Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)

[sonofdaxjones]

Just saw pics of more boatloads of Libyan refugees clinging for life in the Med.  Trying to flee the hell on earth in their now lawless country created by HFP2016.

[MakeItRain]

Is it possible for the pit to come together and make a Gary Johnson pact?

HAAAAAARRRRRDDDDD PASS. Islamaphobes aren't for.me.

What about presidents and former SOS's who kill Muslims, and overthrow and destabilize Muslim countries leading to the death of thousands upon thousands of Muslims (and Christians)?

Who are you referring to and why are you asking me?

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

It's a fair question for anyone throwing around "islamaphobe"

[renocat]

It's a fair question for anyone throwing around "islamaphobe"
[/quote
Great point.  Fsd, can you read the new Washington Times expose out today about MG email.debacle.  Your poignant comments will be an interesting read.  This OIG report is.like.a nuke up the wazoo.]

[MakeItRain]

It's a fair question for anyone throwing around "islamaphobe"

I'm not certain what my opinion of Gary Johnson has to do with anything Dax mentioned.

I also hope you aren't seriously questioning categorizing the banning of burqas as Islamaphobic.

[sonofdaxjones]

How about invading Muslim countries, killing them and destroying their system of government leaving the weak to suffer at the hand of savages? 

[MakeItRain]

Are you referring to Barack Obama and again why are you asking me?

[sys]

I also hope you aren't seriously questioning categorizing the banning of burqas as Islamaphobic.

i would certainly question that.  i don't have the time or the energy to debate the issue tonight, but it is far more nuanced than simply banning burqas is islamphobic.  the wikipedia entry on france's ban has some decent discussion.

[sonofdaxjones]

Are you referring to Barack Obama and again why are you asking me?

I just want to make sure I've got this right.   You're totally against voting for someone because they reportedly may want to ban an article of clothing and thus you've concluded that they're "Islamophoic".   But based on a recent post you're still not 100% sure you're not going to vote for one of the primary drivers behind the horrific invasion of Libya, the destabilization of Syria and the subsequent death and displacement of thousands upon thousands of Muslims (and Christians).    I just find that fascinating.

 

[MakeItRain]

Are you referring to Barack Obama and again why are you asking me?

I just want to make sure I've got this right.   You're totally against voting for someone because they reportedly may want to ban an article of clothing and thus you've concluded that they're "Islamophoic".   But based on a recent post you're still not 100% sure you're not going to vote for one of the primary drivers behind the horrific invasion of Libya, the destabilization of Syria and the subsequent death and displacement of thousands upon thousands of Muslims (and Christians).    I just find that fascinating.

 

1. I'm not "with her," I thought I made this clear.
2. No matter what you think of Hillary and I don't think she's worth crap; I don't see the correlation between someone not allowing religious clothing in a Santa Fe grocery store and the United States' foreign policy. Using the logistical gymnastics you're attempting we can infer that Ronald Reagan had Latin American-phobia.

[sonofdaxjones]

Are you referring to Barack Obama and again why are you asking me?

I just want to make sure I've got this right.   You're totally against voting for someone because they reportedly may want to ban an article of clothing and thus you've concluded that they're "Islamophoic".   But based on a recent post you're still not 100% sure you're not going to vote for one of the primary drivers behind the horrific invasion of Libya, the destabilization of Syria and the subsequent death and displacement of thousands upon thousands of Muslims (and Christians).    I just find that fascinating.

 

1. I'm not "with her," I thought I made this clear.
2. No matter what you think of Hillary and I don't think she's worth crap; I don't see the correlation between someone not allowing religious clothing in a Santa Fe grocery store and the United States' foreign policy. Using the logistical gymnastics you're attempting we can infer that Ronald Reagan had Latin American-phobia.

No Reagan just had Communist in Latin-America phobia, and he was hated by many on the left for it.   Hillary just destroys countries and flashes the peace sign and pretty much lead to the biggest geo-political mess since the end of WWII as SOS.   Yes, there is a correlation and one is vastly more serious, deathly serious then the other.   

As an aside, there seems to be very little effort by the current administration, of which HFP2016 was a big part of in ending the war in Syria, they (which includes Hillary) are clearly just as much in favor of the continence and expansion of perpetual war then their predecessors were.

[MakeItRain]

I also hope you aren't seriously questioning categorizing the banning of burqas as Islamaphobic.

i would certainly question that.  i don't have the time or the energy to debate the issue tonight, but it is far more nuanced than simply banning burqas is islamphobic.  the wikipedia entry on france's ban has some decent discussion.

