Hillary Has Balls

[MSimon]

Hillary Clinton Supports IDF Control of Judea, Samaria

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/12/world ... .html?_r=0

I also like this girl in a bikini and machine gun:

http://imgur.com/zipuu

[JoeP]

It makes me ill to say it, but she would have been a far better POTUS than the the guy we have in there now. She would beat him now assuredly.

Still two more years of exponentially growing bad stuff before he is out. And then we'll have the most celebrated and adored "ex-president" on T.V. and commenting and critiquing everything for the rest of our lives to look forward to. I'm sure he will make a very popular personality. And the role of an outsider agitating is all he really wants to do anyway.

[MSimon]

It makes me ill to say it, but she would have been a far better POTUS than the the guy we have in there now. She would beat him now assuredly.

Still two more years of exponentially growing bad stuff before he is out. And then we'll have the most celebrated and adored "ex-president" on T.V. and commenting and critiquing everything for the rest of our lives to look forward to. I'm sure he will make a very popular personality. And the role of an outsider agitating is all he really wants to do anyway.

Yeah. I think she will go back on everything she said in the above pieces if elected. And I agree - bad as she is she would have been heads and shoulders above the current dufus/idiot/schemer.

[tomclarke]

It makes me ill to say it, but she would have been a far better POTUS than the the guy we have in there now. She would beat him now assuredly.

Still two more years of exponentially growing bad stuff before he is out. And then we'll have the most celebrated and adored "ex-president" on T.V. and commenting and critiquing everything for the rest of our lives to look forward to. I'm sure he will make a very popular personality. And the role of an outsider agitating is all he really wants to do anyway.

Yeah. I think she will go back on everything she said in the above pieces if elected. And I agree - bad as she is she would have been heads and shoulders above the current dufus/idiot/schemer.

I strongly supported Hilary at the time that she lost the Democratic Primaries. She should have won, but people did they typical: "don't think - we want a change" thing in response to the Bush idiocy.

It is the difference between "the vision thing" and a proven ability to make hard decisions and work with the uneasy compromises of reality.

I can't say how good or bad is Obie as president. He came to power at a time when the US was divided in a poisonous way, with no possibility of a centrist president holding the middle ground. I get the impression that Obie is not good at making difficult decisions - but that is maybe unfair.

Hilary would make a great POTUS. She can cope with a husband who is publicly unfaithful, which means she will deal with the dirt US politics slings OK, she is clever, and she has a long track record of making decent decisions.

But, at the end of the day, you never quite know who will make a good leader till they have had that ultimate power. And without the benefit of objectivity and history what we think about the competence of a leader is often more about "events" and less about their innate capability.

Look at Winston Churchill. A profoundly flawed person and leader whose single-minded stubbornness was exactly what we needed to survive and win the second world war. But as peace-time leader? Disastrous.

[MSimon]

tomclarke,

You conception of Obozo as a centerist is a big problem in terms of his governing. He is no centerist. And in a center right nation even a centerist will be too far to the left to be effective. And I say this as some one disgusted with both parties - as you may have noticed.

On top of that Obozo has no conception of power politics in international relations. He obviously has not studied the pre-war periods pre-1914 and pre-1939. In both cases the dominant attitude was "too much spending on the war machine" and "America has no interest in...". Those attitudes are very dangerous. For America and the world. And the fires are just starting. We have almost 3 years yet to go with the imbecile in chief.

Now you may hate Bush for your reasons. But he got power politics in the world. Pulling out of Iraq was the stupidest thing the Clown In Chief could do. It gave people in the region "ideas". And his making nice with Russia and denying Ukraine an ABM system has given Putin "ideas". It is very bad for the world when America shows weakness/lack of interest. It gives people ideas.

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

I see two possibilities.

1. he is an idiot
2. he wanted it to happen

1. is bad. 2. is worse.

Now us stupids tried to tell you he was not an American. Did I mean that by birth? Well that is possible. But even more important he was not an American by culture. The American interest was not engraved in his bones. Or he thinks it doesn't matter. All of us will be reaping the whirlwind because the Ds didn't take that message to heart.

[MSimon]

You see Tom the trouble we are in is not an accident that Obama is forced to deal with. He set it up.

And Hillary? Well I don't trust her. Just because she said some good things does not meant she will act on them given the opportunity.

For the next President I'd prefer some one with military experience. Because he is going to need it.

So who have we got? At this point no one.

[tomclarke]

You see Tom the trouble we are in is not an accident that Obama is forced to deal with. He set it up.

The Middle East is an accident set up 60 years ago and with no possible end in sight short of a Iran/Israeli nuclear war knocking heads together or 100% genocide of the Palestinians - in which case Israel would still have the rest of the Middle East to deal with.

