Hillary Clinton: just because she deserves her own thread by SIGNYM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
second

So, let me ask again: in light of her on-the-record evilness, which she's neither renounced nor modified, why should I vote FOR Hillary? What about my future with Hillary is so awesome that I should rethink my evaluation of her?

There is no reason for you to vote for Hillary. There is an itty-bitty reason for the Democratic party (by that I mean everyone but you) to pick Hillary: Bernie can't win the general election.

Two days from now, after five more states have voted on the Democratic nominee, and Bernie wins only 2 states, there will be further proof that Bernie can't win in November. If Bernie can't convince Democrats to vote for him as nominee, how will he possibly win votes in November from people who are not Democrats?

The more interesting question is why Lincoln Chafee (D), Lawrence Lessig (D), Martin O'Malley (D), Jim Webb (D) could not beat evil Hillary? https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_candidates,_2016

1,691 candidates had filed a Statement of Candidacy with the Federal Election Commission. And yet it all boils down to Bernie vs Hillary. That those two are the last two left standing surely means the Democratic Party is seriously screwed up. It is contest between Mr Can't Win Bernie and Ms Evil Hillary.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 26, 2016 1:04 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

There is an itty-bitty reason for the Democratic party (by that I mean everyone but you) to pick Hillary: Bernie can't win the general election. meow! personal, much?

Here's the problem. Hillary can't win on the democratic vote alone even if every democrat voted for her.

Add to that her majority disapproval rating, generally running above 55%. (btw that was something she earned all by her lonesome, without Bernie, or Donald, or Teddy helping her along.) That disapproval is a large enough number to encompass every registered republican (23%) and still have another 22%+ left over to scatter between between independents (39%) and democrats (32%). http://www.people-press.org/topics/political-party-affiliation/

And scatter it has.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-result
s/2016/04/sanders-supporters-not-vote-clinton-221642
Poll: 1 in 4 Sanders supporters won't vote for Clinton

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/33-percent-of-bernie-sanders
-not-vote-hillary_b_9475626.html
33 Percent of Bernie Sanders Supporters Will Not Vote for Hillary Clinton. Here’s Why

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-supporters-wont-vot
e-hillary_us_56d7571ae4b0871f60edb9fe
Don’t Assume Bernie Sanders Supporters Will Back Hillary Clinton If She’s The Nominee

Among democrats, the Bernie/ Hillary split is about 7%, in other words, if that percentage of people changed their vote it would be an even draw. So while it may be an insurmountable percentage in electoral terms in the primaries, Bernie represents a HUGE percentage of democrats, roughly 43%. This is NOTHING like Nader's 3% 'spoiler' run as a Green Party candidate. This is the party split almost in half.

The end result is that - while you claim Bernie can't win - the fact is neither can Hillary. Her disapproval rating is biting her among independents and democrats, exactly where she needs support in order to win.

So the question remains - why should I, and the millions of people like me, vote FOR her?

ETA: This would be the time for Hillary to make some significant policy concessions, if not for the sake of the party, then for the sake of her political career. I predict she won't. And I think the reasons will have to do with some combination of her arrogance and the fact she's deeply beholden to powerful interests that she can't cross. Not if she wants to keep the dollars rolling in at least.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 26, 2016 4:23 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

So the question remains - why should I, and the millions of people like me, vote FOR her?

I'd say you should not vote, during the primary, for Hillary. I did not vote for her in the Texas Democratic primary. I did not vote at all. During the general election, you and your millions might consider voting for Hillary so that the Republicans don't place another Scalia on the Supreme Court.

Also: Stocks Do SO Much Better Under Democrats
http://andrewtobias.com/column/stocks-do-so-much-better-under-democrat
s/

"Stock market performance seems to confirm that, over time, and in broad strokes, one governing philosophy serves most of us better than the other."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 26, 2016 9:19 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
What, if anything, is factually wrong with the article? I wouldn't put it past you, "G"ONEOFTHETHREESTOOGES, to have gone thru all of the points in Paul Craig Roberts'* article and to ignore all of the provable supportive facts that you found, and the additional muck that you dug up, simply to focus on the most trivial and least supported. Because ... Hillary! ... yanno? - SIGNY

Wrong as usual. You spend so much effort posting and quoting what is known or is old news or old speculation - do you have evidence apart from web articles? Most every one of those so called facts, is either well known or simply well repeated. Repeated enough for folks like you who dislike her (maybe hate?) to re-repeat them and feel like you're in-the-know. Sorry, John Paul Thomas is nothing special, just another amateur poli 'Net wonk wanna be. Your husband maybe?= ONEOFTHETREESTOOGES

Oh meow.

Quote:
Wait ... wha ...? You're attacking a man because of HIS NAME???
How about ...
Martin Luther King? Gosh, with such a hyperbolic name, I guess he had nothing worthwhile to say!
James Earl Jones? Couldn't have been much of an actor!
George Walker Bush Sounds like some hick from Bumfuk Kentucky. Couldn't have gotten very far in his life!
Franklin Delano Roosevelt Gosh, with a name like that, I'll bet he was given to hyperbole too. He might have even said something exaggerated like We have nothing to fear but fear itself. What a twit [FDR must have been]!

