HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » This is why people don’t ...

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 09:34 AM

This is why people don’t trust Hillary

SALON
by Conor Lynch
This is why people don’t trust Hillary: How a convenient reversal on gun control highlights her opportunism

For many Americans on the political left, it has been hard to take anything Hillary Clinton has said during the 2016 Democratic primaries at face value. With Senator Bernie Sanders running well to her left, the former Secretary of State has attempted to rebrand herself as a pragmatic progressive (“a progressive who likes to get things done”) who, by and large, agrees with the principles of Sanders, but would be much better at affecting real change in Washington.



On numerous issues, Clinton has flip-flopped to the left — or, if you choose to be non-cynical, she has “evolved.” And this evolution has been something to behold. (Of course, by using the term evolution, one must assume that she will not “devolve” on certain positions once elected.) Indeed, one cannot discuss the issues for very long without finding major changes in Clinton’s policy positions — some of which may be genuine, others that are undoubtedly motivated by political self-interest, and still others that may be both sincere and self-serving.

.......snip........

Even the one issue where Clinton is genuinely more progressive than Sanders is tarnished by her chameleon-like maneuvering. By now, everyone knows that Clinton is to Sanders’ left on gun control — which does not mean that Sanders is regressive, as the Clinton campaign has frequently tried to portray him. The Senator has a D-minus rating from the NRA, and supports most gun control measures — including a ban on assault weapons. Last week, this issue became a source of heated discussion after Sanders gave an interview with the New York Daily News.

In the interview, Sanders was asked whether victims of gun violence should be able to sue gun manufacturers for damages, as family members of the Sandy Hook massacre are currently trying to do. At first, Sanders simply replied no, but then expanded on his answer after appearing to realize that it would be twisted to paint him as an NRA-stooge by his opponent.

“If you’re a gun dealer and you sell me a gun and I go out and I kill [someone],” said Sanders, “Do I think that that gun dealer should be sued for selling me a legal product that he misused? [Shakes head no.] But I do believe that gun manufacturers and gun dealers should be able to be sued when they should know that guns are going into the hands of wrong people.


Sure enough, the Clinton campaign quickly used the Sandy Hook tragedy against him, Tweeting that he “prioritized gun manufacturers’ rights over the parents of the children killed at Sandy Hook.”

.....snip.....

For a campaign trying to paint its opponent as a heartless dog-whistling lackey for the NRA, you would expect its own candidate to have a pretty consistent background on the issue. But of course, we’re talking about Hillary Clinton.

During her 2008 campaign, Clinton’s tune on guns was quite different, especially after her then opponent Barack Obama opined that some Americans “cling to guns or religion.” Clinton called his comments “elitist” and “out of touch,” and even bragged about learning how to shoot a gun as a child.
She also made an argument that was very similar to the allegedly racist argument that Sanders made in 2015:

“What might work in New York City is certainly not going to work in Montana,” said Clinton. “So, for the federal government to be having any kind of, you know, blanket rules that they’re going to try to impose, I think doesn’t make sense.”


.......snip.........




http://www.salon.com/2016/04/11/this_is_why_people_dont_trust_hillary_how_a_convenient_reversal_on_gun_control_highlights_her_opportunism/



