Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Election 16: Donald Trumps wins Presidency. God Help us all!

88Comrade2000

By 88Comrade2000
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

clskinsfan

clskinsfan

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

edit: and I feel like enough time has past from GWB's nice showing today to fairly criticize him for being one of the worst presidents in U.S. history.

He didnt say Iraq. He said war. And I will stick to my point. War was inevitable after 9/11.

 

4 hours ago, Larry said:

 

I confess, I'm having trouble figuring out if you're really trying to say something as incredibly stupid as what I think you're saying. 

It LOOKS, to me, like you're saying "the Bush administration has no blame whatsoever for intentionally using a national tragedy as a tool to manipulate the country into launching two simultaneous land wars in Asia, which they wanted to launch, anyway. Because hey, it was time to invade somebody, anyway". 

But im not certain that my opinion of you is low enough to imagine you being THAT stupid. 

So, I'm going to actually ASK you whether I'm reading you correctly

Stupidity is a double edged sword and you believing that this country was going to sit back and take 9/11 shows an incredible level of stupidity. And lets not forget that your beloved Hillary voted FOR that war. 

And here is an interesting tidbit for you. Michael Morrell the former deputy director of the CIA was the man that told Bush/Cheney that there WERE WMD's in Iraq. Michael Morrell is the same man that later apologized for this. He is also the same man that recently endorsed Hillary Clinton. He also works for a company named Beacon Global Strategies. Take a guess who created that company? Yep. Hillary Clinton.Why would a woman that confesses voting for the Iraq war was a mistake hire the person that lied to her about the reason for the war in first place?

One final tidbit. Dont forget that Bill Clinton bombed Iraq for four days in 1998. (operation Desert Fox) The reason for these attacks? "To degrade Sadaam's ability to create nuclear and biological weapons"..ie WMD's. Bush one inherited the Iraq situation from Bill Clinton. I am in no way saying that the second Iraq war was justified. Just that these issues are passed along from President to President.

So open your eyes to the bigger picture about government corruption. It comes from both sides of the isle. The good old boy network keeps rolling along because we as citizens allow it to happen. And the next time you call someone stupid you should probably know them personally first,

Link to comment
Share on other sites
aREDSKIN

aREDSKIN

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, Burgold said:

Shows you the effectiveness of lies in politics. It's been shown over and over that neither Clinton nor her group was responsible for starting the birther movement, but the misinformation is repeated so often that people believe it.

 

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/was-hillary-clinton-the-original-birther/

You see this is how the game is played. Clinton's "supporters" started this. It got out there just like they wanted but can claim "plausible deniability" for not starting this. Classic proxy attack.. Been done like this for eons. Nothing new. I'm just surprise so many don't or won't see it for what it is.

 

From the link B provided.

 

It is certainly interesting, and perhaps historically and politically relevant, that “birther” advocacy may have originated with supporters of Hillary Clinton — especially since many view it as an exclusively right-wing movement. But whether those theories were advocated by Clinton and/or her campaign or simply by Clinton “supporters” is an important distinction.

 

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/was-hillary-clinton-the-original-birther/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tshile

tshile

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, aREDSKIN said:

You see this is how the game is played. Clinton's "supporters" started this. It got out there just like they wanted but can claim "plausible deniability" for not starting this. Classic proxy attack.. 

Shhhhhhhhhh

 

Let them call everyone else ignorant

They need to rest easy at night so they can sleep

11 hours ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

 

You sure about that?

Have you read the 9/11 commission report?

Might change your mind. Did for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tshile

tshile

Posted
Posted

I'll take that to mean you haven't read the report.

It's incredibly interesting if you can find the time.

Lots of misconceptions we all have get cleared up a bit. Like the fact that majority of the hijackers were identified as threats before they boarded, we just had a flaw in that that meant. Iraq's (or specifically sadaam's) courting of AL qaeda before the attacks. Why the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia (the whole they're from SA, but we attacked Afghanistan and Iraq stuff that I used to subscribe to too, it's actually cleared up what happened there.)

It's a shame because our media is so agenda driven and myopic that you have to read the report to get the info.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TradeTheBeal!

TradeTheBeal!