You have plumbed the depths of "nothing rational to say", ONEOFTHETHREESTOOGES. You suck as a source of reasonable discussion, but you're sometimes a hoot! - SIGNY

Come on Beavis, it's right there in front of you. Right. There. You even point it out! PCR wants us to think of him as a great thinker, a great something, in the same league as the other famous people you mentioned. Wait, wasn't that the point of your post? His conceit?

No, that's the point of YOUR post.

Quote:
I love this:
ONEOFTHETRHEESTOOGES: Did Hillary not call President Vladimir Putin of Russia the “new Hitler”?
SIGNY: Well, not exactly! What she did was compare what Hitler did to what Putin did!

Yep, and doesn't that comparison ring true? Doesn't that shock you a little? Aren't you concerned that Dick Willy Johnson shows little regard for the facts, and prefers spin? Of course it doesn't! That's where you live! You don't care about the truth, just if you can use it and bend it and fake it. Swears, you should be in politics with these other lying frauds.

So, speaking of lying frauds, in a thread about Hillary, you've spent most of your time dissing Paul Craig Roberts.

First, you start with his name.

His NAME??? What makes you think he chose it? Triple-barreled names are common in the south, and PCR was born in Georgia. He's probably been called by three names as soon as they stopped calling him "sweetie-ums" and other baby-endearments. You ASSUME that his name says something about his self-importance and try to use it against him.

You call this information "old news". Well DUH! Yes, it is HILLARY'S RECORD, which goes back years, even decades.

You call these facts "well known".

Then you try to claim that these same facts are simply "well-repeated" by those sites which "hate" Hillary - you know, sites like Investopedia and CNN.

You think they we should reject the entire internet across the entire ideological spectrum because it's just the internet. You- who thumps Twitter as some sort of reliable source.

In addition, you say that PCR's description Hillary calling Putin "Hitler" is an exaggeration, and therefore it compromises his entire article . You've made that point over several posts: PCR exaggerated about that, and therefore everything he says about Hillary is false.

But then, you turn around and support that same statement as not only essentially true but also insightful. Here, let me quote you on that:

Quote:
Yep, and doesn't that comparison ring true?

You're so intent on dismissing these inconvenient facts about Hillary that you'll use ANYTHING to deny them, even to the point of contradicting yourself. It's the "kitchen sink" form of argument, when you throw everything but the kitchen sink at something, hoping that at least one of those items will land near the target.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 27, 2016 12:18 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
There is an itty-bitty reason for the Democratic party (by that I mean everyone but you) to pick Hillary: Bernie can't win the general election. meow! personal, much?

Bernie Sanders campaign put out a statement tonight that, for the first time, implicitly admits what delegate-counters have been saying for a few weeks now — he's not going to be the nominee.

Quote:
"I congratulate Secretary Clinton on her victories tonight, and I look forward to issue-oriented campaigns in the 14 contests to come.

I am proud that we were able to win a resounding victory tonight in Rhode Island, the one state with an open primary where independents had a say in the outcome. Democrats should recognize that the ticket with the best chance of winning this November must attract support from independents as well as Democrats. I am proud of my campaign’s record in that regard.

The people in every state in this country should have the right to determine who they want as president and what the agenda of the Democratic Party should be. That’s why we are in this race until the last vote is cast. That is why this campaign is going to the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia with as many delegates as possible to fight for a progressive party platform that calls for a $15 an hour minimum wage, an end to our disastrous trade policies, a Medicare-for-all health care system, breaking up Wall Street financial institutions, ending fracking in our country, making public colleges and universities tuition free and passing a carbon tax so we can effectively address the planetary crisis of climate change."

This amounts to a savvy, classy way to begin winding down a campaign that was much more successful than anyone expected it to be but still quite far from actually winning. Sanders is staying in the race and giving his supporters something to vote for, thus giving his operation something to continue organizing around.

The reality, however, is that while the text of the platform is a good focal point it's not especially important in the grand scheme of things. The real test for the political revolution's lasting impact will be whether Bernie and Bernie's supporters can help Bernie-style candidates win downballot races and influence the composition of Democratic caucuses in congress and state legislatures.
www.vox.com/2016/4/26/11515050/bernie-sanders-admits-its-over

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 27, 2016 12:50 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"During the general election, you and your millions might consider voting for Hillary so that the Republicans don't place another Scalia on the Supreme Court."

So it comes down to voting against Donald, rather than FOR Hillary. I don't think I need to do that. Hillary has one superb weapon - people are running away from Donald faster than they are from her. Besides California is reliably democrat-voting. So my expectation is that Hillary will get enough California votes to beat Trump in California. My hope is that she doesn't get more.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 27, 2016 1:13 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Interesting. Hillary's negatives among Bernie supporters get more negative:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-seeking-votes-party-unity-
in-five-northeastern-states-1461713498

Polling suggests the party is becoming less unified, not more. In March, 78% of Democratic primary voters said they would be satisfied if Mrs. Clinton were the nominee. In April, that fell to 73%, according to Wall Street Journal/NBC News polling. Asked if they could see themselves supporting Mrs. Clinton for president, just 58% of Sanders primary voters said yes, with 40% saying no, according to the April poll.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 27, 2016 7:29 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

Polling suggests the party is becoming less unified, not more. In March, 78% of Democratic primary voters said they would be satisfied if Mrs. Clinton were the nominee. In April, that fell to 73%, according to Wall Street Journal/NBC News polling. Asked if they could see themselves supporting Mrs. Clinton for president, just 58% of Sanders primary voters said yes, with 40% saying no, according to the April poll.