ETA,

Hillary 2008 vs Hillary 2016~

56 replies, 3351 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 56 replies Author Time Post
Reply This is why people don’t trust Hillary (Original post)
RiverLover Apr 2016 OP
Buzz Clik Apr 2016 #1
NWCorona Apr 2016 #12
Buzz Clik Apr 2016 #15
NWCorona Apr 2016 #21
Buzz Clik Apr 2016 #23
Lizzie Poppet Apr 2016 #36
Buddyblazon Apr 2016 #39
Lizzie Poppet Apr 2016 #40
DanTex Apr 2016 #16
LondonReign2 Apr 2016 #27
seabeyond Apr 2016 #2
RiverLover Apr 2016 #4
Katashi_itto Apr 2016 #13
CajunBlazer Apr 2016 #24
Katashi_itto Apr 2016 #26
CajunBlazer Apr 2016 #30
Katashi_itto Apr 2016 #31
Katashi_itto Apr 2016 #29
CajunBlazer Apr 2016 #33
Katashi_itto Apr 2016 #34
CajunBlazer Apr 2016 #41
Katashi_itto Apr 2016 #47
CajunBlazer Apr 2016 #50
Katashi_itto Apr 2016 #52
CajunBlazer Apr 2016 #53
Katashi_itto Apr 2016 #54
CajunBlazer Apr 2016 #55
PufPuf23 Apr 2016 #38
polly7 Apr 2016 #17
uponit7771 Apr 2016 #22
thesquanderer Apr 2016 #37
seabeyond Apr 2016 #46
thesquanderer Apr 2016 #48
Baobab Apr 2016 #3
CajunBlazer Apr 2016 #25
bigwillq Apr 2016 #5
FreakinDJ Apr 2016 #6
Jarqui Apr 2016 #7
RiverLover Apr 2016 #11
Scuba Apr 2016 #8
CentralCoaster Apr 2016 #9
CharlotteVale Apr 2016 #10
polly7 Apr 2016 #14
RiverLover Apr 2016 #18
polly7 Apr 2016 #20
Tierra_y_Libertad Apr 2016 #28
B Calm Apr 2016 #19
CajunBlazer Apr 2016 #35
B Calm Apr 2016 #42
CajunBlazer Apr 2016 #44
B Calm Apr 2016 #45
arcane1 Apr 2016 #32
EndElectoral Apr 2016 #43
Logical Apr 2016 #49
AgerolanAmerican Apr 2016 #51
bvf Apr 2016 #56

Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 09:36 AM

1. Sanders must be feeling a tad vulnerable on his squish gun control stance.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 09:59 AM

12. Nope

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #12)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 10:01 AM

15. We disagree. But, I guess you're in direct contact with the campaign, so I'll defer.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #15)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 10:13 AM

21. It is just my opinion but guns

Aren't a huge topic this cycle so the pressure isn't there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #21)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 10:22 AM

23. So, I guess the OP is pretty much irrelevant.

 

I tend to agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #21)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 12:53 PM

36. Guns aren't a huge topic this time because until Hillary made her latest course change...

 

...the Democratic candidates weren't stupid enough to make them a huge topic. Gun control advocacy loses national-level elections for Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #36)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 02:06 PM

39. Boom!

 

You are apparently much smarter than buzz click.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buddyblazon (Reply #39)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 02:08 PM

40. Um...thanks!

 

But that's not exactly setting a high bar...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 10:02 AM

16. Yup. He's not in Idaho any more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 11:52 AM

27. So you're cool with Clinton's insincere flip flop?

Not surpirsing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 09:37 AM

2. Sanders said Clinton responsible for Iraq deaths, then said.... Just kidding.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #2)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 09:41 AM

4. He was right the first time.

The DNC must have given him hell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #2)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 10:00 AM

13. She is responsible for those deaths and thousands more. We polluted the Iraqi countryside

 

with vast amounts of fragments of depleted uranium rounds we fired off. The Iraqi environments is polluted for thousands of years.

Yes she IS responsible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Katashi_itto (Reply #13)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 11:42 AM

24. Do you realize how ridiculous you sound?

First, an attempt to distribute the blame for the Iraq War which belongs solely to Bush, Chaney, Rumsfeld and other members of the Bush administration to the 83 Democrat Senators who voted to give Bush greater negotiating with Saddam is disingenuous at best.

If those voted for the resolution were so terrible why did Sanders previously support John Kerry without a problem in his bid to be President". Is it because your candidate is hypocrite? If not. why does he differentiate between Kerry who voted for the same resolution and Clinton on this issue.

Second, your statement about depleted uranium rounds polluting the Iraqi environments "for thousands of years" also disingenuous.

What makes depleted uranium a potential hazard?

"Depleted uranium is a heavy metal that is also slightly radioactive. Heavy metals (uranium, lead, tungsten, etc.) have chemical toxicity properties that, in high doses, can cause adverse health effects. Depleted uranium that remains outside the body can not harm you."


