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.

(Washington Post)   This is coming way out of left/center/right field, but do you know that Hillary is thinking of running for "the" office in 2016? Somebody needs to get some players on the field to catch this   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 66
    More: Obvious, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, right fielders, Bill Clinton  
•       •       •

523 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Mar 2014 at 10:25 AM (18 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-23 08:50:34 AM
This country has gone so far right the last 30 years, we could use a real liberal for a while.
 
2014-03-23 09:05:42 AM
Too old
Too mentally unstable
Too "stuck in the 1990s."

Can we lay the Baby Boomer generation's "leadership" to rest with W and never vote for another one again? What possibly good can come from a 70 year old Hillary Clinton presidency except ensuring America stays stuck wishing it were 50 years ago?
 
2014-03-23 10:27:55 AM

edmo: This country has gone so far right the last 30 years, we could use a real liberal for a while.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAH A HHAHAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaa

GASPGASP

You know she lost in '08 primarily because she has pretty shiatty liberal credentials, right?
 
2014-03-23 10:32:52 AM
The Fark Left likes saying this kind of thing, but then will defend without question, every single thing Obama or Clinton has ever done. It leads me to believe that you are just party fanbois, or are not so liberal yourselves.
 
2014-03-23 10:34:00 AM

edmo: This country has gone so far right the last 30 years, we could use a real liberal for a while.


We'll need a couple of full-blown Greenpeace-loving tree-hugging free-love communists in the primaries to balance out the reactionaries the GOP is going to run, but I'm not sure we even make those any more.
 
2014-03-23 10:34:24 AM

Nemo's Brother: The Fark Left likes saying this kind of thing, but then will defend without question, every single thing Obama or Clinton has ever done. It leads me to believe that you are just party fanbois, or are not so liberal yourselves.


It's really the (supposedly) LieBrul Mainstream Media and Conservatives who keep pushing her as a candidate.

Actual Libruls are looking at Elizabeth Warren.
 
2014-03-23 10:36:32 AM
FTFA: Hillary Clinton added, "I wouldn't mind one of those grandchildren we've been talking about,"


farm8.staticflickr.com

 
2014-03-23 10:37:16 AM
Let's hope if she pulls a Mario, it ends more like 1992 than 1988.
 
2014-03-23 10:41:59 AM

Nemo's Brother: The Fark Left likes saying this kind of thing, but then will defend without question, every single thing Obama or Clinton has ever done. It leads me to believe that you are just party fanbois, or are not so liberal yourselves.


No, I'm pretty sure we're smart enough to know that Clinton pulled the first bricks from the wall between banks and investment firms, which started the avalanche leading to the mortgage collapse. We're also not terribly happy with Obama for failing to punish anyone involved in escalating said avalanche, or for not doing more to resolve the VA medical claims backlog.

Let's just put it all into perspective. Neither of them put two wars on a credit card, one of which has lead to the deaths of around two hundred thousand civilians.
 
2014-03-23 10:46:29 AM

MFAWG: You know she lost in '08 primarily because she has pretty shiatty liberal credentials, right?


Also, I'd say a huge contributing factor was something that would have plagued her presidency if it hadn't ended her run in the primary: the hiring of incompetent morons who have been politically connected to her.

pbs.twimg.com


"What do you mean California isn't winner take all?"
 
2014-03-23 10:49:28 AM

Nemo's Brother: The Fark Left likes saying this kind of thing, but then will defend without question, every single thing Obama or Clinton has ever done. It leads me to believe that you are just party fanbois, or are not so liberal yourselves.


This statement tells the rest of us you only pay attention to whatever fits in your confirmation bias. Liberals criticize things Obama and Clinton have done
 
2014-03-23 10:55:48 AM

Generation_D: Can we lay the Baby Boomer generation's "leadership" to rest with W and never vote for another one again?


Other than Obama, you mean? If you're going to sputter with irrational hatred at the mere mention of the words "baby boomer," you ought to at least know how to identify one when you see him.
 