I look forward to many more Republican Presidents being elected in the 21st Century because Democrats can't remember how terrible all previous Republicans were while they can remember how terrible the Democratic candidate is.

And that is why Republicans eventually bounce back even after disastrous Presidents such as Nixon or Reagan or Bush 2 and Democrats do NOT bounce back even after adequate Presidents like Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton or maybe Obama. There is a very real possibility Obama will not be replaced by another Democrat because Democrats disappointed with Obama want Bernie and won’t take less. The Democrats are always looking for the "best" candidate (a Nader or a Bernie) and Republicans will vote for any damn Republican. That is why the country keeps getting Republican presidents with their disastrous policies.
www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/04/21/disaster-of-richard-nixon/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 27, 2016 9:36 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

G-STOOGE, you just lied through an entire post. Too bad you can't quote yourself to demonstrate your points. Wow. A poster who can't even quote itself about what it said. That's quite a novelty. In fact, I think it's the first time I've ever seen that here, and that's saying something.

Well done!

Oh, and just as an aside... I'm not about to get into an extended argument about the various ways that you lied about what you yourself said. Since you can't be bothered to stand behind your own words, what's the point?

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 27, 2016 10:01 AM

www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/03/18/republicans-party-death-guest-colu
mn-pat-buchanan/

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
G-STOOGE, you just lied through an entire post. Too bad you can't quote yourself to demonstrate your points. Wow. A poster who can't even quote itself about what it said. That's quite a novelty. In fact, I think it's the first time I've ever seen that here, and that's saying something.

Well done!

Oh, and just as an aside... I'm not about to get into an extended argument about the various ways that you lied about what you yourself said. Since you can't be bothered to stand behind your own words, what's the point?

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts didn't say it, but he did quote it a year ago:

Quote:
Republicans Are The Party Of Death — Guest Column by Pat Buchanan

Like myself, Pat Buchanan has given up on Republicans. We have reached the point where even a crazed, corrupt Hillary is better than a Republican.

Everyone who votes Republican is voting for Nuclear War and the end of the world. There is not one ounce of sense or humanity in the Republican Party.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 27, 2016 12:15 PM

REAVERFAN

Republicans traditionally love war, and so does Hillary. Only Bernie would try to avoid it.

She talks of "smart power," which is essentially constant permawar forever. That's the dream of the 1%, and they are who she serves.

Now that Bernie is pretty much done, we will have permawar forever. Good job, sheep.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 27, 2016 2:49 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
Republicans traditionally love war, and so does Hillary. . . .

She talks of "smart power," which is essentially constant permawar forever. That's the dream of the 1%, and they are who she serves.

. . . we will have permawar forever. Good job, sheep.

"Smart power" means don't let hot-heads and stupid-asses decide military policy. Hillary might be unwilling to let a bunch of angry, dim-bulb Admirals and Generals ruin the next eight years of her life.

I can't prove it but it’s possible that Hillary is cynical about the Pentagon’s truthfulness and competence. She might not trust the Pentagon to solve her problems, since she has seen how it has, instead, created enormous problems for all Presidents since WWII. For the amount of money poured into the military and the amount of time Presidents have to take to managing it, there is not much achieved by it in the last 70 years. The Pentagon took credit for the end of the Cold War, but those guys are liars and Hillary knows it.
www.ushistory.org/us/59e.asp

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 27, 2016 5:59 PM

SIG, thanks for the laugh. You know, trying to paint G as the liar here when everybody knows it's you and 1kiki.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 27, 2016 11:53 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"I look forward to many more Republican Presidents being elected in the 21st Century because Democrats can't remember how terrible all previous Republicans were while they can remember how terrible the Democratic candidate is."

That's because Democratic party voters are too stupid to run a Tea-Party style revolution. Leading to Hillary. And Republicans are so stupid they make populist promises they never intend to fulfill. Leading to Donald.

IF democrats were smarter, they'd lean on the party so that it would actually represent THEM, and not be distracted by some concocted Goldberg-style phantom enemy to keep people focused on 'them'. Because, when it gets down to it, Donald is far less likely to get us into a war. So, what advantage is there to voting for Hillary? Instead democrats, like you, choose a 'side' to give their vote to, whether or nor that 'side' will do you, them, the country, or the plant, any good.
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/27/democrats_this_is_why_you_need_to_fear
_hillary_clinton_the_ny_times_is_absolutely_right_shes_a_bigger_hawk_than_the_republicanse/
Democrats, this is why you need to fear Hillary Clinton: The NY Times is absolutely right — she’s a bigger hawk than the Republicans

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 28, 2016 6:47 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

IF democrats were smarter, they'd lean on the party so that it would actually represent THEM, and not be distracted by some concocted Goldberg-style phantom enemy to keep people focused on 'them'.

Just because it looks very unlikely that Bernie will win the nomination this particular time, that doesn't mean that a different candidate won't be able to succeed with a similar platform and strategy.

