2004: What a myopic view


The Clinton era was, by any metric, relatively peaceful. That means relative to all of the other presidencies.

It's been my pleasure to help you understand this.
 
2013-06-21 10:22:20 AM  

phalamir: You know what?  I'm gonna give him every single thing he mentions as a "Clinton War".  Because that means Clinton was the mega-uber-super-war god - and Reagan was a lily-livered hippie coont


No, every American President for a long time has been a criminal, including Reagan and Clinton.

Not liking Clinton doesn't make me a Republican. I'm not. I hate American imperialism, regardless of party. I think it's setting the bar way too low to declare Clinton a "peaceful" President.
 
2013-06-21 10:22:57 AM  

ShadowKamui: 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


Against whom? If she declares, which I personally take as a given, no other Democrat will seriously run against her, so "screwing up" the primaries becomes a moot point. Then in the general the Bill & Barry Show will pound the GOP nominee into paste with all the bed wetting, pants shiating legitimate rape buffoonery the GOP have loaded themselves down with for the past 8 years.

It may disappoint you, but Hillary is going to be POTUS.
 
2013-06-21 10:23:08 AM  

Churchill2004: Philip Francis Queeg: Churchill2004: Again, the point is that Clinton was more than willing to use military force, and for domestic political gain at that.

And here it comes....

So Bill Clinton isn't a politician?


Did the Blessed St. Reagan the Peaceful use military force for domestic political gain?
 
2013-06-21 10:24:12 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: 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.


Even my mother, who worshiped Ronald Reagan like a god, could see that Grenada was nothing but a distraction. That was perhaps the single most embarrassing misuse of the American military in my lifetime, and that's saying something. It did lead to a bad Clint Eastwood movie, though, so there was that.
 
2013-06-21 10:24:38 AM  

Churchill2004: max_pooper: So the new GOP talking points was that Clinton was a war monger? Really?

Who said anything about the GOP? I just don't think a man who bombed several countries and launched an illegal war in Serbia should be held up as an exemplar of "peace."

Philip Francis Queeg: Churchill2004: Again, the point is that Clinton was more than willing to use military force, and for domestic political gain at that.

And here it comes....

So Bill Clinton isn't a politician?


So the fact that Bill Clinton is a politician proves your assertion that he used military force for domestic political gain?

That's some fine logic there, Lou.
 
2013-06-21 10:24:40 AM  

max_pooper: 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?


Around 2004, I distinctly remember hearing the military complaining that Clinton tied their hands and refused to send them into conflicts.  The accusation was that Clinton was too worried about the appearance of having Americans killed, and not interested in intervening to save the innocent.
 
2013-06-21 10:25:21 AM  

Stone Meadow: It may disappoint you, but Hillary is going to be POTUS.


Nope, I like Hillary but she isn't ever going to be president. Not even once, not even a little.
 
2013-06-21 10:26:04 AM  
Cons, there's a really easy way to win the 2016 election, but you'll never do it. I mean, it's really simple, and by looking at several polls, you'll come to the same conclusion, so long as you're honest with yourselves. If Republicans are so convinced Hillary Clinton will run for president, simply nominate a candidate....


...

...

...wait for it...


who's left of Hillary.

Have fun, GOP.
 
2013-06-21 10:27:01 AM  

skozlaw: I can only assume your goalpost-shifting and strawmen are an implicit admittance that you're completely wrong?


Keep in mind, you're talking to a fark indy who's previously claimed that most of the Tea Party were former Iraq-war protestors during the Bush era.
 
2013-06-21 10:27:25 AM  
the democratic pantsuit > the republican empty suit
 
2013-06-21 10:27:32 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Still wallowing in that complacency, huh?

She didn't get unlucky, she got beat, despite starting with almost all of the advantages.


Yeah, I'm still wallowing in the complacency of facts and historical trends.
 
2013-06-21 10:27:40 AM  

MFAWG: https://www.stophillary2016.org/

And that's it, the whole page.

I think the GOP should continue to spend lots of time and energy preparing to run against Hillary, sort of for the same reason I think they should spend lots of time and energy combating voter fraud:it keeps them busy not addressing the structural and ideological issues in their own party,

And for the LULZ, never forget the LULZ.


Not as good as Roger Stone's Citizens United Not Timid. That man is pure class.
 
