Milo Yiannopoulos

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

There are things that happened I'm sure she had little visibility to. You're quoting me out of context by the way.

Just stop......please.....you're giving me a popsickle headache.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"the net value of her leadership"

She voted for the Iraq war, in her own words, "with conviction".

Then, when General Petreus pitched the idea of the Surge, she said that to believe the Surge would do what he claimed, "requires the willful suspension of disbelief". Those were her exact words. In other words, she accused the man of lying. And of course, the Surge did exactly what they hoped it would do.

In the Bob Gates book: Duty. He states Hillary admitted she voted against the surge because of politics. She did not vote because it was sound or not, or whether it would make things better or worse in Iraq - she voted because of Politics.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You were the one who said people should be held responsible when their words lead to violence. So I think it's very on topic, to point out that liberals love Al Sharpton and BLM, despite the fact that both have blood on their hands.

If you decry Al Sharpton and BLM, I truly respect that. Most liberals don't. Obama has had Sharpton to the Oval Office dozens of times, so Obama clearly thinks Sharpton is a worthy ally, worthy of respect...rather than the disgusting, vile pig that he is.

it this your blood on his hands video from 1992 http://www.snopes.com/al-sharptons-1...o-kill-police/ it doesn't show him screaming "kill cops" or calling on blacks to go out and commit acts of violence.

can you post where an official of BLM not a random person at a rally calls on blacks calling on blacks to go out and commit acts of violence.
doubtful
as you comments concerning riots when have you seen Conservatives riot .. is that how you thinks riots work can you have a more simplistic view ??

but you have armed Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife
Refuge or his ranch in 2014 many being charged with conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States, no riot so it acceptable form of protest i would say they are more Alt right

[scottw]

yeah...that's a good comparison

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

it this your blood on his hands video from 1992 http://www.snopes.com/al-sharptons-1...o-kill-police/ it doesn't show him screaming "kill cops" or calling on blacks to go out and commit acts of violence.

can you post where an official of BLM not a random person at a rally calls on blacks calling on blacks to go out and commit acts of violence.
doubtful

Maybe one of those random persons who carry Sharpton's water.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

it this your blood on his hands video from 1992 http://www.snopes.com/al-sharptons-1...o-kill-police/ it doesn't show him screaming "kill cops" or calling on blacks to go out and commit acts of violence.

can you post where an official of BLM not a random person at a rally calls on blacks calling on blacks to go out and commit acts of violence.
doubtful
as you comments concerning riots when have you seen Conservatives riot .. is that how you thinks riots work can you have a more simplistic view ??

but you have armed Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife
Refuge or his ranch in 2014 many being charged with conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States, no riot so it acceptable form of protest i would say they are more Alt right

Not once, but twice, at Al Sharpton rallies, people were murdered. On one of those occasions, a store was burned down, killing more than one person. Look it up. Then there was that whole Tawana Brawley thing, where he made up a rape, and accused white cops who he knew were innocent. What a swell guy, the pig Al Sharpton.

"can you post where an official of BLM not a random person at a rally calls on blacks calling on blacks to go out and commit acts of violence."

There are no "officials" of BLM, only its supporters. and I can post all the videos you want, of its members saying they want dead cops. And we also have recent cop assassins who have confessed that they were inspired by the BLM rhetoric.

Again, I respond to the facts at hand. You ignore all facts which reject your narrative. I'm holding all the cards here, WDMSO.

"as you comments concerning riots when have you seen Conservatives riot .. is that how you thinks riots work can you have a more simplistic view ??"

Every recent American riot, going back for decades, is liberals going berserk because they didn't get what they wanted. If you can cite examples to the contrary, please to so. If you can't, perhaps you can admit that I have a point.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

yeah...that's a good comparison

Yeesh! THAT'S the best he can do? Scott, do you notice, that they can never, and I mean NEVER, admit that the other side has a point? On anything. Ever.

