Humanizing Hillary?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Arne Saknussemm, Mar 1, 2014.

  1. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    She showed again how good she is when handling a situation with Benghazi. She didn't do the right thing then tried to cover up the truth. I don't think we need her ruining America the way she did Benghazi, do you?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    LOL, except for the fact that she did none of those things...damn minor details again! And despite all the money, all the Republican led hearings, they have not one shred of evidence which supports those claims. Just like after 8 years of Republican led congressional investigations and 60 plus million dollars spent by congressional Republicans, they were not able to prove any of the many allegations they have made against Hillary Clinton.

    Republicans have made the most bizarre and wild accusations against Bill and Hillary Clinton for decades all of which they have not been able to support with evidence and reason despite spending tens of millions investigating them, this is just more of the same. And no matter what Republicans accuse Hillary Clinton of it really doesn't matter anymore. Republicans have lost their credibility. They have cried wolf too many times with respect to the Hillary Clinton.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. TheHun Registered Member

    Messages:
    91
    Oh really, she needs a moniker like W for woman? why? are you implying that she worries you so much that you need to put her in her place and call her a woman as if it were a bad thing to be one, or, as the case may be, point out that she falls short of what an ideal woman ought to be in your world? Your assertion that the Clinton's pay beaucoup bucks for PR makes little sense; they don't have to, what either one of them do is usually newsworthy enough to give them free publicity.

    All your posts are rife with misogyny, so yeah, you sound like a misogynist. who cares if you are a republican or a democrat or neither, while you make a point of constantly berating Clinton for not being a real woman, you do sound like a misogynist. it's not like you condemn male politicians for not being real men. no, in that instance you do not use gender as a marker.
    You mention that "Anything Hillary may do to appear to be actually working or serving our country is based on what's in it for her personally." Really? What would that actually entail? and in what way would that be different from what any male politician does?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Beg to differ there sport but she was asked months in advance for more protection yet she never sent any extra troops there. Then , afterwards, she stated that it was not terrorists that attacked which we found out later was not the truth.
     
  8. quinnsong Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,621
    Hillary has 31 years of public service, is an intelligent person, can play hardball if needed and can be very charming if also needed and mostly I like her.I have this sneaky suspicion (gut feeling) she may be a little too hawkish for my taste but nobody is perfect. All I have to do is look at what the Right has to offer and she is a no-brainer for the next POTUS. I do not see her as a self-serving, egomaniacal, only-in-it-for-the-history-books kind of public servant. It is my belief she really cares about her country and the world and IMO no humanizing of Hillary is necessary, just look at the record.
     
  9. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Then it shouldn't be difficult for you to provide credible proof of those claims. So let's see it SPORT.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    I have some qualms about Hillary Clinton too, though mine are the opposite of yours. Her husband in my view was too much of a special interest shill in my book. I don't like the way the Clintons caved so quickly on healthcare reform or her husbands trade polices or her husbands decision to repeal Glass-Stegall. Separating Hillary's policies is difficult for me. But even if Hillary's policies are no better than her husband's, she is still much better than anyone Republicans could offer.

    Hillary is probably the best qualified person in the country to be POTUS. She has it all. Time has been good to her. She has matured and become more comfortable in her skin.
     
  11. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Wow, Joe made it through a post without invoking "The Koch Brothers". Amazing.

    The TV will tell Joe to vote for Hillary, and vote for Hillary Joe will.

    Hillary is the type of person who would vote for to murder women and children in Iraq, knowing these innocents had absolutely nothing at all to do with 911. IOWs, she's no different from Bill Clinton, Bush Sr/Jr or Obama. They are our typical 'Representative'. I personally look forward to her winning in 2016. I'm hoping 8 years of Obama followed by 8 more of Hillary will be enough to sink this bad boy. Let's hope so. Maybe she can expand the "Patriot" act to include widespread surveillance of all email, internet traffic and phone calls... oh, wait. Maybe she can sell out our healthcare... oh wait. Maybe she can drone kill teenaged US Citizens who fathers are wanted for questioning.... oh, wait. What can she do? I don't know? But, I'm sure it's something. Oh! I have an idea - she can "tax". I'm thinking a nice "Progressive" 99% Age Tax on the then, retiring unproductive babyboomer class. Given their usefulness to the State has passed, time to 'redistribute' the wealth. That, she could do. And, if there's one thing the Government likes - it's a new fat healthy slice of tax-led bureaucratic growth. For the "Good of Society" of course. Someone's got to pay for the roads, and the Koch brother's entire family wealth couldn't even fund the Department of Propaganda... err "Education" for half of one of her terms. So? Where's all the money going to come from? Not the X/Y and Millennial, but from the one's who sold bonds on them.

    Try to think of the children when the militant arm of IRS comes to collect.... and hey, we're going to create a bunch of jobs building "Public Housing" for the soon-to-be taxed to death unproductive babyboomer class - complete with onsite ObamaCare clinics run by Public School graduates (note: some of these kids may need help reading your prescription). Gotta love a Republic. Get one politician in there who thinks she can make a name for herself with a little "Progressive" redistribution - and Wah-Lah.
     
  12. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    My what a active fantasy life you have Michael.
     
  13. Arne Saknussemm trying to figure it all out Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,353
    No, Michael is the only one here making any sense, seeing Hillary Clinton for what she is - no better than a man!
     
  14. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    LOL, is she supposed to be better than a man? You just have this visceral hatred of Hillary which you really cannot justify with evidence or reason.
     