DEPLETED URANIUM FACT SHEET

The danger to humans comes chiefly on the battlefield to solders who are hit by shrapnel from a depleted round round or smoke inhaled from a vehicle fire caused by a hit by depleted uranium round. Depleted uranium emits very little radiation. It is also the chief component used in the armor of our tanks.

At the time of the Iraq war nothing was known about the dangers of depleted uranium on civilian populations which might inhabit former battle fields after a war. I am sure that Bush didn't direct the Army to use depleted uranium ammunition during the war; it was simply the ammunition the Army was using at the time. So other than starting the war in the first place, which is certainly horrific, it would be difficult to lay the blame for subsequent civilian health problems in Iraq on even the Bush administration. Trying to blame Hillary Clinton for the problem is preposterous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #24)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 11:49 AM

26. Do you have any clue how stupid you sound? We wore radiation badges when shifting the ammo around.

 

We had to shift the ammo so radiation Hot spots wouldn't arise.

At the time nothing was known. More BS. We were firing molded spent fuel rods from reactor cores. Your saying that the instant we took those spent reactor core rods, clipped them up and made them into sabot rounds they became safe?

I went to countless radiation lectures in the military.

As usual your full of shit.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Katashi_itto (Reply #26)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 12:09 PM

30. And at these radiation lectures were you told that occupants of tanks..

...which had depleted uranium in their are armor and fired depleted uranium ammunition were in danger of being radiation poisoned? You know damn good and well you weren't.

By the way, I have and engineering degree and I'm former military as well. The bombers my men worked on carried nuclear weapons, which by the way were made with uranium highly enriched with the U-235 isotope, not depleted uranium which is almost 100% the much less dangerous U-238 isotope. So don't try to bull shit me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #30)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 12:10 PM

31. Yeah it's obivious you are not what you say you are.

 

“Proponents of depleted uranium weaponry will state that depleted uranium is only half as radioactive as normal uranium, which is true. This would mean that it would take TWO millionths of a gram accumulating in a person’s body to be fatal, according to Conant, Compton and Urey. Unfortunately, it isn’t known exactly how much uranium ore would be sufficient to cause death over a short period of time, but we do know it caused the cancer deaths of workers during the two years the Manhattan Project existed in making our first three atomic bombs. Since then, scientists have learned a lot more about the debilitating effects to animals exposed to higher-than-normal radiation levels.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #24)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 11:53 AM

29. Your right it's not thousands of years. It's Billions. My mistake.

 

DEPLETED URANIUM

In military applications, when alloyed, Depleted Uranium [DU] is ideal for use in armor penetrators. These solid metal projectiles have the speed, mass and physical properties to perform exceptionally well against armored targets. DU provides a substantial performance advantage, well above other competing materials. This allows DU penetrators to defeat an armored target at a significantly greater distance. Also, DU's density and physical properties make it ideal for use as armor plate. DU has been used in weapon systems for many years in both applications.

Depleted uranium results from the enriching of natural uranium for use in nuclear reactors.

Natural uranium is a slightly radioactive metal that is present in most rocks and soils as well as in many rivers and sea water. Natural uranium consists primarily of a mixture of two isotopes (forms) of uranium, Uranium-235 (U235) and Uranium-238 (U238), in the proportion of about 0.7 and 99.3 percent, respectively. Nuclear reactors require U235 to produce energy, therefore, the natural uranium has to be enriched to obtain the isotope U235 by removing a large part of the U238.

Because the United States military used 375 tons of depleted uranium munitions against Iraq in 1991, and the cancer rate in children measured in Iraqi hospitals rose from 32,000 per year in 1990 to 130,000 in 1997. According to U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs official reports, U.S. casualties from Gulf War 1 now exceed 180,000 and already over 30,000 are now disabled from Gulf War 2. We’ve now used eight times what we did in 1991 and radiation has long been known to cause cancer. This is well known by our federal government.

“Proponents of depleted uranium weaponry will state that depleted uranium is only half as radioactive as normal uranium, which is true.

This would mean that it would take TWO millionths of a gram accumulating in a person’s body to be fatal, according to Conant, Compton and Urey.