And if the Sanders supporters committed to the political revolution devote their energy after this election to figuring out how to reach Bernie’s "poor people (who) don't vote," that could be a revolution.
www.vox.com/2016/4/25/11497822/sanders-political-revolution-vote

Quote:
Instead democrats, like you, choose a 'side' to give their vote to, whether or nor that 'side' will do you, them, the country, or the plant, any good.

Third parties don’t prosper in the USA at any level of government. That was a flaw built into the Constitution and the state constitutions carry the same flaw. There are multiply ways to deal with the flaw (join one of a dozen third parties), but the better way is to choose one of two sides. Even better would be revising all the Constitutions.

Quote:
Democrats, this is why you need to fear Hillary Clinton: The NY Times is absolutely right — she’s a bigger hawk than the Republicans.

I will just repeat myself: It’s possible that Hillary is cynical about the Pentagon’s truthfulness, usefulness and competence. She might not trust the Pentagon to solve her problems, since she has seen how it has created enormous problems for all Presidents since WWII. For the amount of money poured into the military by Congress and the amount of time Presidents have to take to manage the money at that grossly overfeed Dept of War, there is not much achieved by it in 70 years.

Hillary might be unwilling to let a bunch of fat dimwit Admirals and Generals ruin her next eight years. Unfortunately, Hillary will certainly allow them their drones and their oh so "special" forces missions. She can't take away all their toys paid by Congress, but she won't be so big a fool as to allow them to "surge" 50,000 troops and private security contractors into the Middle East. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/as-obama-sends-more-troops-gian
t-shadow-army-of-contractors-set-to-grow-in-afghanistan

Maybe Hillary is following the same disgraceful strategy as the North Korea Kims: talk crazy and belligerently, yet don't actually invade South Korea. And the strategy has kept the Kim dynasty in power for generations! North Korea is weak so generations of Kims have to act this way to hide its weakness. Hillary is a woman so she has to talk hawkishly or she will be called too weak to rule.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 28, 2016 8:08 AM

I love Bernie and am glad he pulled Hilary far to the left. But TWO you have to remember. He is a socialist and most democrats are not. TWO, 1kiki is a communist. She worships Putin and she and SIG have been preaching Russia is the way to go since long before I got here. So mixed into her bitching about everything WEST, is her love for Russia and what it stands for. Because of that she can't possibly be appreciative or unbiased about anything happening in America. In all my time here it has been thread after thread of negative posting about this country. Her perspectives are awash in Russian propaganda, and a distain for the WEST.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 28, 2016 10:20 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
I love Bernie and am glad he pulled Hilary far to the left. But TWO you have to remember. He is a socialist and most democrats are not. TWO, 1kiki is a communist.

"two" is when I login from verizon.net dsl, while "second" is my gmail.com login. I no longer have dsl.

It is a weak-minded politician who is actually "pulled" by an opponent. What truly happens with the strong-minded politician is a copying of only the words of whatever is working for their opponent. After the election you discover what a politician really believes, but there is always a tremendous amount of obfuscation and secrecy about what is really happening when you're dealing with a politician. Check out the story of Lincoln. He took his own sweet time deciding to emancipate the slaves. He put a condition on it: only applying to a state that did not end its rebellion against the Union by January 1, 1863. Even the best President was in no hurry to do what was inevitable. His delaying screwed up America for a century after he was murdered, thanks to his successor President Andrew Johnson's misrule.

Lincoln didn't even get the 13th Amendment out until January 31, 1865, which I take as a sure sign Lincoln didn't believe he, uniquely, would ever die.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 28, 2016 10:54 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
What, if anything, is factually wrong with the article?

you had NOT A SINGLE THING TO SAY ABOUT THE FACTS LISTED IN THE ARTICLE.

So Sig, kiki, are you guys prepared to side with the predictions made by this article you keep going on about? If not, then kindly pipe down.

From the article:

Quote:
Hillary Clinton... would likely be the most reckless president in American history... Hillary’s arrogant self-confidence is likely to result in over-reach that ends in conflict between NATO and Russia. Considering the extraordinary destructive force of nuclear weapons, Hillary as president could mean the end of life on earth.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 28, 2016 12:50 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:

Considering the extraordinary destructive force of nuclear weapons, Hillary as president could mean the end of life on earth.

Any government designed to end life on earth at the command of one person has much bigger problems than Hillary Clinton. I would suggest a redesign of such a government. Check out the website "Today I Found Out" on how screwed up a world is when only one person is standing between life and total destruction:
www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/05/vasili-arkhipov-the-man-who-s
aved-the-world/

What happens to the world when the "one person" is home with the flu? Does the world die?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 28, 2016 2:32 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Second/Two, we had the "ethics of nuclear weapons" debate back in the Hiroshima thread. Well we didn't, but I tried for a while.

Quoted for anti- post-editing posterity:

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
I hear you Sig, warmongers are the worst.

Except Russian ones <3 <3

#PutinFangirlsForever

Yes, because defending one nation from jihadists is so much worse than destabilizing two nations and destroying another, to the benefit of jihadism.