  15. Arne Saknussemm trying to figure it all out Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,353
    Nor do I feel I need to. Thank you for paying attention to what I've been saying. Yes, my hatred is visceral, and there's no arguing with the gut. Starting this post was my small way of tilting the balance away from 'Scary Lady' before the election. I have no idea who we should get instead. Maybe it would be better not to have a government if all they can think to do is bomb Afghan wedding parties and baffle us with bullshit domestically.

    My 'no better than a man remark' was a finger flip to the idiots who think I don't like her because she's a woman. Hell, that's the only thing I do like about her! But she is So not my type.
     
  16. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    In the month before attackers stormed U.S. facilities in Benghazi and killed four Americans, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens twice turned down offers of security assistance made by the senior U.S. military official in the region in response to concerns that Stevens had raised in a still secret memorandum, two government officials told McClatchy.

    Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/...-twice-said-no-to-military.html#storylink=cpy

    Of course you know who was in charge of him don't you, why Hillary Clinton and he took his actions of not sending anyone due to her not telling him to do so. She was the top person in charge then the President so you blame it on her or him.


    Facts:
    September 11, 2012 - The U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, is attacked and burned. An attack later that night involves mortar and rocket fire against a U.S. diplomatic annex in the city..
    Initially, the attack was thought to be perpetrated by an angry mob responding to a video made in the U.S. which mocked Islam and the Prophet Mohammed, but it is later determined to be a terrorist attack
    U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other U.S. nationals are killed in the attack.


    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...r4CQAw&usg=AFQjCNEhSvxVmVeXUE8P13XrZV8KlRZ5qw
     
  17. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    I wouldn't vote for anyone who wasn't in favor of using drones to kill our enemies.
     
  18. Arne Saknussemm trying to figure it all out Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,353
    Yeah, those damned Afghan wedding parties. How dare they get married in their own country!
    And the nerve of those Pakistani children going to school! Call themselves allies!
     
  19. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    So the bottom line in all this is you don’t have proof of your accusations. Let me remind you of those accusations;
    Where is your evidence she didn’t do the right thing? What did she do wrong? You pointed to the fact that Ambassador Stevens, who lost his life in the attack, turned down an offer of a military assistance team. It doesn’t say anything about Hillary. Nowhere in any of the material you posted was there anything that adversely implicated Hillary in any way. There is no evidence she did anything wrong. And you have proffered no proof of any cover-up.

    Yeah Hillary was responsible for The State Department at the time. But that doesn’t mean she did the things you have accused her of doing. My employees have sex with their wives and significant others, that doesn’t mean I have sex with them. Just because you are responsible for something or some people, it doesn’t mean you do or have done everything they do or have done. That is like saying the Afghanis abused by US Army troops in Afghanistan were abused by President George Junior. George Junior was responsible for the US Army at the time or saying that FDR attacked Pearl Harbor back in December of 1941; after all FDR was The Commander In Chief at the time. Don’t you see how ludicrous your justification is?

    And the US Foreign Service has it's own security apparatus. The US military is not responsible for the security of embassy personnel, that is within the purview of the US Foreign Service. That is probably one reason why Ambassador Stevens turned down the military offer. While you are casting blame, how about blaming Republicans in Congress. They are the folks who dramatically cut US embassy security funding which created the need to ration embassy security resources.
     
  20. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Hillary was in charge of the State Dept. when the request for more troops were asked for and that is why I said what I did. The buck stops at her desk when ANYTHING goes wrong OR the Presidents desk if he so wants to bail her out. So you now agree with that statement above that she was in charge at the time but then did nothing to help when so asked.

    By the way where is Hillary now and did you see the trail of dust behind when she left the State Dept. after this fiasco? I guess she must have done the right thing according to you that she was DEMOTED and not been heard of since, interesting isn't it?
     
  21. Arne Saknussemm trying to figure it all out Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,353
    Joe, do you know the meaning of the word, responsible?​
     
  22. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    I think the real question is do you. I suggest you take a stab at using the dictionary some day.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    As previously noted, additional troops were not asked for, in no small part, because troops are not used to secure the safety of diplomats. That is why we have The Diplomatic Security Service. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_Security_Service

    As I previously stated and as Hillary Clinton has previously stated, she is responsible for the operations of The State Department. But that is not the same as her doing everything in The State Department. She didn’t turn down any security requests as you claimed. She didn’t cover anything up and you have no evidence even to suggest otherwise. The unpleasant fact for you is that Hillary wasn’t asked for additional security; her subordinates were.

    Hillary is just as responsible for the attack on Benghazi as FDR was responsible for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor or George Bush was responsible for the abuse of Afghani prisoners. Hillary took her share of responsibility, I am still looking for those Republicans in Congress who cut her diplomatic security budget to step up and accept responsibility for their role in Benghazi.

    LOL, have you been drinking sport? Hillary’s record at The State Department is nothing to run from, she did a very good job. “The most consequential secretary of state since Dean Acheson,” enthused Google’s Eric Schmidt.
    Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...ate-john-kerry-2016-100766.html#ixzz2v1o5ZRn8

    Whatever you may think about Hillary Clinton, her record at The State Department is nothing to run from. I think all that dust is more wishful thinking on your part and the part of your compatriots and the right wing nut case entertainment complex. Hillary wasn’t demoted any more than she murdered Vince Foster – yet another right wing kooky conspiracy brandied about by the right wing nut case entertainment complex. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Vince_Foster And unfortunately for you and those like you, Hillary has been and continues to be heard from almost daily, you just have to listen. Hillary has been very active. She and her husband are doing all the things one would expect of someone who intends to run for POTUS in 2016. I guess that means Republicans will need to spend another 60 million dollars of public money investigating her. It’s too bad they can’t spend some of that money on diplomatic security.
     

Share This Page