Are you kidding me sys, what in the world? France has a ban on all face covering in public including people wearing costumes; Gary Johnson proposed a ban on burquas, not all face covering, just burquas. I can see why you wouldn't want to argue this, it isn't even the same conversation.

[MakeItRain]

Are you referring to Barack Obama and again why are you asking me?

I just want to make sure I've got this right.   You're totally against voting for someone because they reportedly may want to ban an article of clothing and thus you've concluded that they're "Islamophoic".   But based on a recent post you're still not 100% sure you're not going to vote for one of the primary drivers behind the horrific invasion of Libya, the destabilization of Syria and the subsequent death and displacement of thousands upon thousands of Muslims (and Christians).    I just find that fascinating.

 

1. I'm not "with her," I thought I made this clear.
2. No matter what you think of Hillary and I don't think she's worth crap; I don't see the correlation between someone not allowing religious clothing in a Santa Fe grocery store and the United States' foreign policy. Using the logistical gymnastics you're attempting we can infer that Ronald Reagan had Latin American-phobia.

No Reagan just had Communist in Latin-America phobia, and he was hated by many on the left for it.   Hillary just destroys countries and flashes the peace sign and pretty much lead to the biggest geo-political mess since the end of WWII as SOS.   Yes, there is a correlation and one is vastly more serious, deathly serious then the other.   

As an aside, there seems to be very little effort by the current administration, of which HFP2016 was a big part of in ending the war in Syria, they (which includes Hillary) are clearly just as much in favor of the continence and expansion of perpetual war then their predecessors were.

Your first paragraph is a rationalization. What you accused the Obama administration of can absolutely be used to eviscerate the Reagan administration for what he did in Grenada, Panama, El Salvador, and Colombia. I'm not saying you are right or wrong for your assertion of what the Obama administration did but if you're interested in consistency you can't have a different view of what Reagan did.

[sys]

Gary Johnson proposed a ban on burquas, not all face covering, just burquas.

he also publicly changed his mind like five minutes later.

[sonofdaxjones]

Are you referring to Barack Obama and again why are you asking me?

I just want to make sure I've got this right.   You're totally against voting for someone because they reportedly may want to ban an article of clothing and thus you've concluded that they're "Islamophoic".   But based on a recent post you're still not 100% sure you're not going to vote for one of the primary drivers behind the horrific invasion of Libya, the destabilization of Syria and the subsequent death and displacement of thousands upon thousands of Muslims (and Christians).    I just find that fascinating.

 

1. I'm not "with her," I thought I made this clear.
2. No matter what you think of Hillary and I don't think she's worth crap; I don't see the correlation between someone not allowing religious clothing in a Santa Fe grocery store and the United States' foreign policy. Using the logistical gymnastics you're attempting we can infer that Ronald Reagan had Latin American-phobia.

No Reagan just had Communist in Latin-America phobia, and he was hated by many on the left for it.   Hillary just destroys countries and flashes the peace sign and pretty much lead to the biggest geo-political mess since the end of WWII as SOS.   Yes, there is a correlation and one is vastly more serious, deathly serious then the other.   

As an aside, there seems to be very little effort by the current administration, of which HFP2016 was a big part of in ending the war in Syria, they (which includes Hillary) are clearly just as much in favor of the continence and expansion of perpetual war then their predecessors were.

Your first paragraph is a rationalization. What you accused the Obama administration of can absolutely be used to eviscerate the Reagan administration for what he did in Grenada, Panama, El Salvador, and Colombia. I'm not saying you are right or wrong for your assertion of what the Obama administration did but if you're interested in consistency you can't have a different view of what Reagan did.

Where the eff did I say I had a different view?  But apparently you don't know the difference.   Reagan via the CIA supported an insurgency and had to do it pretty much in secret because it didn't have substantial bi-partisan support, in fact it had no support from Democrats.    In Libya the U.S. was directly responsible via explicit and direct U.S./NATO support of the overthrow of the government.    Syria is similar to Latin American, but still had direct U.S. military engagement and dwarfs Latin America on every conceivable scale in terms of being a humanitarian disaster.   There's been little to no dissent on recent U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East because the U.S. is now on a perpetual war footing. 

[MakeItRain]

Gary Johnson proposed a ban on burquas, not all face covering, just burquas.

he also publicly changed his mind like five minutes later.

He absolutely retracted that. I hope you can understand my skepticism as to what his motivation was for the retraction, it's not like the question was difficult to interpret.