Unfortunately, it isn’t known exactly how much uranium ore would be sufficient to cause death over a short period of time, but we do know it caused the cancer deaths of workers during the two years the Manhattan Project existed in making our first three atomic bombs.

Since then, scientists have learned a lot more about the debilitating effects to animals exposed to higher-than-normal radiation levels.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Katashi_itto (Reply #29)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 12:50 PM

33. Don't quote an article without a reference - that is a copyright violation

And it does nothing to prove your expertise on the subject.

I notice that you post does not address the question I posed - and we both know why. If our own troops were constantly inside vehicles which were literally made of depleted uranium and which carried many rounds of ammunition containing large quantities of depleted uranium, we must not have thought it was very dangerous to people.

By the way, it is precisely because U-238 has a very long half life that it is far less dangerous than the U-235 isotope which has a relatively short half life. Depleted uranium is 99.7% U-238 and U-238 occurs naturally all around us. Because it has a short half life and decays rapidly, U-235 emits a lot of radiation in a relative short time from. Because it has such long half life, which means it decays very, very slowly, U-238 emits very little radiation. (It is the process of decay which release radiation.)

Again, almost nothing was known at the time about the effects on civilians occupying a battlefield long after a war. In addition it was military leaders who decided to use depleted uranium in armor and ammunition. To blame 83 Democrat Senators for the result of that decision by the military to use depleted uranium is just plain preposterous.

In addition you have not addressed the fact that Sanders supported Kerry who voted for the resolution without reservations and now hypocritically holds Clinton responsible for the Iraq War.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #33)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 12:52 PM

34. Oh look whose trying to change the subject. LOL!

 

Unlike you, I am not pretending to be anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Katashi_itto (Reply #34)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 02:16 PM

41. I see, your one of those people who replies to posts without reading them

Or you only reply to those portion of a post for which you have a ready and answer. Either is tactic is disingenuous.

So for your edification I have copied and posted the parts of my post that you didn't answer:

I notice that you post does not address the question I posed - and we both know why. If our own troops were constantly inside vehicles which were literally made of depleted uranium and which carried many rounds of ammunition containing large quantities of depleted uranium, we must not have thought it was very dangerous to people.

By the way, it is precisely because U-238 has a very long half life that it is far less dangerous than the U-235 isotope which has a relatively short half life. Depleted uranium is 99.7% U-238 and U-238 occurs naturally all around us. Because it has a short half life and decays rapidly, U-235 emits a lot of radiation in a relative short time from. Because it has such long half life, which means it decays very, very slowly, U-238 emits very little radiation. (It is the process of decay which release radiation.)

Again, almost nothing was known at the time about the effects on civilians occupying a battlefield long after a war. In addition it was military leaders who decided to use depleted uranium in armor and ammunition. To blame 83 Democrat Senators for the result of that decision by the military to use depleted uranium is just plain preposterous.

In addition you have not addressed the fact that Sanders supported Kerry who voted for the resolution without reservations and now hypocritically holds Clinton responsible for the Iraq War.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #41)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 08:48 PM

47. And your still bullshitting about your background.

 

Not to mention the overall effects of DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Katashi_itto (Reply #47)

Tue Apr 12, 2016, 12:35 AM

50. Now you attacking me instead of addressing my post and we all know why...

Since you obviously have problems believing my qualifications, here you go. I have a Mechanical Engineering degree from the University of Louisiana, Lafayette where I also earned my USAF commission through the ROTC program. I also have Masters in Business Administration degree from UAB. After concluding Maintenance Officers training at Chanute Air Force Base in Illinois, I spent most of my time in the Air Force at Mather AFB outside of Sacramento.

I was assigned to the Strategic Air Command's 320th Bomb Wing where I first served as an aircraft maintenance officer in the Field Maintenance Squadron. Right after I was promoted to First Lieutenant (about 18 months in) I was made Maintenance Supervisor of the Field Maintenance Squadron, a Major's job. All 300 technicians in the squadron reported to me though 4 levels of supervision in 4 branches and 23 shops. They performed all of the major maintenance on 15 B-52G bombers and 15 KC-135A air borne tankers. Their specialties covered the entire range of jobs from jet engine mechanics to hydraulics and electric technicians, from the sheet metal specialist to parachute packers and corrosion control technicians (they washed the aircraft).