Yanno what they say, KthirdstoogePO - "the proof of the pudding". Since peace has broken out in Syria and all of the enemies are holding hands in Geneva and singing kumbayah (except the Kurds, who really need to be included) ... what are you bitching about THIS time? Care to compare Syria to the USA projects: Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and Sudan ... to Syria - which was a former USA project and heading into the toilet along with the rest?

Or do you think the USA might suffer in the process?

Nevermind, I know the answer already.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 28, 2016 3:44 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Second/Two, we had the "ethics of nuclear weapons" debate back in the Hiroshima thread. Well we didn't, but I tried for a while.

Without my checking that worthy thread, General Curtis LeMay, known for nuking Japan and for running the Strategic Air Command and George Wallace's VP choice, said, "There are no innocent civilians. It is their government and you are fighting a people, you are not trying to fight an armed force anymore. So it doesn't bother me so much to be killing the so-called innocent bystanders."

Or this LeMay gem: "Native annalists may look sadly back from the future on that period when we had the atomic bomb and the Russians didn't. Or when the Russians had acquired (through connivance and treachery of Westerns with warped minds) the atomic bomb - and yet still didn't have any stockpile of the weapons. That was the era when we might have destroyed Russia completely and not even skinned our elbows doing it." - https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay

Do I need to editorialize about how much money, material, and manpower Curtis LeMay wasted? And how much danger this guy caused for America, all while claiming he was making America safer? And him being a liar for all his life about his "contribution" to winning WWII?

A government that puts one guy like LeMay in charge of nukes is a government that has much bigger problems than Hillary. On the other hand, some 21st Century Americans are eager to drop more nukes. For Example:

Bobby Knight: Like Truman, Trump would have 'guts to drop the bomb'
By Nick Gass 04/28/16
www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/
04/bobby-knight-donald-trump-nuclear-bomb-222595

Quote:
"And Harry Truman, with what he did in dropping and having the guts to drop the bomb in 1945 saved, saved millions of American lives," Knight said. "And that's what Harry Truman did. And he became one of the three great presidents of the United States. And here's a man who would do the same thing, because he's going to become one of the four great presidents of the United States."

"Such a great guy. Wow. How do you top that? How do you top that?" Trump said. "You should be very proud of him in Indiana ... That is a national treasure, OK?"

Oh, the world is so much safer when the USA is always ready and willing to nuke hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions, of noncombatants, women, and children.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 29, 2016 9:31 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Do I need to editorialize about how much money, material, and manpower Curtis LeMay wasted?

No, because that's not how you conduct a debate. That was the problem with the last time. I'll remind you, from the old thread:

KPO: "I have opined quite a lot in this thread, giving my thoughts on this matter and others. You have not paid attention even when I've responded directly to your questions, so I don't see the point in doing so again."

I might as well turn on my television and try to argue with it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 29, 2016 10:02 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Bump for kiki and Signy.

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
What, if anything, is factually wrong with the article?

you had NOT A SINGLE THING TO SAY ABOUT THE FACTS LISTED IN THE ARTICLE.

So Sig, kiki, are you guys prepared to side with the predictions made by this article you keep going on about?

From the article:

"Hillary Clinton... would likely be the most reckless president in American history... Hillary’s arrogant self-confidence is likely to result in over-reach that ends in conflict between NATO and Russia. Considering the extraordinary destructive force of nuclear weapons, Hillary as president could mean the end of life on earth."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 29, 2016 11:13 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
Do I need to editorialize about how much money, material, and manpower Curtis LeMay wasted?

No, because that's not how you conduct a debate. That was the problem with the last time. I'll remind you, from the old thread:

KPO: "I have opined quite a lot in this thread, giving my thoughts on this matter and others. You have not paid attention even when I've responded directly to your questions, so I don't see the point in doing so again."

I might as well turn on my television and try to argue with it.

You made your position clear at
www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=59952&mid=1001370#
1001370

I'll make my position clear: Nuking Japan and (please note that and) threatening to nuke Stalin cost the USA $11 trillion.
www.nytimes.com/1998/07/01/us/us-nuclear-arms-cost-put-at-5.48-trillio
n.html

The USA could have saved itself many trillions of dollars if that fucking moron Truman had continued to use fire bombs rather than nukes on Japan. But Truman was incapable of imagining what would happen next.
http://longstreet.typepad.com/thesciencebookstore/2012/08/truman-and-t
he-cry-baby-scientist-oppenheimer-in-the-oval-office-october-1945.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 29, 2016 10:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Bump for kiki and Signy.

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
What, if anything, is factually wrong with the article?

you had NOT A SINGLE THING TO SAY ABOUT THE FACTS LISTED IN THE ARTICLE.

So Sig, kiki, are you guys prepared to side with the predictions made by this article you keep going on about?

From the article:

"Hillary Clinton... would likely be the most reckless president in American history... Hillary’s arrogant self-confidence is likely to result in over-reach that ends in conflict between NATO and Russia. Considering the extraordinary destructive force of nuclear weapons, Hillary as president could mean the end of life on earth."

1kiki and SIG the doom and gloom bitches. Its always doom and gloom with them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 29, 2016 11:35 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
1kiki and SIG the doom and gloom bitches. Its always doom and gloom with them.

I'll be more than happy to say "I told you so" when the time comes.