2014-03-23 10:59:59 AM
I want to hear from Fox about how mixing menstrual cycles and access to nuclear weapons is dangerous.
 
2014-03-23 11:00:50 AM

BMulligan: Generation_D: Can we lay the Baby Boomer generation's "leadership" to rest with W and never vote for another one again?

Other than Obama, you mean? If you're going to sputter with irrational hatred at the mere mention of the words "baby boomer," you ought to at least know how to identify one when you see him.


There's a pretty strong argument to consider Obama an early Gen X'er, being born in '61 and not raised in a very conservative/traditional family.
 
2014-03-23 11:00:58 AM
Her numbers are impressive and the competition in both parties rather uninspiring. I'm not much of a Hilary fan nor a fan of political dynasties but if she does run, I hope she picks a very good young VP and uses her first term to set them up to run in 2020 without her going for a second term.  She'll be 72 in 2020, which will make her very vulnerable to a young 'change' candidate like Bush was when a sax playing dark horse from Arkansas came in like a breath of fresh air.
 
2014-03-23 11:05:10 AM

BMulligan: Other than Obama, you mean? If you're going to sputter with irrational hatred at the mere mention of the words "baby boomer," you ought to at least know how to identify one when you see him.


Depending on the source, 1961 is one of the dividing lines between Boomers and Gen-Xers. 1964 is the latest year I've seen but some also consider 1958 to be the end of the baby boom. Probably best to consider him from a transitional generation period. It's stretching things quite a bit to associate his birth with the post-WWII era, which is the defining characteristic of the Boomers.
 
2014-03-23 11:06:51 AM

EngineerAU: Her numbers are impressive and the competition in both parties rather uninspiring. I'm not much of a Hilary fan nor a fan of political dynasties but if she does run, I hope she picks a very good young VP and uses her first term to set them up to run in 2020 without her going for a second term.  She'll be 72 in 2020, which will make her very vulnerable to a young 'change' candidate like Bush was when a sax playing dark horse from Arkansas came in like a breath of fresh air.


Or pick John Huntsman, just to make half the fundies in the country do a double-take. The GOP media machine would be so focused on painting him as a traitor that they would forget to talk about how good Rand Paul will be as president...

/nah, I'd rather see Huntsman as Secretary of State
 
2014-03-23 11:10:48 AM

edmo: This country has gone so far right the last 30 years, we could use a real liberal for a while.


And if you think Hillary is a liberal, I've got a bridge to sell you.
 
2014-03-23 11:12:00 AM

EngineerAU: BMulligan: Other than Obama, you mean? If you're going to sputter with irrational hatred at the mere mention of the words "baby boomer," you ought to at least know how to identify one when you see him.

Depending on the source, 1961 is one of the dividing lines between Boomers and Gen-Xers. 1964 is the latest year I've seen but some also consider 1958 to be the end of the baby boom. Probably best to consider him from a transitional generation period. It's stretching things quite a bit to associate his birth with the post-WWII era, which is the defining characteristic of the Boomers.


For me, it's a cultural dividing line. Those of us born between 1946 and 1964 have certain cultural touchstones in common, mostly Vietnam - even though the war was over before I was old enough to be drafted, I certainly grew believing I would be sent to Vietnam, and I had peer whose older siblings or cousins served. Also our relationship to the first wave of post-Elvis rock and roll, and the impact of Watergate and the Nixon presidency.
 
2014-03-23 11:16:13 AM

MFAWG: Nemo's Brother: The Fark Left likes saying this kind of thing, but then will defend without question, every single thing Obama or Clinton has ever done. It leads me to believe that you are just party fanbois, or are not so liberal yourselves.

It's really the (supposedly) LieBrul Mainstream Media and Conservatives who keep pushing her as a candidate.

Actual Libruls are looking at Elizabeth Warren.