2013-06-21 10:28:03 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Churchill2004: Philip Francis Queeg: Churchill2004: Again, the point is that Clinton was more than willing to use military force, and for domestic political gain at that.

And here it comes....

So Bill Clinton isn't a politician?

Did the Blessed St. Reagan the Peaceful use military force for domestic political gain?


Yes.
 
2013-06-21 10:29:04 AM  

Stone Meadow: Against whom? If she declares, which I personally take as a given, no other Democrat will seriously run against her, so "screwing up" the primaries becomes a moot point. Then in the general the Bill & Barry Show will pound the GOP nominee into paste with all the bed wetting, pants shiating legitimate rape buffoonery the GOP have loaded themselves down with for the past 8 years.

It may disappoint you, but Hillary is going to be POTUS.


Obama + Bill Clinton on the fundraising and GOTV trail would be freaking nuts.
 
2013-06-21 10:29:22 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: skozlaw: I can only assume your goalpost-shifting and strawmen are an implicit admittance that you're completely wrong?

Keep in mind, you're talking to a fark indy who's previously claimed that most of the Tea Party were former Iraq-war protestors during the Bush era.


What? I never said that.
 
2013-06-21 10:29:24 AM  

WTF Indeed: Philip Francis Queeg: Still wallowing in that complacency, huh?

She didn't get unlucky, she got beat, despite starting with almost all of the advantages.

Yeah, I'm still wallowing in the complacency of facts and historical trends.


You mean the fact that despite having most of the advantages, Hillary lost in 2008 because of the failings of her own campaign?
 
2013-06-21 10:30:23 AM  

Churchill2004: Philip Francis Queeg: Churchill2004: Philip Francis Queeg: Churchill2004: Again, the point is that Clinton was more than willing to use military force, and for domestic political gain at that.

And here it comes....

So Bill Clinton isn't a politician?

Did the Blessed St. Reagan the Peaceful use military force for domestic political gain?

Yes.


Odd that you never mentioned that while extolling the peaceful virtues of his administration.
 
2013-06-21 10:31:43 AM  

Stone Meadow: ShadowKamui: 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

Against whom? If she declares, which I personally take as a given, no other Democrat will seriously run against her, so "screwing up" the primaries becomes a moot point. Then in the general the Bill & Barry Show will pound the GOP nominee into paste with all the bed wetting, pants shiating legitimate rape buffoonery the GOP have loaded themselves down with for the past 8 years.

It may disappoint you, but Hillary is going to be POTUS.


You seriously think no other Dem is going to run against her?
 
2013-06-21 10:31:47 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Odd that you never mentioned that while extolling the peaceful virtues of his administration.


You fail at reading comprehension. You're the only one "extolling the peaceful virtues of [an] administration".
 
2013-06-21 10:31:50 AM  

WTF Indeed: Philip Francis Queeg: 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.

Hillary's campaign was run well. Her downfall was that no one saw Obama's fundraising system coming. She got unlucky in 2008.  Her ground game was just fine and again, was defeated by an opponent who pulled in hundreds of thousands of new volunteers. You can't plan for or defeat that level of influx. Saying she ran a bad 2008 campaign means you have no idea how that primary was run.


The increasingly absurdist "The primary in State X doesn't really count because Y" was pretty bad; and when they were pre-calling the reasons State X didn't count was just stupid - let's piss off primary voters by insulting them before the vote.  Also, "McCain is better than Obama" was crap too - you don't fellate the enemy.  I think she would have won the general if she won teh primary, but her campaign invented a couple of new ways to shoot itself in the foot.  And it stemmed from the assumed win - when Obama didn't fold, they went defensive and snotty, when they should have went with polite disdain (for the other guy, not the voters).  Organizationally, her campaign was good, and it was generally really on the ball - but when things went fuzzy, the campaign threw wobblers it didn't need to.  And it probably gave Obama a boost he wouldn't have gotten if her campaign had simply shut its mouth, politely patted him on the head, and then ignored him
 
2013-06-21 10:33:14 AM  

WTF Indeed: Is it just a webpage of Benghazi memes?


Driving in this morning I saw a bumper sticker that read:

"COWARD
You left them there to die
BENGHAZI"

The "O" in coward had Obama's little symbol. Right next to his Bush-Cheney sticker. I lol'ed.
 