Iraq (proximately) is an accident set up by the invasion that toppled Saddam. Now Saddam was an extremely nasty piece of work but he prevented AQ influence and also made it impossible for something like ISIS to progress.

The current government in Iraq is a major disaster. With or without US feet on ground it would be a disaster. You can say that was down to Bush - he could have implemented a system with guaranteed checks and balances, he could have made sure the army and civil service stayed on board instead of making them guaranteed enemies with guns. But personally I think the situation was an impossible one. Even with the roight decisions it would have required US military control for a long period and THAT would make internal political progress imp[ossible and stoked up further anti-US feeling worldwide.

So all these "events" were not exactly accidents, but not caused by Obie and accidental in timing.

[Diogenes]

I can't say how good or bad is Obie as president. He came to power at a time when the US was divided in a poisonous way, with no possibility of a centrist president holding the middle ground. I get the impression that Obie is not good at making difficult decisions - but that is maybe unfair.

You think it was divided then? I assure you it is far worse now. People are buying guns and ammunition as fast as they can. The supply stores are often empty because everything that hits the shelves is gone almost instantly. There is a very strong perception out there that Obama has ushered in a Nazi form of government, and that there may be a need to deal with it in an extra-legal process. People are preparing for some very nasty confrontations, and I for one will breath a sigh of relief once that cretin is finally out of office. Racial harmony has been set back to the early 60s almost.

Hilary would make a great POTUS. She can cope with a husband who is publicly unfaithful, which means she will deal with the dirt US politics slings OK, she is clever, and she has a long track record of making decent decisions.

I can only read this in wonderment at what sort of tripe you have been fed to find such an idea plausible. I know you are intelligent because i've read what you've written, but what on God's green earth ever leads you to believe that a Woman who's sole known accomplishment is having Sex with Bill Clinton (allegedly)





would make even a tolerable, let alone "Great" President?


She is about the worst sort of dreck you could find, superior only to Obama in competence and decency, and yes, she probably has more balls than does he.

[Diogenes]

You see Tom the trouble we are in is not an accident that Obama is forced to deal with. He set it up.

And Hillary? Well I don't trust her. Just because she said some good things does not meant she will act on them given the opportunity.

For the next President I'd prefer some one with military experience. Because he is going to need it.

So who have we got? At this point no one.

I like this guy.





The argument against him is that he has too little experience. My rebuttal is : "After Obama, there are no experience requirements. "



Allen West said "If it's about the lives of my soldiers at stake, I'd go through hell with a gasoline can."


That's all I need to know about him.

[MSimon]

Tom,

Here is something I posted at: http://classicalvalues.com/2014/08/who-owns-the-land/ links to the ECN article at the link.

It goes back more than 60 years.

****************************************

There is a discussion going on over at ECN Magazine about the morality of working to make weapons of war. In the thread there is considerable discussion of the “stolen land” in the Israel/Hamas dispute. Well I had to chime in.

==

Re: the stolen land dispute going on down thread.

What is the general rule in land disputes between opposing governments? Who ever can hold it.

Now let us look at that from a historical perspective. Who owned the land before the Ottoman’s? We won’t go back that far. But the British stole it from them fair and square. The British decided they didn’t want it and divided it up between two opposing communities in the area. With the UN seal of approval. Clever boys.

One of those communities and a number of their neighbors decided to gang up on the other group the British gifted because they disputed the gift. They lost the war. And as is usual in lost wars they lost territory. Not satisfied with the results of the first war they decided in ’67 to have another one. Well they lost that one and more territory. That was not the end. In 1973 another war. More territorial losses. Only one party to all those wars has signed a peace treaty. And in return they got considerable territory back.

Now as long as there is no peace treaty the parties are not required to make any land deals. And as long as the war continues the belligerents are subject to more land loss – one way or another. Mostly one way.

The moral of the story? Don’t compound your losses. Peace is better than war. Even if you lost the last one. And especially don’t be stupid and lose the next one too.

****************************************************

Now I agree about the Israel/Hamas dispute. But Obama is making the same mistake re:Assad that Bush made about Saddam. On top of that given Bush's mistake, pulling out of Iraq was a mistake. That one is on Obama as well.

And of course there is Libya.

====================

And Russia.

====================

He has no concept of geopolitics. We will be lucky to avoid a world war.

[Diogenes]

he could have made sure the army and civil service stayed on board instead of making them guaranteed enemies with guns.

And on this point I wholeheartedly agree. The very day I heard the news that they were contemplating disbanding the Iraqi army and chucking out all the Bathe party members in government I started screaming at my radio about what collossal fools they were. I told anyone who would listen at the time that this was utter folly, and it would provoke a near instantaneous reaction from the Sunni minority, and especially the most dangerous people in the country.