I'm not saying that conservatives don't do horrible things, of course they do. But we don't riot when things don't go our way. That's a card played exclusively by liberals. But they won't admit it. They cannot admit facts which don't paint them in a favorable light. The ideology is one big denial-fest.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

In the Bob Gates book: Duty. He states Hillary admitted she voted against the surge because of politics. She did not vote because it was sound or not, or whether it would make things better or worse in Iraq - she voted because of Politics.

Correct.

But there's always a chance Gates is lying, right? Even if we set that aside...we know that she voted for the war "with conviction", then when the war became unpopular, we know what she said to Petreus about what the Surge would do.

She was dead wrong when she said Iraq had WMDs, and she was dead wrong when she said the Surge couldn't do what Petreus said it could do (and she called him a liar, to boot). If her instincts are that bad, on what basis is she a great candidate. What is the "net value", as Spence put it, of her leadership? Iraq went completely south during her watch as Secstate, and her state department refused to increase the security of the ambassador to Libya, which turned out to be the wrong call. She claims that she didn't know what the "C" marking means on intelligence reports for Christ's sake. And whether you believe her endless, changing list of excuses or not, we know the FBI said she was "extremely careless" with sensitive information.

Trump is no all-star, either. But as I have said, most people are honest about Trumps faults and his virtues. Democrats, as a group, won't concede her baggage. because they can't ever be wrong about anything.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I'm not saying that conservatives don't do horrible things, of course they do. But we don't riot when things don't go our way.

I don't know...those Tea Partybagger Terrorists were pretty violent, rioting, looting...killed a bunch of people and did a lot of property damage along the way....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

I don't know...those Tea Partybagger Terrorists were pretty violent, rioting, looting...killed a bunch of people and did a lot of property damage along the way....

Meanwhile, the Occupy Wall Street crowd was just picking up garbage and cleaning up graffiti.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

In the Bob Gates book: Duty. He states Hillary admitted she voted against the surge because of politics. She did not vote because it was sound or not, or whether it would make things better or worse in Iraq - she voted because of Politics.

You mean the same Bob Gates who described Hillary as "smart, idealistic but pragmatic, tough-minded, indefatigable, funny, a very valuable colleague, and a superb representative of the United States all over the world."

The same Bob Gates who had to clarify his characterization of Obama making nearly the exact same political statement because it was taken out of context?

The same Hillary who publicly opposed the surge because she thought the troops would be of more use in Afghanistan?

I for one have never seen a ghost writer sensationalize a story to give it some edge and make some headlines. Frankly I'm not sure it's even ever happened.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

You mean the same Bob Gates who described Hillary as "smart, idealistic but pragmatic, tough-minded, indefatigable, funny, a very valuable colleague, and a superb representative of the United States all over the world."

The same Bob Gates who had to clarify his characterization of Obama making nearly the exact same political statement because it was taken out of context?

The same Hillary who publicly opposed the surge because she thought the troops would be of more use in Afghanistan?

I for one have never seen a ghost writer sensationalize a story to give it some edge and make some headlines. Frankly I'm not sure it's even ever happened.

So you are questioning the integrity of likely the one person that was in both admins with some integrity?

So should I also discount his opinion of Obama - which was generally favorable ?

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

So you are questioning the integrity of likely the one person that was in both admins with some integrity?

So should I also discount his opinion of Obama - which was generally favorable ?

I don't question Gate's integrity at all, but even good people make misleading points. He had to walk back his statement about Obama on the exact same topic in the exact same book.

I'm sure Clinton did consider the political optics of that vote in her decision but also think she was against it. This is normal.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't question Gate's integrity at all, but even good people make misleading points.

I know what you mean.....I know this guy, on a fishing website.......
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't question Gate's integrity at all, but even good people make misleading points. He had to walk back his statement about Obama on the exact same topic in the exact same book.

I'm sure Clinton did consider the political optics of that vote in her decision but also think she was against it. This is normal.

Spence, she was against the Surge, as the video shows, because she didn't think it could possibly produce the benefits that Petreus claimed it would provide. She actually insulted Petreus, saying that to believe him, "requires the willful suspension of disbelief". That's basically saying that no sane person would believe him.

Yet he was 100% right. So what des it say about her "net leadership value", that she was dead wrong on the Surge?