Warren said she doesn't want to run, and seeing the mud flinging in her senate bid, I don't blame her.

Liberals are going to have to look elsewhere.
 
2014-03-23 11:42:27 AM

Nemo's Brother: The Fark Left likes saying this kind of thing, but then will defend without question, every single thing Obama or Clinton has ever done. It leads me to believe that you are just party fanbois, or are not so liberal yourselves.


I'm probably on the "FARK Left", but I can point at lots of things that Clinton & Obama have messed up:

1.) Health Care reform ( didn't go far enough, giveaway to the insurance companies )
2.) NAFTA ( H.Ross Perot was right about this...)
3.) The Middle-East ( continuing the same dumb interventionist policies that the GOP started...)
4.) Expanding the surveillance state within US borders (again, just like the GOP Presidents)
5.) Tacitly approving housing loans to people who shouldn't be buying houses, on a really big scale... ( I blame Clinton & the Big Banks for this one)

/ still better than GWB, sadly enough...
 
2014-03-23 11:49:28 AM
Well, given that he *was* the first man to climb Everest, this *would* be quite another feather in Sir Edmund's cap...

Oh? Some other Hillary? Never mind...
 
2014-03-23 11:51:26 AM

MFAWG: edmo: This country has gone so far right the last 30 years, we could use a real liberal for a while.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAH A HHAHAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaa

GASPGASP

You know she lost in '08 primarily because she has pretty shiatty liberal credentials, right?


Oh knock it off. You're not even trying.

Let me give you a refresher:

Republicans= far right
Democrats= center-right

Sorry if that reality check makes you mad or something.
 
2014-03-23 11:57:13 AM
Sorry quoted the wrong person.

/derp
 
2014-03-23 11:58:19 AM

Nemo's Brother: The Fark Left likes saying this kind of thing, but then will defend without question, every single thing Obama or Clinton has ever done. It leads me to believe that you are just party fanbois, or are not so liberal yourselves.


<giantstrawman.jpg>
 
2014-03-23 12:03:52 PM

Nemo's Brother: The Fark Left likes saying this kind of thing, but then will defend without question, every single thing Obama or Clinton has ever done. It leads me to believe that you are just party fanbois, or are not so liberal yourselves.


Do you ever post anything that isn't just LIBS LIBS LIBS?
 
2014-03-23 12:04:18 PM

Peter von Nostrand: Nemo's Brother: The Fark Left likes saying this kind of thing, but then will defend without question, every single thing Obama or Clinton has ever done. It leads me to believe that you are just party fanbois, or are not so liberal yourselves.

This statement tells the rest of us you only pay attention to whatever fits in your confirmation bias. Liberals criticize things Obama and Clinton have done


Don't let him derail the thread. He knows people criticize democrats for real things. He's lying. He knows he's lying. He's trying to turn the thread into a list of negative things about the democrats and the left by lying that no one ever criticizes them so to counter that claim people post their dislike about the party. So now you have all the valid grievances of the party in one spot as the center of the discussion. Its his way of making a 'Democrats are bad' thread with the help of supporters.
 
2014-03-23 12:25:55 PM
If the Republicans take the Senate this year, they'll immediately begin campaigning against Hillary with nonstop Benghazi investigations. She'll spend the next 2 years on the witness stand, Fox News and the AM radio talk shows will discuss the hearings every day, and the Koch brothers will use footage from the hearings in a 2-year-long nationwide television ad campaign.
 
2014-03-23 12:30:54 PM

Notabunny: If the Republicans take the Senate this year, they'll immediately begin campaigning against Hillary with nonstop Benghazi investigations. She'll spend the next 2 years on the witness stand, Fox News and the AM radio talk shows will discuss the hearings every day, and the Koch brothers will use footage from the hearings in a 2-year-long nationwide television ad campaign.


Even if they don't take the Senate, if Hillary runs the next two years of GOP campaigning is going to be Benghazi'd up the Benghazi with a Benghazi-covered Benghazi.
 
