Clinton's repeated wars and death

[Baldy]

Baldy is going to have another apoplexy when he sees the source.

And I'm sure he'll put up a well reasoned argument of how they're wrong.

You and Lube Boi make me laugh.

When they're eating their own, every word of that article rings true.

[Wedgebuster]

If the Clinton Presidency was such a disaster I am wondering why his wife is now the Democratic nominee, while the brother/son of two past Bush Presidencies finished near dead last in his party primaries..

Even funnier to me is the fact a reality show character who wears a dead beaver on his head is the Republican nominee when Jeb Bush is clearly the pick of the Bush litter.

[JohnStOnge]

Again: Clinton has been in government and therefore has a record related to having to actually deal with things (like South Sudan). Trump does not.

However, ask yourself this question:

Would Clinton say, if asked, that she would rule out using nuclear weapons against ISIS?

I think you know the answer. Of course she would.

Trump didn't. Look, maybe an argument can be made for using nuclear weapons against ISIS. But lets understand that Trump would not rule it out when asked if he would rule it out.

[kalm]

And I'm sure he'll put up a well reasoned argument of how they're wrong.

You and Lube Boi make me laugh.

When they're eating their own, every word of that article rings true.

Oh believe me, the feeling is mutual.

The Intercept has a habit of "eating its own" as you say. I'm glad it's enjoyable for you...when it fits your ideology.

[Skjellyfetti]

It eats "it's own" so much.... it's almost as if it exists outside of the contrived R and D binary political spectrum.

[AZGrizFan]

facts.. Not hyperbole
You'll notice I avoided comments like (Islamic relations are set back 75 years)

To me, saying things like, " he set race relations back 75 years" is pretty stupid. Obama hasn't done anything to quell the turmoil, especially with stupid comments like, " If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon" and the current racial climate has progressively deteriorated, but to quantify it with a time-frame like that is dumb. What makes 1941 the high water mark? Why not 1968? 1865? 1933?

Are you serious? You're measuring the value of the statement by the NUMBER OF YEARS I chose? You are precious...

[Chizzang]

To me, saying things like, " he set race relations back 75 years" is pretty stupid. Obama hasn't done anything to quell the turmoil, especially with stupid comments like, " If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon" and the current racial climate has progressively deteriorated, but to quantify it with a time-frame like that is dumb. What makes 1941 the high water mark? Why not 1968? 1865? 1933?

Are you serious? You're measuring the value of the statement by the NUMBER OF YEARS I chose? You are precious...

The real question AZ is:
What Fox News sound bite will you throw out there next..?

[kalm]

It eats "it's own" so much.... it's almost as if it exists outside of the contrived R and D binary political spectrum.

Don't confuse him. That isn't nice.

[Baldy]

You and Lube Boi make me laugh.

When they're eating their own, every word of that article rings true.

Oh believe me, the feeling is mutual.

The Intercept has a habit of "eating its own" as you say. I'm glad it's enjoyable for you...when it fits your ideology.

Progtards feasting off Progrards. I'm a true tardo, no I'm the real tardo.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qp6mXmHNPlg[/youtube]

[Baldy]

It eats "it's own" so much.... it's almost as if it exists outside of the contrived R and D binary political spectrum.

Says the one who will step over his dying mother to stand in line to vote for The Hildabeast.

[Ibanez]

To me, saying things like, " he set race relations back 75 years" is pretty stupid. Obama hasn't done anything to quell the turmoil, especially with stupid comments like, " If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon" and the current racial climate has progressively deteriorated, but to quantify it with a time-frame like that is dumb. What makes 1941 the high water mark? Why not 1968? 1865? 1933?

Are you serious? You're measuring the value of the statement by the NUMBER OF YEARS I chose? You are precious...

That's called an example, numb nuts.

But since we're talking about this, you laughing at me using a measurement you provided speaks very poorly about you. So, laugh at yourself.

I was pointing out the ridiculous value that you placed on race relations. Either you just love to be hyperbolic or you are just making stupid generalizations and hoping nobody questions it.

[YoUDeeMan]

Again: Clinton has been in government and therefore has a record related to having to actually deal with things (like South Sudan). Trump does not.

However, ask yourself this question:

Would Clinton say, if asked, that she would rule out using nuclear weapons against ISIS?

I think you know the answer. Of course she would.

Trump didn't. Look, maybe an argument can be made for using nuclear weapons against ISIS. But lets understand that Trump would not rule it out when asked if he would rule it out.

Uhhh...Clinton's record has left hundreds of thousands of people DEAD...and millions more as refugees.

Apparently, you are either NOT reading the articles, or you are saying that her decisions, her record, is worth defending.

I'll repeat...her decisions have resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths. She removed, on false premises, a secular government in Libya...and the country has been engaged in a civil war ever since. She supported the decision to attempt to remove Assad, and helped supply weapons to the so-called, and since proven not to be, "moderate" opposition to Assad, even calling for, similar to her call on Qadaffi, and Bush's call on Saddam, the removal, by force, of the only governing entity that was controlling the outburst of violence between Muslin factions. She talks about not having children as soldiers...and then directly counters that by making exceptions in Sudan (anyone want to guess what South Sudan's natural resource is...hint: it rhymes with boil). And, in only one such summary, Hillary has supplied a record number of arms sales, mainly to countries with abysmal human rights records...and mainly to unstable, radical and oppressive regimes. Cripes, she almost got us into a war with Russia (and really, we are in a proxy war with them on several fronts...and not based upon Russian actions).

Yet you are worried about Trump.

Jesus, you really are ignorant...and getting worse every day.

BTW, as far as the bomb goes, are you saying you would not have supported Truman, Ike, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Reagan...all of whom threatened at one time or another to use the bomb to defend us, and defeat our enemies?

JSO....