[MakeItRain]

Are you referring to Barack Obama and again why are you asking me?

I just want to make sure I've got this right.   You're totally against voting for someone because they reportedly may want to ban an article of clothing and thus you've concluded that they're "Islamophoic".   But based on a recent post you're still not 100% sure you're not going to vote for one of the primary drivers behind the horrific invasion of Libya, the destabilization of Syria and the subsequent death and displacement of thousands upon thousands of Muslims (and Christians).    I just find that fascinating.

 

1. I'm not "with her," I thought I made this clear.
2. No matter what you think of Hillary and I don't think she's worth crap; I don't see the correlation between someone not allowing religious clothing in a Santa Fe grocery store and the United States' foreign policy. Using the logistical gymnastics you're attempting we can infer that Ronald Reagan had Latin American-phobia.

No Reagan just had Communist in Latin-America phobia, and he was hated by many on the left for it.   Hillary just destroys countries and flashes the peace sign and pretty much lead to the biggest geo-political mess since the end of WWII as SOS.   Yes, there is a correlation and one is vastly more serious, deathly serious then the other.   

As an aside, there seems to be very little effort by the current administration, of which HFP2016 was a big part of in ending the war in Syria, they (which includes Hillary) are clearly just as much in favor of the continence and expansion of perpetual war then their predecessors were.

Your first paragraph is a rationalization. What you accused the Obama administration of can absolutely be used to eviscerate the Reagan administration for what he did in Grenada, Panama, El Salvador, and Colombia. I'm not saying you are right or wrong for your assertion of what the Obama administration did but if you're interested in consistency you can't have a different view of what Reagan did.

Where the eff did I say I had a different view?  But apparently you don't know the difference.   Reagan via the CIA supported an insurgency and had to do it pretty much in secret because it didn't have substantial bi-partisan support, in fact it had no support from Democrats.    In Libya the U.S. was directly responsible via explicit and direct U.S./NATO support of the overthrow of the government.    Syria is similar to Latin American, but still had direct U.S. military engagement and dwarfs Latin America on every conceivable scale in terms of being a humanitarian disaster.   There's been little to no dissent on recent U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East because the U.S. is now on a perpetual war footing.

[sonofdaxjones]

Pretty great tap out MIR.   

[MakeItRain]

Thank you, dax.

[sys]

Gary Johnson proposed a ban on burquas, not all face covering, just burquas.

he also publicly changed his mind like five minutes later.

He absolutely retracted that. I hope you can understand my skepticism as to what his motivation was for the retraction, it's not like the question was difficult to interpret.

he has a zero % chance of winning the election and he knows that, so i'm not sure it's fair to hugely suspect ulterior motivations.  i think it's reasonable to just assume that he thought about his response and realized it wasn't consistent with libertarian ideals.

if you want to assume that his initial response revealed some subconscious characterizations of muslims as "other" or something like that, that's probably fair.  but you should also then credit him for overriding his subconscious with rational thought.

[420seriouscat69]

We should kill anyone who's willing to vote for this hack!

[star seed 7]

Seems reasonable

[sonofdaxjones]

We should kill anyone who's willing to vote for this hack!

If you're talking about Clinton, Lib.  Well it was nice knowing you, RIP, and I'll make sure someone takes the Hillary signs out of your front yard and takes the Hillary 2016 stickers off your car(s) before they're sold (obviously covering the Hillary 2008 stickers if your car(s) are that old).   We'll also make sure the DNC and Hillary Campaign take you off their mailing and call lists, and we'll let the HFP 2020 team know that they'll not be getting any checks from you.   Is the Clinton Foundation in your will?

[star seed 7]

We should kill anyone who's willing to vote for this hack!

If you're talking about Clinton, Lib.  Well it was nice knowing you, RIP, and I'll make sure someone takes the Hillary signs out of your front yard and takes the Hillary 2016 stickers off your car(s) before their sold.   We'll also make sure the DNC and Hillary Campaign take you off their mailing and call list.   Is the Clinton Foundation in your will?

Weird post

[sonofdaxjones]

We should kill anyone who's willing to vote for this hack!

If you're talking about Clinton, Lib.  Well it was nice knowing you, RIP, and I'll make sure someone takes the Hillary signs out of your front yard and takes the Hillary 2016 stickers off your car(s) before their sold.   We'll also make sure the DNC and Hillary Campaign take you off their mailing and call list.   Is the Clinton Foundation in your will?

Weird post

Typical lib response to a spot on post regarding his political leanings.