2014-03-23 12:33:03 PM

Notabunny: If the Republicans take the Senate this year, they'll immediately begin campaigning against Hillary with nonstop Benghazi investigations. She'll spend the next 2 years on the witness stand, Fox News and the AM radio talk shows will discuss the hearings every day, and the Koch brothers will use footage from the hearings in a 2-year-long nationwide television ad campaign.


If the republicans take the Senate, then the public hasn't been paying any farking attention.
 
2014-03-23 12:33:45 PM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: I want to hear from Fox about how mixing menstrual cycles and access to nuclear weapons is dangerous.


Probably not a problem...
 
2014-03-23 12:34:59 PM

NeverDrunk23: Notabunny: If the Republicans take the Senate this year, they'll immediately begin campaigning against Hillary with nonstop Benghazi investigations. She'll spend the next 2 years on the witness stand, Fox News and the AM radio talk shows will discuss the hearings every day, and the Koch brothers will use footage from the hearings in a 2-year-long nationwide television ad campaign.

If the republicans take the Senate, then the public hasn't been paying any farking attention.


No kidding... Republicans can't seem to go a full day without saying or doing something stupid/horrible.
 
2014-03-23 12:41:01 PM

Alphax: NeverDrunk23: Notabunny: If the Republicans take the Senate this year, they'll immediately begin campaigning against Hillary with nonstop Benghazi investigations. She'll spend the next 2 years on the witness stand, Fox News and the AM radio talk shows will discuss the hearings every day, and the Koch brothers will use footage from the hearings in a 2-year-long nationwide television ad campaign.

If the republicans take the Senate, then the public hasn't been paying any farking attention.

No kidding... Republicans can't seem to go a full day without saying or doing something stupid/horrible.


And yet despite getting worse, they are predicted to win. How does that work? Is the right simply the default stance of the country? It seems people are far more forgiving to the right's screw ups.
 
2014-03-23 12:45:39 PM
Feingold/Warren

In some alternate universe, I suppose.
 
2014-03-23 12:55:08 PM

Notabunny: If the Republicans take the Senate this year, they'll immediately begin campaigning against Hillary with nonstop Benghazi investigations. She'll spend the next 2 years on the witness stand, Fox News and the AM radio talk shows will discuss the hearings every day, and the Koch brothers will use footage from the hearings in a 2-year-long nationwide television ad campaign.


And then by that point Hillary would lose the primaries to some Democrat people really want to vote for and the right will look very very sheepish.
 
2014-03-23 12:58:56 PM

rjakobi: Notabunny: If the Republicans take the Senate this year, they'll immediately begin campaigning against Hillary with nonstop Benghazi investigations. She'll spend the next 2 years on the witness stand, Fox News and the AM radio talk shows will discuss the hearings every day, and the Koch brothers will use footage from the hearings in a 2-year-long nationwide television ad campaign.

And then by that point Hillary would lose the primaries to some Democrat people really want to vote for and the right will look very very sheepish.


Sherrod Brown / Elizabeth Warren 2016
 
2014-03-23 01:02:24 PM

Nemo's Brother: The Fark Left likes saying this kind of thing, but then will defend without question, every single thing Obama or Clinton has ever done. It leads me to believe that you are just party fanbois, or are not so liberal yourselves.


It would appear that you aren't really paying attention because criticism of Obama and Clinton is rampant among Democrats in general and Liberals in particular, but in fact you are just lying.
 
2014-03-23 01:03:09 PM

clkeagle: Nemo's Brother: The Fark Left likes saying this kind of thing, but then will defend without question, every single thing Obama or Clinton has ever done. It leads me to believe that you are just party fanbois, or are not so liberal yourselves.

No, I'm pretty sure we're smart enough to know that Clinton pulled the first bricks from the wall between banks and investment firms, which started the avalanche leading to the mortgage collapse. We're also not terribly happy with Obama for failing to punish anyone involved in escalating said avalanche, or for not doing more to resolve the VA medical claims backlog.