Just keep that in mind so when you read it you'll remember what you said now.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 30, 2016 9:06 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Quote:
Originally posted by G:

Going to be a little moot if "Hillary as president could mean the end of life on earth."

Free One: It's planet Earth - there's always going to be doom and gloom. You don't get points for predicting that.

Quoting the Operative: "It's worse than you think." According to the Atlantic Monthly:

Human Extinction Isn't That Unlikely

“A typical person is more than five times as likely to die in an extinction event as in a car crash,” says a new report.

Nuclear war. Climate change. Pandemics that kill tens of millions.

These are the most viable threats to globally organized civilization. They’re the stuff of nightmares and blockbusters—but unlike sea monsters or zombie viruses, they’re real, part of the calculus that political leaders consider everyday. And according to a new report from the U.K.-based Global Challenges Foundation, they’re much more likely than we might think.
www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/04/a-human-extinction-isnt
-that-unlikely/480444/

Hillary is gonna kill you if you don't watch out! Or it might be Putin, since drunkard Yeltsin died:

Quote:
In 1995, Russian systems mistook a Norwegian weather rocket for a potential nuclear attack. Russian President Boris Yeltsin retrieved launch codes and had the nuclear suitcase open in front of him. Thankfully, Russian leaders decided the incident was a false alarm.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 30, 2016 1:35 PM

REAVERFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
Republicans traditionally love war, and so does Hillary. . . .

She talks of "smart power," which is essentially constant permawar forever. That's the dream of the 1%, and they are who she serves.

. . . we will have permawar forever. Good job, sheep.
"Smart power" means don't let hot-heads and stupid-asses decide military policy. Hillary might be unwilling to let a bunch of angry, dim-bulb Admirals and Generals ruin the next eight years of her life.

I can't prove it but it’s possible that Hillary is cynical about the Pentagon’s truthfulness and competence. She might not trust the Pentagon to solve her problems, since she has seen how it has, instead, created enormous problems for all Presidents since WWII. For the amount of money poured into the military and the amount of time Presidents have to take to managing it, there is not much achieved by it in the last 70 years. The Pentagon took credit for the end of the Cold War, but those guys are liars and Hillary knows it.
www.ushistory.org/us/59e.asp

I'd like to believe that Hillary is smart enough to avoid war, but her record on the matter suggests otherwise.

She's never met a war she wouldn't vote for, and her claim that she wouldn't have supported it if she knew then what she knows now is a blatant lie. I knew it was a lie, and I'm nobody special. It wasn't hard to figure it out.

Hillary, like Maggie Thatcher before her, yearns to prove she's as tough as any man, and she'll gladly blow people up to prove it. She's more of a war hawk than any other candidate running. If the 1% want more war, she'll give it to them on a silver platter.

Hillary = more war. She'll start one somewhere, for sure. That's "smart power."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 30, 2016 2:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by G:

Going to be a little moot if "Hillary as president could mean the end of life on earth."

Free One: It's planet Earth - there's always going to be doom and gloom. You don't get points for predicting that.
Quoting the Operative: "It's worse than you think." According to the Atlantic Monthly:

Human Extinction Isn't That Unlikely

“A typical person is more than five times as likely to die in an extinction event as in a car crash,” says a new report.

Nuclear war. Climate change. Pandemics that kill tens of millions.

These are the most viable threats to globally organized civilization. They’re the stuff of nightmares and blockbusters—but unlike sea monsters or zombie viruses, they’re real, part of the calculus that political leaders consider everyday. And according to a new report from the U.K.-based Global Challenges Foundation, they’re much more likely than we might think.
www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/04/a-human-extinction-isnt
-that-unlikely/480444/

Hillary is gonna kill you if you don't watch out! Or it might be Putin, since drunkard Yeltsin died:
Quote:
In 1995, Russian systems mistook a Norwegian weather rocket for a potential nuclear attack. Russian President Boris Yeltsin retrieved launch codes and had the nuclear suitcase open in front of him. Thankfully, Russian leaders decided the incident was a false alarm.

Because I am capable of reason my extinction is the one must on my mind, and I fear it is approaching far to soon.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 30, 2016 6:04 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Originally posted by Wishimay:

I don't trust Hillary, but I find this fascinating.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-rejects-endorsement-koc
h-brother/story?id=38638619

Who turns down the kind of dough they come with?

I think it's the person who sees the Kochs as quaint, provincial, limited, backwater - in other words, minor and ignorable - compared to the international powers they've been playing with, and on whom they've staked their future.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 30, 2016 6:23 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/dem
ocrats/

At present Clinton has 1662 pledged delegates while Sanders has 1373. It's now a 55/45 split. (It used to be 57/43.) While Sanders won't be able to overtake her, his relative popularity is going up, while Clinton's is going down. My impression is still correct - the democratic party is split nearly in half.

I HOPE Sanders's supporters don't vote for Clinton.

Trump is a chaotic unknown, but he's not beholden to the war-mongering neo-cons that the war-mongering Clinton is. This could be an existential decision. And I don't want Clinton at the helm, playing chicken with Russia, the way she did from her lowly position as Secretary of State.

I didn't start out thinking 'anybody but Clinton'. But I've moved in that direction as her true intentions (and arrogance, hubris and patently bad judgment) become more obvious.