2013-06-21 10:33:31 AM  
I don't want her to run. I'd rather she make Republicans think she's running, until they blow a ton of money trying to stop her and she says at the latest possible moment, "Nah, on second thought, I'll just retire instead."
 
2013-06-21 10:36:48 AM  

jakomo002: Seriously, what is with the pure hatred they have with Hillary?  That she was married to Bill?  That she is a woman?  Lawyer?  Honestly, is there a real rational reason?

/I'm serious
//I don't think she's any more of a lying coont than the rest of em


It's mainly because as First Lady, she made some comment about not wanting to be portrayed as baking cookies and sh*t, and she emphasized how she had a career of her own prior to Bill's election to President.

That was it. That was all it took. The Republicans have hated and feared her ever since. And I for one f*cking love it.
 
2013-06-21 10:37:16 AM  
After all of the GOP sexism during the last several years, we need a Hillary presidency more than ever. It will just make the GOP heads explodes.
 
2013-06-21 10:37:34 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.


And yet more American service members were killed in action under Reagan.
 
2013-06-21 10:38:08 AM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: James!: 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?

Me?  Sure, I'd run.  Hillary? No way in hell.  She's going to spend the next three years with a giant flashing target on her back because everyone believes she's going to run (despite her saying she won't) and once the GOP has spent all their rage on her she'll reiterate that she doesn't want to run and a whole new flight of dem candidates will appear.

This is what I see coming too.  Although I'd vote for her, I dont' see her running.  But she'll be the shiny flashy thing the GOP chases for the next three years, and then they (GOP) will be caught totally off guard by the Dem that does run, and will trip over themselves trying to defend against the newcomer.  And they will fail miserably.  Again.


I can't wait!!!  :D


That's what happened against Obama.  The GOP was completely preparing for a fight against Hillary. When Obama got the nomination, they were lost.  It was one of the reasons the GOP was pushing for Biden to resign after his "gaffes."  They probably figured Obama would nominate Hillary as his VP and they would be able to use all of the ammo they had on her.
 
2013-06-21 10:39:54 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: Obama + Bill Clinton on the fundraising and GOTV trail would be freaking nuts.



img.fark.net
 
2013-06-21 10:40:39 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: You mean the fact that despite having most of the advantages, Hillary lost in 2008 because of the failings of her own campaign?


Let me explain to you how federal primary campaigns work.  Say there are five candidates for office, all with name req, and all calling the same party people to enlist there help. Five candidates fighting over the same finite pool of volunteers. Those volunteers in turn canvass the same finite pool of primary voters.

In 2008 the Clinton campaign had the vast majority of those party people locked up months and years ahead of time figuring that the same rules will apply to that primary that apply to all other primaries forever. Then Obama comes along and pulls some people from that pool of volunteers, but also pulls thousands of new volunteers into the primary, who in turn pull in thousands of new voters into the primary.  The advantages you claim Hillary squandered were actually very aptly used in every primary, the problem was that Obama's machine dragged in far more volunteers and voters than Hillary could muster.
 
2013-06-21 10:40:46 AM  

PanicMan: max_pooper: 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?

Around 2004, I distinctly remember hearing the military complaining that Clinton tied their hands and refused to send them into conflicts.  The accusation was that Clinton was too worried about the appearance of having Americans killed, and not interested in intervening to save the innocent.


Some of the military guys have finally come around on Clinton. Some. There are a lot though who prove why the Defense Department shouldn't be your diplomacy arm, as it's too often used by our country.

/Hint: "bomb it" is not a diplomacy tactic.
 
2013-06-21 10:41:25 AM  
There's a lot of research to be done and questions to ask.  For example:

- When typing OMG BENGHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAZZZZZZIIIII, what is the proper number of A's to use?  Do you go all caps, bold, upsize the font, or all three?

- Should Fox News throw hissy fits about BENGHAZI 73 times a day, or stop being so conservative and move into triple digits?

- Can we learn from techniques used to bring down Hitler after the Holocaust became Hitler's BENGHAZI?
 
2013-06-21 10:42:27 AM  
dammit...Hillaryis45.com is taken!!
Good thing we still have hillaryis44.com...stupid man world.
 
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