Let's just put it all into perspective. Neither of them put two wars on a credit card, one of which has lead to the deaths of around two hundred thousand civilians.


Bill killed more civilians with sanctions against Iraq, and daily bombing runs. But thanks for proving that dude's point.
 
2014-03-23 01:20:56 PM
Meh, 2016 is so old and busted.

The 24 hour news media needs to start focusing on the real question: Who will run against her in 2020?

Only 2417 days left so start speculating!
 
2014-03-23 01:27:35 PM

clkeagle: BMulligan: Generation_D: Can we lay the Baby Boomer generation's "leadership" to rest with W and never vote for another one again?

Other than Obama, you mean? If you're going to sputter with irrational hatred at the mere mention of the words "baby boomer," you ought to at least know how to identify one when you see him.

There's a pretty strong argument to consider Obama an early Gen X'er, being born in '61 and not raised in a very conservative/traditional family.


1964 would be the end of the boomers.

/same age as the President
 
2014-03-23 01:29:20 PM

Forbidden Doughnut: Nemo's Brother: The Fark Left likes saying this kind of thing, but then will defend without question, every single thing Obama or Clinton has ever done. It leads me to believe that you are just party fanbois, or are not so liberal yourselves.

I'm probably on the "FARK Left", but I can point at lots of things that Clinton & Obama have messed up:

1.) Health Care reform ( didn't go far enough, giveaway to the insurance companies )
2.) NAFTA ( H.Ross Perot was right about this...)
3.) The Middle-East ( continuing the same dumb interventionist policies that the GOP started...)
4.) Expanding the surveillance state within US borders (again, just like the GOP Presidents)
5.) Tacitly approving housing loans to people who shouldn't be buying houses, on a really big scale... ( I blame Clinton & the Big Banks for this one)

/ still better than GWB, sadly enough...


As a Conservative,

1) Health Care Reform was a give away to the insurance industry. It was my same problem with Romney's plan in Mass. I despise the folderol that has accompanied this mess, because you have folks on the Right complaining bitterly about all the wrong things, and worse, with a willful misrepresentation that it was "forced" when it passed through due process. It WAS the compromise, and too many folks seem to forget that. They are arguing over slight percentage points of profit, and ignoring the give away aspect which KEEPS insurance companies in the game.

2) NAFTA has been a problem for me since Olympia Snowe and her band failed to stop it in the Clinton years. It is terrible for business in the US.

3) Middle East policy has been terrible for a lot of years, no matter what side the aisle you're on. Interventionist policies, backing dictators, abandoning Afghanistan after they booted the Russians was piss poor policy, and the dismantling of the most progressive and democratic regimes to reinstall the Shah in Iran which only gave further rise to Fundamentalists throughout the Middle East. It's a mess, and you don't have to be Liberal to recognize that.

4) "Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little Temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" And damn both sides of the aisle for making England seem like a fair and tranquil land for privacy.

5) The markets unfettered and allowed to run wild with securities based on bets that they would fail, and to commoditize them was a brilliant stratagem that got markets across the globe into trouble. It was a huge game of hot potato and was damned foolish. We can thank the Brits for the idea, but you have to give the American markets for making it into a "profitable" trade. The drive for blind deregulation without thought to potential cost is damned stupid, and it's not for one side of the aisle or the other to recognize. It's a matter of math and an understanding of human greed.

Hillary is a nice place marker. She attracts attention, folks are spending money already to sling mud, and those are dollars spent and essentially wasted. It keeps the machine running I supposed, and the right folks get their palms greased, but in all honesty, I won't vote for the woman if given my druthers. I'm not a fan of her--though I can recognize that she isn't the Debbil herself, and has done some good. I don't think she's right for the Presidency in any way, shape, or form. But then again, we don't have a candidate for the Republican side--at least none of the "front runners" who keep poking their heads up are anywhere near sane nor viable. I left the party in disgust, but that is because the party continues to embrace radical policies in foreign affairs, in domestic policy, and certainly pants on head retardedness in economic matters. We NEED a viable third party option that is actually Conservative, and not the Radical Right disguised as a party of "Liberty!" or a NeoFeudalist dream that would press the nation into further Corporatism.
 