Aside from her long-standing pattern of deliberately antagonizing Russia, here are some more of her stellar moments:

http://www.continuityinsights.com/news/2016/04/firms-paid-clinton-spee
ches-have-us-government-interests
It's not just Wall Street banks. Most companies and groups that paid Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to speak between 2013 and 2015 have lobbied federal agencies in recent years, and more than one-third are government contractors, an Associated Press review has found. Their interests are sprawling and would follow Clinton to the White House should she win election this fall.
The AP's review of federal records, regulatory filings and correspondence showed that almost all the 82 corporations, trade associations and other groups that paid for or sponsored Clinton's speeches have actively sought to sway the government - lobbying, bidding for contracts, commenting on federal policy and in some cases contacting State Department officials or Clinton herself during her tenure as secretary of state.

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/15/hillary_clinton_is_lying_about_the_cri
minal_u_s_backed_coup_in_honduras_it_should_be_as_scandalous_as_libya/
Hillary Clinton is lying about the criminal U.S.-backed coup in Honduras. It should be as scandalous as Libya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 1, 2016 7:11 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Bump for kiki and Signy.

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Bump for kiki and Signy.
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
What, if anything, is factually wrong with the article?

you had NOT A SINGLE THING TO SAY ABOUT THE FACTS LISTED IN THE ARTICLE.

So Sig, kiki, are you guys prepared to side with the predictions made by this article you keep going on about?

From the article:

"Hillary Clinton... would likely be the most reckless president in American history... Hillary’s arrogant self-confidence is likely to result in over-reach that ends in conflict between NATO and Russia. Considering the extraordinary destructive force of nuclear weapons, Hillary as president could mean the end of life on earth."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 1, 2016 7:26 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

You ass. I haven't dealt with that article. Go suck your own cock.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 2, 2016 11:45 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Hillary Clinton will be the most-disliked nominee ever — except for Donald Trump
www.vox.com/2016/5/2/11565194/clinton-trump-unfavorable

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 2, 2016 11:48 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
So, let me just post this quote, which is still 100% true:

With all of the chaff that you threw into your post, it would be easy to overlook the fact that you had NOT A SINGLE THING TO SAY ABOUT THE FACTS LISTED IN THE ARTICLE.

^Kiki backing Signy's pushing of the article, and backing the supposed factuality of the article.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 2, 2016 1:40 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I LISTED the facts in the article. The last part of the article was opinion, which- if you're going to be honest about it (and you aren't) - I DIDN'T list.

Kiki backing me, while I back the facts of the article means that Kiki is backing this speculative end of this article when in fact she hasn't posted about it means that she's supposed to respond in some way about that paragraph?

That's just you being your usual prevaricative self.

In other words: troll.

So by the way, when will YOU respond to the facts of the article? Yanno, the hundreds of millions of dollars in speaking fees, the top 20 donors, the millions in foreign "donations" to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary was Scy State, the private email server, Stevens' role in Benghazi and HER role with Stevens (boss).

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 4, 2016 1:52 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
I LISTED the facts in the article. The last part of the article was opinion

You have pushed this article repeatedly. It seems strange that you can support the arguments in the article so strongly and yet not agree with its conclusions. So are you ready to stand by the predictions made in this article you are repeatedly pushing?

Quote:
So by the way, when will YOU respond to the facts of the article?

No intention of even reading the article, beyond skim-reading it for its laughable predictions.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 4, 2016 3:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by G:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
You ass. I haven't dealt with that article. Go suck your own cock.

Heh - the mask slips, the troll is revealed.

And man oh man is it ugly.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 4, 2016 7:33 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/dem
ocrats/

At present Clinton has 1662 pledged delegates while Sanders has 1373. It's now a 55/45 split. (It used to be 57/43.) While Sanders won't be able to overtake her, his relative popularity is going up, while Clinton's is going down. My impression is still correct - the democratic party is split nearly in half.

Still a 55/45 split after Indiana, with 1683/1362.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 4, 2016 11:50 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"Heh - the mask slips, the troll is revealed."

Said the kpoONEOFTHETHREESTOOGEStroll who's been very stupidly trolling me to discuss something I didn't post.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 5, 2016 7:57 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"Heh - the mask slips, the troll is revealed."

Said the kpoONEOFTHETHREESTOOGEStroll who's been very stupidly trolling me to discuss something I didn't post.

Firstly, I didn't say that, and secondly, you backed the article and Signy's pushing of it. I quoted you. So do you stand by the article's conclusions or not?

You too Siggy. Are you both afraid that the predictions will turn out false and you will look foolish?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 7, 2016 8:14 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"Heh - the mask slips, the troll is revealed."

Said the kpoONEOFTHETHREESTOOGEStroll who's been very stupidly trolling me to discuss something I didn't post.

Firstly, I didn't say that, and secondly, you backed the article and Signy's pushing of it. I quoted you. So do you stand by the article's conclusions or not?

You too Siggy. Are you both afraid that the predictions will turn out false and you will look foolish?