It was during the two and a half years while I served in that job that I was chosen 320th Bomb Wing Junior Officer of the Year (the first non-flying officer ever accorded that honor.) I was also made a Regular Air Force Officer, one of only 2% of the junior officers evaluated awarded that distinction. (Most Air Force officers at the time were not Regular Air Force Officers; they were Reserved Officers on active duty. Only graduates of one of the military academies and very small percentages of the ROTC and OTS graduates, chosen as I was, served as Regular Officers. Regular Officers were afforded advantages in promotion and served as the backbone of the Air Force Officer corps.)

I spent a 6 month TDY at Anderson AFB in Guam where we had 150 B-52 bombers that flew 12 hour bombing missions over Vietnam. (it was the largest assembly of destructive power ever assembled in one place in the entire history of the world.) I was one of three Job Control officers who rotated on 12 hour shifts with four days on and two off. On our shifts each of us were charge of directing the entire maintenance effort. We each supervised 18 NCO with access to 14 radio nets which the NCO's used to control the work of 6,000 technicians who performed the maintenance on those 150 B-52's.

Job Control's job was insure that we we had aircraft ready to fly 23 flights of 3 B-52's a day, one every hour and a half (a total of 69 flights). It was a extremely stressful job to say the least. Our aircraft also so participated with 50 B-52D's from U-Tapao AFB, Thailand in the historic Operation Linebacker II, now known as the 11 day war, where our B-52's bombed the Hanoi and Haiphong cities in Northern Vietnam. (I'm sure you can find references to the 11 day war on line.)

After the TDY I returned to the Mather as a Captain and became the $230th Bomb Wings Maintenance Control officer, a Lieutenant Colonel's job. 6 months later I resigned my commission and left the Air Force for civilian life.

I note the image in your signature of Kendo contestants. I know a bit about that as well. I hold a 5th Degree Black Belt in Yoshukai Karate. One the six weapons with which were are expected to be proficient is the Samurai Sword. We often use the shinai to practice against one another. By the symbol in my signature is the Japanese character for "Patience". What you are looking at is that character embroidered on the back of my karate gi (or uniform).

Now that you know a bit more about me perhaps you can answer my post:

I notice that you post does not address the questions I posed - and we both know why. If our own troops were constantly inside vehicles which were literally made of depleted uranium and which carried many rounds of ammunition containing large quantities of depleted uranium, we must not have thought it was very dangerous to people.

By the way, it is precisely because U-238 has a very long half life that it is far less dangerous than the U-235 isotope which has a relatively short half life. Depleted uranium is 99.7% U-238 and U-238 occurs naturally all around us. Because it has a short half life and decays rapidly, U-235 emits a lot of radiation in a relative short time from. Because it has such long half life, which means it decays very, very slowly, U-238 emits very little radiation. (It is the process of decay which release radiation.)

Again, almost nothing was known at the time about the effects on civilians occupying a battlefield long after a war. In addition it was military leaders who decided to use depleted uranium in armor and ammunition. To blame 83 Democrat Senators for the result of that decision by the military to use depleted uranium is just plain preposterous.

In addition you have not addressed the fact that Sanders supported Kerry who voted for the resolution without reservations and now hypocritically holds Clinton responsible for the Iraq War.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #50)

Tue Apr 12, 2016, 07:29 AM

52. I already answered. Your to busy trying to prove your not a fraud to read anything.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Katashi_itto (Reply #52)

Tue Apr 12, 2016, 09:34 AM

53. You answered nothing, but no problem

You have convinced be that you are not as knowledgeable as you thought you were. Because of your personal experience you thought you had a unique insight into the "horrors of the Iraqi war". You then filled in what you didn't know from articles you Googled on the web. Then posted, probably not for the first time, thinking that no one could effectively challenge you.

When you were challenged, you knew you were over head, so you played the normal game - you answered what you considered the the weakest point and ignored everything else, you deflected, and then when none of that worked, you attacked me personally. Then when that was answered you reverted to saying you had already responded, when you knew you had not.