2014-03-23 01:31:24 PM

s2s2s2: clkeagle: Nemo's Brother: The Fark Left likes saying this kind of thing, but then will defend without question, every single thing Obama or Clinton has ever done. It leads me to believe that you are just party fanbois, or are not so liberal yourselves.

No, I'm pretty sure we're smart enough to know that Clinton pulled the first bricks from the wall between banks and investment firms, which started the avalanche leading to the mortgage collapse. We're also not terribly happy with Obama for failing to punish anyone involved in escalating said avalanche, or for not doing more to resolve the VA medical claims backlog.

Let's just put it all into perspective. Neither of them put two wars on a credit card, one of which has lead to the deaths of around two hundred thousand civilians.

Bill killed more civilians with sanctions against Iraq, and daily bombing runs. But thanks for proving that dude's point.


Estimates of Iraqi casualties as a result of Clinton's bombing campaign in Iraq: < 2,000
Estimates of Iraqi casualties as a result of the Bush instigated Iraqi war: 100,000-500,000 depending on source

Only to a conservative could 2,000 be a larger number than 100,000.
 
2014-03-23 01:33:19 PM

s2s2s2: clkeagle: Nemo's Brother: The Fark Left likes saying this kind of thing, but then will defend without question, every single thing Obama or Clinton has ever done. It leads me to believe that you are just party fanbois, or are not so liberal yourselves.

No, I'm pretty sure we're smart enough to know that Clinton pulled the first bricks from the wall between banks and investment firms, which started the avalanche leading to the mortgage collapse. We're also not terribly happy with Obama for failing to punish anyone involved in escalating said avalanche, or for not doing more to resolve the VA medical claims backlog.

Let's just put it all into perspective. Neither of them put two wars on a credit card, one of which has lead to the deaths of around two hundred thousand civilians.

Bill killed more civilians with sanctions against Iraq, and daily bombing runs. But thanks for proving that dude's point.


Have the 90's sanctions been conclusively proven as causation, or just correlation? I thought the mortality/population growth rate was more or less the same during the 90s as during the 80s. On the other hand, most of the studies since the US invasion specifically refer to the increase in extremist violence.

Either way, you're going to have to try harder to prove that economic sanctions (which would have mostly continued anyway) were somehow equivalent to an unprovoked invasion and overthrow of their entire government.
 
2014-03-23 01:36:23 PM
i116.photobucket.com
 
2014-03-23 01:39:45 PM

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: Only to a conservative could 2,000 be a larger number than 100,000.


Did you leave off the effects of the sanctions on purpose, or was it an accident?

clkeagle: Either way, you're going to have to try harder to prove that economic sanctions (which would have mostly continued anyway) were somehow equivalent to an unprovoked invasion and overthrow of their entire government.


Nothing equivalent about them. That was kinda my point.

And I'm not one in favor of the Iraq War.
 
2014-03-23 01:40:23 PM

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: s2s2s2: clkeagle: Nemo's Brother: The Fark Left likes saying this kind of thing, but then will defend without question, every single thing Obama or Clinton has ever done. It leads me to believe that you are just party fanbois, or are not so liberal yourselves.

No, I'm pretty sure we're smart enough to know that Clinton pulled the first bricks from the wall between banks and investment firms, which started the avalanche leading to the mortgage collapse. We're also not terribly happy with Obama for failing to punish anyone involved in escalating said avalanche, or for not doing more to resolve the VA medical claims backlog.