My god, you're a troll. I don't "back" anybody's predictions except ... the ones I back. Certainly not the ones you're attempting to pin on me. Jimminy crimminy! You're 100% idiot and 90% liar.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 7, 2016 8:24 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Hillary Clinton To Face FBI Interview Within Weeks, CBS Reports

Quote:
As we reported yesterday, just when Hillary thought the email scandal was behind her, and she could shift her focus to the newly minted GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump, an order by Judge Emmet Sullivan of the U.S. District Court decided to lay out ground rules for interviewing multiple State Department officials, and ordered at least six current and former State Department employees to answer questions, all in an effort to finish the depositions in the weeks before the party nominating conventions.

On the heels of interviewing Hillary Clinton's top personal aide Huma Abedin, as we detailed previously, it appears The FBI is finally ready to go after the Emailer-in-chief herself...

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-06/hillary-clinton-face-fbi-inte
rview-within-weeks-cbs-reports

Zerohedgers are rubbing their hands and slavering at the prospect of The Hillary finally getting her comeuppance. The State Dept and Justice (ha!) Dept have dropped pursuing this private email server case which - IMHO- is far more revealing than even Republican politicians want to admit, leaving the FBI to carry on alone. And Since the State Department, the CIA, the Justice Department and the NSA are closely aligned that leaves the FBI the odd man out to fight the deep state.

So is this a last-ditch effort to derail The Hillary from her coronation? Or is this the FBI's cave-in, their attempt to "get this out of the way" BEFORE the coronation?

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 7, 2016 6:08 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

kiki:
you had NOT A SINGLE THING TO SAY ABOUT THE FACTS LISTED IN THE ARTICLE.
So here I am, posting about kpoONEOFTHETHTREESTOOGEStroll's post. Note - I didn't post the article.

kpoONEOFTHETHTREESTOOGEStroll:
So Sig, kiki, are you guys prepared to side with the predictions made by this article you keep going on about? If not, then kindly pipe down.
And here's krapper challenging me to sign on to an article I DIDN'T POST.

So Sig, kiki, are you guys prepared to side with the predictions made by this article you keep going on about? If not, then kindly pipe down.
Bump for kiki and Signy.
And again.

^Kiki backing Signy's pushing of the article, and backing the supposed factuality of the article.
And here's krapper straw-manning my post in order to troll me about an article I DIDN'T POST.

kiki:
Said the kpoONEOFTHETHREESTOOGEStroll who's been very stupidly trolling me to discuss something I didn't post.
kpoONEOFTHETHREESTOOGEStroll:
Firstly, I didn't say that, krapper, remember "So Sig, kiki, are you guys" and "Bump for kiki and Signy"? and "article you keep going on about?" and "Are you both afraid that the predictions will turn out false and you will look foolish? You mean you HAVEN'T been trolling me about an article I didn't post? Then why did you direct your trolling to me by name, and include me in your trolls to Signy?

and secondly, you backed the article krapper, I said there were FACTS in the article, I didn't BACK THE ARTICLE

and Signy's pushing of it. Where, krapper? Where did I 'BACK' Signy's 'pushing' of it?

I quoted you. krapper, you quoted me commenting ABOUT YOUR POST.
So do you stand by the article's conclusions or not?
Not my post, not my discussion. Not my concern.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 8, 2016 2:56 PM

RIVERLOVE

Trump is now starting to attack Hillary for being an enabling partner of a sexual predator. No typical mudslinging this election, it's buckets of bloody entrails.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 8, 2016 5:06 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Trump is now starting to attack Hillary for being an enabling partner of a sexual predator.

This didn't get a whole lot of traction back then among democrats and I expect it'll get even less now. First if all, if you want people en masse to accept it, you'll have to tone down the overblown language. Bill was never even accused of sex with anyone underage, let alone convicted. And while adult women have accused Bill of many things, he hasn't been convicted, Is he in the national database of sexual offenders? No. So the message that you're repeating that he's a predator is not credible, and it undercuts not only the point you might be trying to make, but also your own personal believability. Also, if that's what Trump is saying, it'll undermine him too, among people not already inclined to vote for him.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 11, 2016 4:55 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
Do I need to editorialize about how much money, material, and manpower Curtis LeMay wasted?

No, because that's not how you conduct a debate. That was the problem with the last time. I'll remind you, from the old thread:

KPO: "I have opined quite a lot in this thread, giving my thoughts on this matter and others. You have not paid attention even when I've responded directly to your questions, so I don't see the point in doing so again."

I might as well turn on my television and try to argue with it.
You made your position clear at
www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=59952&mid=1001370#
1001370

So what was my position?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 11, 2016 5:27 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
My god, you're a troll. I don't "back" anybody's predictions except ... the ones I back. Certainly not the ones you're attempting to pin on me.

I'm not trying to pin any predictions on you. I'm asking you if you agree with the predictions made by an article YOU posted (and pushed repeatedly, with help from kiki). It's a simple enough question, and in response you and kiki have offered 1) evasion, 2) name-calling and 3) no direct answer.

You're in a tough position because if you side with the predictions you appear foolish (and ever more foolish over time), but if you distance yourself from the predictions you highlight even more the fact that they are lunatic ravings.

And here is the point of the exercise. Any commentator who makes such deranged predictions is either highly unbalanced or hyper-biased or both. And why should any of us pay any attention to arguments made by such a person? Or to another person on the internet typing in all-caps telling us we should heed them?

Answer: We shouldn't.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 11, 2016 8:17 AM