They didn't fight so hard for Saddam, but implementing those stupid Paul Bremer moves would make it very personal, and we would see far worse fighting before things got better.


And that is exactly what happened. I thought at the time, "Don't our Officers all study War Theory?" I would have thought they would have protested en masse, but if they ever let out a peep I never heard of it.


No, Bush won the war, but he and his Appointees utterly bungled the aftermath. Had they not done so, Iraq might have turned out very differently.

But personally I think the situation was an impossible one. Even with the roight decisions it would have required US military control for a long period and THAT would make internal political progress imp[ossible and stoked up further anti-US feeling worldwide.

So all these "events" were not exactly accidents, but not caused by Obie and accidental in timing.

I have seen arguments that the Islamic faith is simply incompatible with Western notions of Democracy. I am being persuaded that this is true, and therefore attempts to establish such a form of government in such societies are likely futile.

Islam favors a strong man form of Government. Equality and seeking consensus is contrary to their belief system.

[MSimon]

D,

I had forgotten about Allen West. Now if he wasn't in the Prohibition camp. I guess I can't have everything. BTW is he in the race? I hadn't heard.

Maybe:

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/danieldohe ... t-n1839300

[MSimon]

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/03 ... y-statist/

But in addition to being a member of both the Tea Party Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus, Allen West is also a Tea Party statist.

Before his election to Congress, West was a lieutenant colonel in the army until his retirement after an investigation into his harsh interrogation techniques while fighting in the Iraq War resulted in a $5,000 fine. After his “service” in the military, West worked for a defense contractor as an advisor to the Afghan National Army. He run unsuccessfully in 2008 for the congressional seat he now holds. After speaking at CPAC in 2010 and being endorsed by Sarah Palin, West won the 2010 election against the same Democratic candidate who had earlier defeated him. He was the keynote speaker at the recent 2011 CPAC. West is a favorite of Tea Party members for his attacks on President Obama and government spending and his support for the military and the war on terror.

I have never been too impressed with the Tea Party movement, especially when it comes to issues like the war on drugs and U. S. foreign policy. And although most Tea Party supporters claim they are opposed to big government, in poll after poll a majority of Tea Party Republicans say they have a favorable view of former president George W. Bush. The George W. Bush who doubled the national debt, gave us the first trillion-dollar deficit, drastically expanded Medicare, and not only began two wars that unnecessarily shed American blood and drained the treasury, but waged another war on the domestic front””on the Bill of Rights.

I don’t know how West feels about Bush, but I do know that he is a Tea Party statist who supports the welfare state, the warfare state, and the national security state.
=================================
Thank you for stopping by the Tenth Amendment Center. You’ll find something new, something interesting, and something concrete to do! We don’t identify with political parties. When Republicans are in power, we get lambasted by the right for being “communists” for opposing unconstitutional republican programs. When Democrats are in power, we get lambasted by the left for being “racists” for opposing unconstitutional democrat programs. If you’re not catching any flak, you’re not over the target. And since our goal is the Constitution, we’re always over the target to the establishment.

The Constitution. Every issue, every time. No exceptions, no excuses.

[MSimon]

West on our border problem quoting another general:

http://allenbwest.com/2014/07/u-s-gener ... ng-border/

As reported by Defense One, Gen. Kelly says he’s been unable to combat the steady flow of illegal drugs, weapons and people from Central America, and is looking to Congress for urgent help. Gen. Kelly has asked Congress this year for more money, drones and ships for his mission – a request unlikely to be met. Since October, an influx of nearly 100,000 migrants has made the dangerous journey north from Latin America to the United States border.

General Kelly firmly stated to Defense One, “In comparison to other global threats, the near collapse of societies in the hemisphere with the associated drug and [undocumented immigrant] flow are frequently viewed to be of low importance. Many argue these threats are not existential and do not challenge our national security. I disagree.”

Jeeze. Doesn't he have ANY idea how Prohibition works? And guns flowing from Central America to the US? Really?

What is it with politics in the US? The only "qualified" candidates are certifiably insane.

I thought they paid those guys (Generals) to think outside the box.

[williatw]

Jeeze. Doesn't he have ANY idea how Prohibition works? And guns flowing from Central America to the US? Really?

What is it with politics in the US? The only "qualified" candidates are certifiably insane.

I thought they paid those guys (Generals) to think outside the box.

Hillary, West, most of the other Republicans are pro WOD as far as I know....Libertarian candidates don't seem to have the votes to win in a national elections; your best hope for ending WOD is through the States, same as you know prompted the end of alcohol prohibition. However there is the possibility of Obama after the current "review" of pot category one status is complete, may decide to re-classify it by executive fiat--you know how much he likes that. If the Republicans win control of the Senate and retain the House he may decide to do it during his last two lame duck years just to f*&k with the Conservatives.