= new reply since forum marked as read
This OP is 
Granada, El Salvador, Honduras Nicaragua: not South American for you?
Not to mention Lebanon, involvement in supplied arms to Mujaheddin Afghanistan and Pakistan, all sorts of other covert and paramilitary operations in several African Continent countries, Indonesia.
I realize I'm likely omitting other countries.. but what's the point!
keep flailing dedicated soldier!
Hitler might be over the top, but you're smart enough to know if she compared him to Reagan or Bush she'd get excoriated...
I want to gather as many facts about HRC to help me decide who I will vote for in the primaries.
I've always admired her greatly. But being the POTUS is too big to just decide based on only those reasons for that respect. (Forgive the word salad, please. I'm tired 
)
Krystal Ball really gave me second thoughts. Do we want a corporate friendly president?
I need to laugh too 
Whewwww. Get a corporate whore for pres....? SIGH
Time for me push this chair back and go to bed! I get on a jag here and stay up too late 
This is a bit long winded but I hope you will take the time to read it. IMO, it explains why Krystal can't just "get over" HRC.
I think she thought Hillary "ought to have" helped her in her failed and crappy and disorganized 2010 Congressional run (where she was buried, brutally, in a "We hate you, go away" two-to-one landslide), just because of her gender, and she resents HRC for not leaping to her side.
KB needs to grow up and get over herself. These are HER WORDS, mind you, from 2010--so I beg you, consider the source when you hear any comments about HRC from Krystal Ball (horrible name--you can't pick your name, but you CAN change it...):
After I won the primary, I expected to receive huge fundraising support from Hillary Clinton and Obama donors, as well as the Facebook generation of my peers. I did things out of the box. I rented out the IMAX theater on Christmas day for fundraising showings of Avatar, making $5 per ticket on 1,000 tickets, selling them via Facebook ads and getting to meet every voter. We raised money online, more than 6,000 donors from all over the country who loved seeing someone their own age running for office. I was very successful getting support from those who supported President Obama, because my generation of young women is actually an Obama-Hillary fusion. We aspire to have Hillary's spine of steel and desire to over-prepare and we have President Obama's idealism. But I wasn't that successful in getting support from the powerful women who formed the core of Hillary's Sisterhood of the Traveling Pantsuit. These were the women I looked up to, who had blazed the trail for me, I hoped to earn their support more than anything and they didn't support me in the numbers I had hoped for.
How DARE Hillary NOT "support" her? Gee, maybe she wanted to do her J-O-B, you know, that gig she had as Obama's SECSTATE, and not run around backing someone who made it look like Don Quixote had a shot?
Yeah, Hill, take a break from your job and get all "partisan" for someone who didn't have a hope in hell of winning...that's the ticket!
In these matters, one must ALWAYS "consider the source." And that source ain't too swift, sorry. The pantsuit snark alone lets you know that she's got issues. The fact that she praises Hillary's supporters, while dissing Hillary herself, is frigging skeevy (that's further down in that mess of a diatribe she wrote).
I think a woman who disses another woman in that fashion is lower than low. She even insinuates the "those mean old hag/b-words thought I was TOO CUTE" excuse (sorry, Krystal--NOT the reason you lost!):
Notice how she uses the passive voice. She was told? By whom? WHO were these meanies who "made" her do these terrible things? And why did she consent to be victimized by these 'drab' harridans?
for the irony-impaired, now. Barely said, but implied: "I'm so much better looking than those tired OLD crones!" Again, more for those quick to take offense.
What Krystal doesn't mention, but what is salient, is that she tries to compare her trials and tribulations to HRC's (because HRC had to put up with Bill and his "hard dog to keep on the porch" routine) but Krystal's trials and tribulations had to do with some stupid photos that her prospective constituents found a bit, well, VULGAR. There is no comparison. HRC did not pose for Halloween snaps sucking on a plastic sex toy attached to her husband's nose. Krystal Ball did (though the guy is now an EX, and you can see them at the embedded link, above--I'm not going to put them up in this thread).
That said, the pictures were stupid but not the end of the world, but that, compared with a strong opponent and no hope of winning, was the reason that HRC wasn't going to waste any political capital on her. Who in their right mind would? It wasn't personal--it was a business decision. But KB took it PERSONALLY, and she's still griping about it four years later.
She needs to get OVER herself. She's not an honest broker when it comes to HRC; she has the false idea that if HRC had ridden to her rescue, she would have won that race. She would not have--she sucked (pardon the pun, given the pictures) as a candidate, and she just wasn't ready for political prime time.
That's life. Stop blaming Hillary Clinton, is what she should do.
And as for "corporate friendly" types, if you object to them, you're taking guidance about HRC from someone who openly admires (one of the world's most accomplished business women, she calls her) Meg Whitman.