Let's just put it all into perspective. Neither of them put two wars on a credit card, one of which has lead to the deaths of around two hundred thousand civilians.

Bill killed more civilians with sanctions against Iraq, and daily bombing runs. But thanks for proving that dude's point.

Estimates of Iraqi casualties as a result of Clinton's bombing campaign in Iraq: < 2,000
Estimates of Iraqi casualties as a result of the Bush instigated Iraqi war: 100,000-500,000 depending on source

Only to a conservative could 2,000 be a larger number than 100,000.


He's referring to studies of malnutrition and infant mortality during the entire sanction period. That number is anywhere from 100,000-750,000... but very little evidence ties those deaths directly to the sanctions.  As it turns out, brutal dictators aren't generally good at keeping kids alive within their borders. The only thing they are good at is suppressing violence outside of their own thugs.

I don't believe for a minute that the world would be better off if Saddam, Uday, and Qusay were still alive. But when
we solved those three big problems,  we created a dozen bigger problems in the middle east. And helped to tank our own economy and hurt relations with our allies in the process.
 
2014-03-23 01:50:49 PM

s2s2s2: Nothing equivalent about them. That was kinda my point.
And I'm not one in favor of the Iraq War.


It's a good argument in favor of food-for-energy programs when we're talking about future sanctions against countries like Iran (or even Russia).

One theory of sanctions is that people won't stand for starvation and topple the leader responsible... or that the leader himself will be responsible enough not to let his people starve. If we were guilty of starving the citizens of Iraq, then we can't make that mistake again. If we have to impose sanctions against another country with any kind of resources, we need to make a very liberal deal to buy their energy with packaged food, potable water/water purification equipment, and medicines/medical supplies (and an international monitoring team).

What we can't allow to happen is for any kind of currency/barterable resources to go to the hands of their regimes. Saddam wasn't using his oil income to train al-Qaeda or arm Hezbollah with nukes (like we were told), but he certainly wasn't using his income to feed his people.

That's why I'd support Hillary in a heartbeat over any potential Republican candidate. She is a capitalist conservative in the political spectrum, but she'd still be better for the international community than any neocon/defense- and oil-industry financed Republican (or lunatic isolationist Republitarian) who would sit in the Oval Office.
 
2014-03-23 01:53:51 PM

s2s2s2: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: Only to a conservative could 2,000 be a larger number than 100,000.


Did you leave off the effects of the sanctions on purpose, or was it an accident?


I left those out for two reasons:

1) There's no real evidence that the additional deaths were a result of the sanctions and not living under a dictator who treated his people like shiat.
2) The sanctions were enacted by the UN in 1990 when George Bush Sr. was president, so suggesting that the sanctions were somehow Clinton's fault is disingenuous to say the least.
 
2014-03-23 01:54:30 PM

clkeagle: I don't believe for a minute that the world would be better off if Saddam, Uday, and Qusay were still alive. But whenwe solved those three big problems,  we created a dozen bigger problems in the middle east. And helped to tank our own economy and hurt relations with our allies in the process.


I agree with this. I remember that even before they started banging the drum of WMDs, they were set on war. They mentioned UN documents that gave them authority after we found out about Iraq's 80 mile loop trick, to invade and depose. They just kept pulling out reasons until they got the green light They didn't even really get a green light, they got the traffic lights turned off and just took off.

Also, the sanctions started under Bush 1, so...my bad.
 
2014-03-23 02:01:24 PM

Nemo's Brother: The Fark Left likes saying this kind of thing, but then will defend without question, every single thing Obama or Clinton has ever done. It leads me to believe that you are just party fanbois, or are not so liberal yourselves.


I've followed your posts on many threads. You, almost without exception take a reactionary position tailored to far right wing talking points. You exhibit no capacity for meaningful discourse preferring to spout generalities, fear mongering and previously debunked disinformation. Why in the world would anyone, regardless of their political leanings, pay even an iota of attention to you?
 
Displayed 50 of 66 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report