Obviously, you no longer want to have discussion of this topic. Too bad, you sound like an interesting person and that we might have some things in common, even though we differ on our choice of candidates. Send me a personal message if you want to compare notes on things we don't disagree on. Goodby.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #53)

Tue Apr 12, 2016, 09:38 AM

54. Lol...and he slinks off... But your right, conversation with a fraud never goes anywhere. So why

 

should I bother with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Katashi_itto (Reply #54)

Tue Apr 12, 2016, 10:18 AM

55. Believe what you want to believe

Last edited Tue Apr 12, 2016, 11:01 AM - Edit history (1)

I made a good faith to convince you that I am who I say I am and even thought we might have some things in common - progressives with military experience are not real common. I also thought that we might have some experiences in the martial arts in common.

But no matter how much in common one may have with a disingenuous person, it's simply not worth pursuing. You're not even capable of having an honest discussion. I'm going to slink off now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #24)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 01:25 PM

38. Depleted uranium as a heavy metal accumulates in the cation exchange

capacity of a soil because of high valence and is toxic regardless of radioactivity.

The heavy metal slowly breaks down into solution and then bio-accumulate in soil organisms, fungi, plants, and animals (and humans) that feed on the web of life arising from the soil.

So there is a contamination problem over along period of time as the native soils, especially those most fertile, are low in natural heavy metals.

Arms continued to be provided and or sold to Iraq and Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East during the Obama administration and specifically during Hillary Clinton's time as SOS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #2)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 10:04 AM

17. She never 'kidded' (or made a fake apology) a bit about the Libyan deaths and all those caused by

it since, has she? An atrocity she pushed ...... against Obama's wishes with Sid Blumenthal's input (representing both the Clinton foundation and investors in a failed Libya - on her private server).

Any opinion on that?

Business opportunities!!!


By John Pilger
Source: Johnpilger.com
March 29, 2016

“If we have to use force,” said Madeleine Albright, US secretary of state in the liberal administration of Bill Clinton and today a passionate campaigner for his wife, “it is because we are America. We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see further into the future.”

One of Hillary Clinton’s most searing crimes was the destruction of Libya in 2011. At her urging, and with American logistical support, NATO, launched 9,700 “strike sorties” against Libya, according to its own records, of which more than a third were aimed at civilian targets. They included missiles with uranium warheads. See the photographs of the rubble of Misurata and Sirte, and the mass graves identified by the Red Cross. Read the UNICEF report on the children killed, “most [of them] under the age of ten”.

In Anglo-American scholarship, followed slavishly by the liberal media on both sides of the Atlantic, influential theorists known as “liberal realists” have long taught that liberal imperialists – a term they never use – are the world’s peace brokers and crisis managers, rather than the cause of a crisis. They have taken the humanity out of the study of nations and congealed it with a jargon that serves warmongering power. Laying out whole nations for autopsy, they have identified “failed states” (nations difficult to exploit) and “rogue states” (nations resistant to western dominance).

Whether or not the targeted regime is a democracy or dictatorship is irrelevant. In the Middle East, western liberalism’s collaborators have long been extremist Islamists, lately al-Qaeda, while cynical notions of democracy and human rights serve as rhetorical cover for conquest and mayhem – as in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Haiti, Honduras. See the public record of those good liberals Bill and Hillary Clinton. Theirs is a standard to which Trump can only aspire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #2)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 10:16 AM

22. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #2)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 01:07 PM

37. He was making a rhetorical point...

...in response to Hillary's laying some Sandy Hook responsibility at his feet.

Asked @BernieSanders abt calls for him to apologize to Sandy Hook victims. He said maybe @HillaryClinton shld apologize to Iraq War victims.


http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/275418-sanders-clinton-should-apologize-to-victims-of-iraq-war

What he disowned (what you refer to as saying "just kidding" is that he thought Hillary should take that blame, which as you can see, is not actually what he said in the first place. He was making a point about both things being ridiculous. Logically, based on his statement, if he *really* thought Hillary needed to take responsibility for the deaths in the Iraq war, that would mean he *also* would have believed that he had to take responsibility for Sandy Hook. He wasn't saying both things were true, he was saying that both statements were ridiculous.