I rest my case.
It took a whole two hours from the time I posted the comparison for someone to indirectly jump on what Hillary said, and with such a mild critic: "Hitler? Why not Reagan?"
No, digusting! Despicable! Goodwin! Ugh! Puke! I'm ashamed! Fool! She should not run for President!
LOL!
I mean, if this had been Obama or Kerry, there would have been at least a dozen threads on the topic.
Interesting phenomenon.
I'm still wondering what moral authority Hillary has to qualify her for President? I mean, some believe Kerry has no moral authority to say the right thing.
I'm simply amusing myself. I mean, someone quoted Alex Jones here, and it was defended with: even kooks speak the truth.
Kerry and Obama, on the other hand, have no moral authority to say the right things.
Alex Jones 2016?
Last edited Thu Mar 6, 2014, 08:57 PM - Edit history (1)
"Of course invading countries is what you do in the 21st century. We did. Twice.
...if Kerry has said what you wanted ("We urge you to withdraw from the Ukraine and adopt the Obama Doctrine."
, he'd have looked like the biggest fool on the planet.
"Twice"? You might want to do another count. Also, you might think that such actions are justified in the 21st century, but you clearly missed Kerry's point, which was not about whether or not it happens (Germany, Russia and other countries carried out invasions in this century). He was characterizing the act as one that shouldn't happen in this century.
It's not Kerry's fault that some have comprehension problems.
"I should think acknowledging that be would far more impactful than the drivel he espoused."
What drivel? I suppose when one is determined to attack Kerry, calling for diplomacy becomes "drivel."
<...>
STEPHANOPOULOS: Sir, are there any military options on the table? During the crisis with Georgia, President Bush moved military warships to the region, sent humanitarian aid on a military aircraft. Is the U.S. prepared to do that now? Anything more?
KERRY: George, the hope of the United States and everybody in the world is not to see this escalate into a military confrontation. That will not serve the world well, and I think everybody understands that. The president has all options on the table, but the president’s preference was clearly stated yesterday in his hour and a half conversation with President Putin. President Obama made it clear that we are prepared to work with Russia. We understand that Russia has interests in Crimea. The Ukraine government is prepared to respect the base agreement. Nobody threatened those Russia interests. And we are prepare to stand up against any hooligans, any thuggery, any individual efforts with Russians in order to create stability in Ukraine and allow the people of Ukraine to make their choices for the future.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But do you have any indication at all that President Putin is taking heat (inaudible) as President Obama is saying?
KERRY: Well, they just had the conversation yesterday, and the president invited in to engage with the government. I understand there may have been one phone call. We’re going to continue to engage diplomatically. This is a time for diplomacy, and we will engage diplomatically as much as we can in order to steal this away from the increase in the tension of the level of the crisis. Nobody wants this to spiral into a bad or worse direction. The fact is that there are many options available to Russia, by which Russia can see its interests met. And the most important thing to remember here is, this is not or should not be East-West, Russia-United States, Russia versus Europe. This is about the people of Ukraine, people who stood up against snipers, firing at them from the roofs, who are fighting against the tyranny of having political opposition put in jail. And President Putin I think needs to think carefully about Russia’ real interest here. You know, Russia may be able to invade Crimea, but in the end, Russia will isolate itself, there will be a cost to the economy of Russia, cost to Russian businesses, cost to Russia individuals, and ultimately I think Russia will isolate itself on a global stage that it just spent $60 billion through the Olympics to try to present a different face on. It seems to me that if Russia were to step back and look at where its interests are, we ought to be able to work this out through the diplomatic process. If Russia chooses not to, there will be serious repercussions.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Do those repercussions include the U.S. not going to the G8 summit in Sochi come this summer, sir?
KERRY: It is a distinct possibility. We would hope rather that Russia will choose to engage with us, to work with the government of Ukraine, choose a different direction.
Russia has cooperated with us on the START treaty ,on Afghanistan, on Iran. It ought to be possible to find legitimacy in this particular moment in order to be able to deal in a way that serves the world much better than this choice they’ve made. We’re open to that. We encourage that. President Obama made it clear he prefers that. But the choice is really up to Russia at this point.
-more -
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/week-transcript-john-kerry/story?id=22720806&singlePage=true
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024590090
from... http://mediamatters.org/mobile/blog/2013/02/12/fox-news-chart-helps-paint-distorted-picture-of/192634
Its clear to see that in Hillary's mind, some imperialists are more equal than others.
...and then there's the BLACK HATS. White Hats get to invade countries on a whim, and BLACK HATS cannot.
- Next time just spring $10 for the program, Manny. It's all explained in there......
K&R
