That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
You'll need luck for the outcome to be what you want, not for there to be an outcome. That's a given.Rip wrote:No luck needed. The server wasn't actually wiped so the truth will work its way out eventually.GreenGoo wrote:Well, as El Guapo says, that may or may not happen. I wish you luck.Rip wrote:No but most know she is a liar, they are just waiting for someone to prove it with flair.
Pfft. I noticed it eight years ago during the last election, but everyone claimed I was seeing things.El Guapo wrote:It's frankly embarrassing that you didn't notice the similarity between Hillary's logo and that of the Iowa Hospital Association. Everyone else here realized it like 6 months ago.LawBeefaroni wrote:Why am I just noticing this now?Moliere wrote:
As Democratic presidential hopefuls prepare to face off in their first debate, front-runner Hillary Clinton is increasingly trying to contrast herself with a man who won't be on the stage on Tuesday night - President Barack Obama.
In areas like foreign policy, immigration and the environment, the woman who was once part of Mr Obama's "team of rivals" as secretary of state is now marching to the beat of her own drum. Mrs Clinton's alliance with Mr Obama, her 2008 Democratic primary nemesis, was always a bit of a marriage of convenience. She played the loyal soldier in his administration and both she and her husband campaigned for his re-election in 2012, but her own presidential ambitions were never diminished. The political reality is that Mrs Clinton now has a nomination to secure and a presidency to win - a difficult task for a party seeking a third White House victory in a row. It's only happened once in the last 60 years, when George HW Bush followed two terms of Ronald Reagan in 1988. "I am not running for my husband's third term or President Obama's third term," Mrs Clinton has repeatedly said while on the stump. "I'm running for my first term."
Hillary Clinton Accidentally Denounces Iran DealHillary Clinton wrote:You know, the NRA’s position reminds me of negotiating with the Iranians or the communists. There’s no possible discussion
She should be careful spouting the truth like that.Defiant wrote:Hillary Clinton Accidentally Denounces Iran DealHillary Clinton wrote:You know, the NRA’s position reminds me of negotiating with the Iranians or the communists. There’s no possible discussion
Oops.
This is pretty standard for the incumbent party contenders as they try to distance themselves from the current (any current) administration.Max Peck wrote:A widening gap between Clinton and Obama
No doubt, but it's still an interesting article if you are interested in her policy positions.GreenGoo wrote:This is pretty standard for the incumbent party contenders as they try to distance themselves from the current (any current) administration.Max Peck wrote:A widening gap between Clinton and Obama
Hillary Rodham Clinton went to Donald Trump's doorstep Monday to mock the Republican presidential front-runner on the eve of the first Democratic presidential debate.
The appearance at a boisterous rally of the politically potent Culinary Workers Union at the Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas was a win-win for Clinton, letting her signal her support for an influential union while taking aim at the Democratic party's favourite foil. The union, which represents casino and resort workers, is trying to organize hotel employees and invited all of the five candidates in town for the debate to the rally.
Clinton was the only one who showed up, clad in a red pantsuit that matched the crimson union shirts. She urged the workers to "say No to Donald Trump."
"Some people say Donald Trump is entertaining," Clinton said. "I don't think it's entertaining when someone insults immigrants, when someone insults women."
She's tacking left because Sanders. Whichever way the wind blows....Max Peck wrote:No doubt, but it's still an interesting article if you are interested in her policy positions.GreenGoo wrote:This is pretty standard for the incumbent party contenders as they try to distance themselves from the current (any current) administration.Max Peck wrote:A widening gap between Clinton and Obama
Possibly. Can you point me to where she was for TPP before she was against it, for example?Kraken wrote:She's tacking left because Sanders. Whichever way the wind blows....Max Peck wrote:No doubt, but it's still an interesting article if you are interested in her policy positions.GreenGoo wrote:This is pretty standard for the incumbent party contenders as they try to distance themselves from the current (any current) administration.Max Peck wrote:A widening gap between Clinton and Obama
As SoS, she advocated for it. But that was when she was part of the administration and had to toe the line, even though, IIRC, most of the Democrats opposed fast tracking it.Max Peck wrote:Possibly. Can you point me to where she was for TPP before she was against it, for example?Kraken wrote: She's tacking left because Sanders. Whichever way the wind blows....
Sure. Although, to be fair, she did express reservations about her support.Max Peck wrote:Possibly. Can you point me to where she was for TPP before she was against it, for example?Kraken wrote:She's tacking left because Sanders. Whichever way the wind blows....Max Peck wrote:No doubt, but it's still an interesting article if you are interested in her policy positions.GreenGoo wrote:This is pretty standard for the incumbent party contenders as they try to distance themselves from the current (any current) administration.Max Peck wrote:A widening gap between Clinton and Obama
Meanwhile, gay activists are unhappy with Hillary Clinton's remarks on the DOMA:Slate.com wrote:Hillary Clinton has found a new wedge issue against Sen. Bernie Sanders. The topic is gun control, but the angle is gender. Clinton is framing Sanders as a sexist who accuses women of shouting when they try to speak up. It’s a lie. She’s manipulating women and abusing feminist anger for her own advantage.
It’s great that we’re more aware of bigotry than we used to be. But we should also beware false claims of bigotry: the race card, the sex card, the homophobia card.
WashingtonBlade.com wrote:Sen. Bernard Sanders isn’t the only one taking Hillary Clinton to task over her recent assertion that the Defense of Marriage Act was a “defensive” measure to prevent worse discrimination against LGBT people.
A number of gay rights activists took to Twitter to say Clinton engaged in historic revisionism during her appearance Friday on “The Rachel Maddow Show” when she said DOMA was a means to stop the enactment of a U.S. constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage entirely. Many of those activists also tempered their objections by saying Clinton is generally doing right on LGBT rights during her campaign.
David Mixner, a gay rights activist who once supported Bill Clinton before the two had a falling out over “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” urged LGBT people to reject the explanation of DOMA offered by the Democratic presidential candidate.
Hilary Rosen, a lesbian Democratic activist in D.C. and known Clinton supporter, said Sanders was right in his criticism during the Jefferson-Jackson dinner on Saturday that Clinton is revising history to explain DOMA.
She was once a Cubs fan. That was bad enough. But she dropped them to become a Yankees fan. Bad to worse. But then she had NY votes to get.Moliere wrote:Don't call me Rodham.
As they point out, she did live in Arkansas for a long time.Rip wrote:Not away, just pacing myself.
The answer could be to don a fake accent and show people what you really think of them.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... mphis.html
Yet when you go back and listen to audio of her back then she didn't have much of a southern draw. She must have picked it up in NY.Kraken wrote:As they point out, she did live in Arkansas for a long time.Rip wrote:Not away, just pacing myself.
The answer could be to don a fake accent and show people what you really think of them.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... mphis.html
By default, I have a mild Boston accent acquired from living here for 30 years. My dad was a Southerner and I spent several childhood vacations in Missouri; I still slip naturally into a slight drawl when I'm among Southerners. When among my Michigan friends I talk with a nasal twang. None of those are affectations -- it just comes naturally depending on where I am and who I'm with.
One that only shows up when you address an audience and want to identify with them but don't. Much the same as when an old person tries to talk hip to fit in with the kids when they don't. Or a cracker that tries to talk hip to appear like less of a cracker. Or a gringo who tries to sound all La Raza and are de mandar fruta.GreenGoo wrote:What's a "fake" accent?
It's the synthetic dissonance that emanates from a Hillarybot while in Southern parts of the US, such as Memphis.GreenGoo wrote:What's a "fake" accent?
It's also easy to just emulate the people around you. I think it's an evolutionary trait to fit into a new group.Kraken wrote:It's a silly thing, but her inauthenticity and untrustworthiness are Hillary's main vulnerabilities, so if the accent was an affectation she ought not to do that again. Based on my own speech patterns I'm willing to believe that she was tired and slipped into it naturally, as I would do.
and stop people on the "No Fly" list from getting guns.Hillary Clinton said on Sunday that the Islamic State had become “the most effective recruiter in the world” and that the only solution was to engage American technology companies in blocking or taking down militant websites, videos and encrypted communications.
“You are going to hear all the familiar complaints: ‘freedom of speech,’ ” Mrs. Clinton said in an hourlong speech and question-and-answer session at the Saban Forum, an annual gathering at the Brookings Institution that focuses mostly on Israel’s security issues.
Maybe we could start by not hiring them to work at DHS?Much of Mrs. Clinton’s speech was closely aligned with Mr. Obama’s recent arguments about confronting the Islamic State. She spoke of the need to make sure that anyone on a “no-fly” list also could not purchase a gun — a position several Republican candidates took issue with on Sunday — and to explicitly avoid blaming the American Muslim community for the acts of a small number of extremists.
http://freebeacon.com/national-security ... atch-list/At least 72 employees at the Department of Homeland Security are listed on the U.S. terrorist watch list, according to a Democratic lawmaker.
Rep. Stephen Lynch (D., Mass.) disclosed that a congressional investigation recently found that at least 72 people working at DHS also “were on the terrorist watch list.”
More details never hurt.Rip wrote: Maybe we could start by not hiring them to work at DHS?
http://freebeacon.com/national-security ... atch-list/At least 72 employees at the Department of Homeland Security are listed on the U.S. terrorist watch list, according to a Democratic lawmaker.
Rep. Stephen Lynch (D., Mass.) disclosed that a congressional investigation recently found that at least 72 people working at DHS also “were on the terrorist watch list.”
Personally, I'm fine with those 73 people who were on the no fly list being forced to contact the DHS to get things cleared up before being allowed to buy a gun because of a failure to communicate between the TSA and the DHS. So this sound bite is just another ridiculous attempt to claim gun control shouldn't be discussed unless we reach a state of perfection by doing so.First, those 73 terror watch-list suspects (not 72) were employed by airports and airlines, not DHS, but it was TSA that cleared them for employment. The audit was published in June, not August. The real issue for TSA was that they didn’t have access to the full terror watchlist, as DHS and intelligence agencies didn’t give them a high enough clearance to check against all the names. It was a failure to “connect the dots,” which as I noted in a column at The Week when this broke is ironically why we formed DHS in the first place.
Do you not see the irony in the DHS not sharing the watch list with the organization that is actually assigned with providing security for the very planes the people on the list are supposed to be a threat to?hepcat wrote:More details never hurt.Rip wrote: Maybe we could start by not hiring them to work at DHS?
http://freebeacon.com/national-security ... atch-list/At least 72 employees at the Department of Homeland Security are listed on the U.S. terrorist watch list, according to a Democratic lawmaker.
Rep. Stephen Lynch (D., Mass.) disclosed that a congressional investigation recently found that at least 72 people working at DHS also “were on the terrorist watch list.”
Personally, I'm fine with those 73 people who were on the no fly list being forced to contact the DHS to get things cleared up before being allowed to buy a gun because of a failure to communicate between the TSA and the DHS. So this sound bite is just another ridiculous attempt to claim gun control shouldn't be discussed unless we reach a state of perfection by doing so.First, those 73 terror watch-list suspects (not 72) were employed by airports and airlines, not DHS, but it was TSA that cleared them for employment. The audit was published in June, not August. The real issue for TSA was that they didn’t have access to the full terror watchlist, as DHS and intelligence agencies didn’t give them a high enough clearance to check against all the names. It was a failure to “connect the dots,” which as I noted in a column at The Week when this broke is ironically why we formed DHS in the first place.
Yes. I fail to see your point. What does that have to do with their prior failure to communicate with TSA effectively?Rip wrote:
So now you want them to essentially share the list with every law enforcement agency and gun dealer?
I'm curious why you are okay with 2 but not 3. Seems a little confusing. If the No Fly lists were anything close to a reasonable and transparent look at who we let fly, you could probably persuade me. As they stand - being completely secret with no way to find out even why you are on it, no way.GreenGoo wrote:1) No privacy. She's not alone in this. Fuck anyone of this opinion. In her defense, an awful lot of people seem to be ok with this. Fuck them too.
2) It's not unreasonable to take away guns from people who are so scary we don't let them on planes. I'm ok with this position.
3) I'd be ok with 2) if No Fly lists were anything but a knee jerk feel good pile of bullshit. But they're not, so you get to keep your guns. No Fly lists are awful, but the entirety of DHS post 9/11 is awful, so this is hardly a Clinton issue.
So you got me with 1) She can go to hell on that one (along with 90% of the rest of the candidates). The rest is even less specific to Clinton.
2) only makes sense if No Fly lists are managed competently. As Rip points out, they aren't. They are complete garbage. I'm not going to withhold rights from citizens because someone shows up on a list that appears to be completely random in nature.stessier wrote:I'm curious why you are okay with 2 but not 3. Seems a little confusing. If the No Fly lists were anything close to a reasonable and transparent look at who we let fly, you could probably persuade me. As they stand - being completely secret with no way to find out even why you are on it, no way.GreenGoo wrote:1) No privacy. She's not alone in this. Fuck anyone of this opinion. In her defense, an awful lot of people seem to be ok with this. Fuck them too.
2) It's not unreasonable to take away guns from people who are so scary we don't let them on planes. I'm ok with this position.
3) I'd be ok with 2) if No Fly lists were anything but a knee jerk feel good pile of bullshit. But they're not, so you get to keep your guns. No Fly lists are awful, but the entirety of DHS post 9/11 is awful, so this is hardly a Clinton issue.
So you got me with 1) She can go to hell on that one (along with 90% of the rest of the candidates). The rest is even less specific to Clinton.
The concept is not too bad on the face of it.Zarathud wrote:There's a public demand to counter terrorists. The intel community comes up with their best guess on who to worry about (which is likely often wrong given the immense task).
While the procedure sucks, not acting on the no-fly list is insane. If you have a thing saying the government has cause to we wary of you simply flying, you shouldn't have access to guns or bomb materials.