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, aREDSKIN said:

You see this is how the game is played. Clinton's "supporters" started this. It got out there just like they wanted but can claim "plausible deniability" for not starting this. Classic proxy attack.. Been done like this for eons. Nothing new. I'm just surprise so many don't or won't see it for what it is.

 

From the link B provided.

 

It is certainly interesting, and perhaps historically and politically relevant, that “birther” advocacy may have originated with supporters of Hillary Clinton — especially since many view it as an exclusively right-wing movement. But whether those theories were advocated by Clinton and/or her campaign or simply by Clinton “supporters” is an important distinction.

 

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/was-hillary-clinton-the-original-birther/

 

Paraphrasing:. There is absolutely zero evidence implicating Hillary but Trump said it on the campaign trail, so she's guilty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sacks 'n' Stuff

Sacks 'n' Stuff

Posted
Posted

I haven't read the report. Here's part of the summary from the Wikipedia entry. This comes from people who have read it or were directly involved with the report. People that have experience and expertise in the area.

"In the lead up to the Iraq War, U.S. President George W. Bush alleged that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and militant group al-Qaeda might conspire to launch terrorist attacks on the United States,[2] basing the administration's rationale for war, in part, on this allegation and others. The consensus of intelligence experts has been that these contacts never led to an operational relationship, and that consensus is backed up by reports from the independent 9/11 Commission and by declassified Defense Department reports[3] as well as by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, whose 2006 report of Phase II of its investigation into prewar intelligence reports concluded that there was no evidence of ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.[4] Critics of the Bush Administration have said Bush was intentionally building a case for war with Iraq without regard to factual evidence. On April 29, 2007, former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet said on 60 Minutes, "We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period.""

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LadySkinsFan

LadySkinsFan

Posted
Posted

War in Afghanistan I could see. War against Iraq was purely neo-con desire, and the Senators who voted for that particular war were outright lied to as well as U.S. citizens and the entire world when Colin Powell lied at the UN. 

Maybe if not for those lies we would not have spent trillions on that war, and maybe improved our own infrastructure instead.

Mary, I'm doing laundry too, plus getting clothes around to donate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tshile

tshile

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

I haven't read the report. Here's part of the summary from the Wikipedia entry. This comes from people who have read it or were directly involved with the report. People that have experience and expertise in the area.

The part you quoted isn't in conflict with the report or what I said.

There's a difference between saddam was actively courting them and both sides believed one's willingness to use weapons and the other's ability to procure/manufacture would work nicely together, and that there was never an operational relation and no one in Iraq contributed to the 9/11 operation (the report covers the operation in detail, that's the whole point of the report)

Like I said, there's a lot of misconceptions specifically about Iraq and the nationality of the hijackers that the report clears up.

There's a reason they were from Saudi Arabia. They tried to get hijackers in from elsewhere first. We wouldn't let them in. They had to be from Saudi Arabia to get visas. And they had to not have traveled to Yemen or a few other places. The level they went to in testing our system, and how close we came (and how many times) to thwarting the attack is really interesting.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
No Excuses

No Excuses

Posted
Posted

I don't think Republicans want to play the game of linking the activity of fringe supporters to the main candidate.

Regardless, the only reason Trump is even here today is because he got his notoriety in far right politics with birtherism. The Democrats do a good job of tuning out the fringe nutjobs in their base. The republicans shamelessly court theirs.

 

also nice to see a drop by from aRedskin, one of the few on this board who also had "questions" about Obamas birth certificate. :rofl89:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, skinsmarydu said:

Actually, I'll take this one...

She was one of the 100 Senators lied to.  Will you stipulate that?

 

so you are saying she is gullible.

when she isn't lying herself.

enjoy the **** sandwiches

Link to comment
Share on other sites
aREDSKIN

aREDSKIN

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

I don't think Republicans want to play the game of linking the activity of fringe supporters to the main candidate.

Regardless, the only reason Trump is even here today is because he got his notoriety in far right politics with birtherism. The Democrats do a good job of tuning out the fringe nutjobs in their base. The republicans shamelessly court theirs.

 

also nice to see a drop by from aRedskin, one of the few on this board who also had "questions" about Obamas birth certificate. :rofl89:

Well, in my defense I did believe Hillary's lies back then...........OMG LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...