But as happens so often, people attributed to him something he didn't actually say. (Not that he's never misspoken, but in this case, he didn't actually say what people were saying he did.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thesquanderer (Reply #37)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 06:32 PM

46. He lied. He blamed her. Then came back with just kidding.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #46)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 11:28 PM

48. I think you've changed the topic.

The only "lie" I am aware of is the "quote unquote" around the word qualify, because actually she didn't say it... her campaign said it, WAPO said it, she danced around it in an interview, but nobody has heard it literally come out of her mouth. I still wouldn't personally call it a lie, because at the time, he probably believed it to be the truth, and therefore I would consider it a mistake rather than a lie (making it so literal by saying "quote unquote", but of course, I expect many Hillary supporters to say it was a lie, that's just the way things are. If there is some other "lie" you are talking about, what was it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 09:40 AM

3. Class warfare against the non-wealthy

for example, GATS sets up a global trade of high skill jobs in developed countries for markets in the allegedly rapid growing developing country markets.

It does it by privatizing big chunks of the public sector and then forcing them to use international e-bidding and e-procurement systems.

thats a system that we wont win in unless wages here are dirt low.

Her husband set up this system,

Then she pretends to support $12/hour

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baobab (Reply #3)


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 09:41 AM

5. I don't trust anything she says (nt)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 09:43 AM

6. Typical Camp Weather Vain

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 09:45 AM

7. Before this campaign, I felt the media had documented about 22 solid flip-flops

There is zero doubt in my mind that she's a compulsive liar - hundreds or maybe thousands of lies in her career.

Deception is close to or exceeds a daily event for her 2016 campaign.

You put all those together and the public's mistrust is very well founded. In fact, what is stunning to me is that only 60% of the country finds her untrustworthy or dishonest. I think that number should be much higher. Should she win the primary, I suspect that by the end of the general election, it will be much higher when the GOP get through with her. Sanders hasn't gone there nearly as much as he could but the GOP will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jarqui (Reply #7)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 09:57 AM

11. That is so true.

They will annihilate her in the GE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 09:50 AM

8. There are so many good reasons not to trust Hillary.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 09:54 AM

9. Sanders' approach to guns is FAR more progressive than Clintons.

 

Clinton holds a more common stance, perhaps, publicly. But Sanders understands that a truly progressive approach to reducing gun violence must not only control the flow of guns but also the underlying social pathology that leads to violence.

THAT is more progressive. Hillary is just same old same old "gun control, rah!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 09:56 AM

10. One of the gazillion reasons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 10:01 AM

14. Saw this somewhere else ........

seems to fit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polly7 (Reply #14)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 10:06 AM

18. Wow, that sums it up very nicely!

Thanks polly7!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #18)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 10:07 AM

20. You're very welcome! nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polly7 (Reply #14)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 11:53 AM

28. Awww..c'mon. Those were "Hard Choices". And, she had to prepare CYA positions to cover them.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 10:07 AM

19. I don't trust Hillary either. Imagine what she'll do to the marijuana legalization movement.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B Calm (Reply #19)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 12:52 PM

35. Imagine what Cruz and Trump will do to the marijuana legalization movement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #35)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 04:05 PM

42. That too. Leaves us only one choice, Bernie!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B Calm (Reply #42)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 04:32 PM

44. Then your favorite laws have 0% chance of surviving

Okay, maybe not 0%. Maybe Trump or Cruz secretly likes MJ.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #44)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 04:35 PM

45. Not going to happen, Sanders will be the next potus.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 12:38 PM

32. Using those dead children as cheap props was a shameful thing to do.

 

How could anyone vote for someone who thought that was a good thing to do?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 04:10 PM

43. Honestly, after watching these videos, I have no idea where she actually stands on this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 11:49 PM

49. She is a fake IMO! nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Tue Apr 12, 2016, 12:39 AM

51. for someone who "evolves" so much

 

it's kinda weird she never seems to get past reptile

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Tue Apr 12, 2016, 10:26 AM

56. Haven't trusted her since the Bosnian sniper fire bullshit. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread