Basket of deplorables speech...

[the truth]

Roll over martin luther king, the great hilary clinton has usurped you with her magnificent basket of deplorables speech to her own LGBT fundraiser crowd...basically labelling tens of millions of americans as all racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, islamophobic, bigots etc etc

US Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has called half of Donald Trump's supporters a "basket of deplorables".
Speaking at a fundraiser, she said they were "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic - you name it".
Mrs Clinton later apologised for her criticism of Mr Trump's supporters but promised to keep fighting "bigotry and racist rhetoric".

It's pretty ironic she has preached about trump labelling people, labelling mexicans and muslims...Yet here she is labelling tens of millions as all of these hideous things

Oh but a few days later she says she regrets saying the deplorable line...what about labelling tens of millions as all bigots and racists hilary?

I recall clintons team labelled bernie sanders as a sexist with a concerted slanderous internet hate campaign against him...on what was this based? hilary interrupted one of his answers and he said Id like to finish my answer
? THATS IT. Thats enough to have 1000s of liberals slander your good name across the free world? you dont think thats complete madness? only this week the idiotic emily thornberry of the british left labelled an interviewer sexist for daring to ask her straight forward questions she couldnt answer...
this is the same woman who implied white van english flag wavers are racist

This pretty much sums up the insane path the new labour/democrats have progressed the past few years....anyone who questions them gets smeared and slandered as bigots, perverts, racists, sexists etc and they make these false accusations without impunity and without any charge

To falsely accuse to smear and slander is despicable and destroys lives. Its high time the public stood up to this horrific cultural development which ultimately destroys freedom of speech and healthy debate

This will hurt her at the polls far more than health issues

[joeysteele]

I don't think it will harm her this close to the election as most minds are made up.
Trump is the one wo has made prejudiced views all through his speeches and those who support him strongly are unfortunately likely to be, rightly or wrongly tarred with the same brush.
She was very careful to not generalise, a big mistake some people can make when singling out others.

She stipulated only half,a very good move, as even if just a few of the other half think again as to her support for him,that will be a good thing.

Perhaps had Trump kept his prejudices to himself more and not voiced then so extremely, the need for such a statement would never have been in any way necessary from her.

Her rapid apology too, was another good move,you see she shows she can admit to maybe being wrong, Trump sticks with his prejudiced views and even when he says he means to say sorry, he carries on as before, as with the Mexican border issue.

Hilary Clinton was a strong force behind her husband winning 2 elections,despite having many people in the USA against her or even suspicious of her, she is a winner in the main and probably a good strategist too.
It was a good speech from her and in my view rather accurate too.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Its typical of someone who is so convinced that their views are correct that they cannot see the hypocrisy of slandering people for being slanderers.

[Northern Monkey]

The default fall back defence mechanism of the leftist when they can't win a debate on the strength of their argument.
Luckily more and more people with functioning brains are seeing past these tactics and won't fall for it.Society is now evolving beyond this victim culture and it won't wash for long now.

[the truth]

I don't think it will harm her this close to the election as most minds are made up.
Trump is the one wo has made prejudiced views all through his speeches and those who support him strongly are unfortunately likely to be, rightly or wrongly tarred with the same brush.
She was very careful to not generalise, a big mistake some people can make when singling out others.

She stipulated only half,a very good move, as even if just a few of the other half think again as to her support for him,that will be a good thing.

Perhaps had Trump kept his prejudices to himself more and not voiced then so extremely, the need for such a statement would never have been in any way necessary from her.

Her rapid apology too, was another good move,you see she shows she can admit to maybe being wrong, Trump sticks with his prejudiced views and even when he says he means to say sorry, he carries on as before, as with the Mexican border issue.

Hilary Clinton was a strong force behind her husband winning 2 elections,despite having many people in the USA against her or even suspicious of her, she is a winner in the main and probably a good strategist too.
It was a good speech from her and in my view rather accurate too.

I dont think Ive read a more fundamentally wrong posgt on any website in my life

her speech was absolute ignorance and prejudice, its absolutely shameful to call tens of millions of people she has never ever known or met, racist sexist bigotted muslim haters etc then to apologise the next day shows it was done for reasons fo slander and cheap attention. her team tried to paint bernie as a pervert and a sexist too....sbe pretended to take the moral high ground , but she gets her team to spread the slander....this time her horrific mask has trult slipped. shes done the slander personally. thats asure sign she is slipping. she has taken money from warmongers, despots and dictators and corrupt corporate cartels and weapons suppliers for decades...she has invaded and blown up several poor nations, the iraq qar saw over 500,000 innocent women killed and she claims to be a feminist lol...shes a trult sick person, not just with pneumonia and whatever else shes lying about, but mentallly morally and spiritually sick

[the truth]

The default fall back defence mechanism of the leftist when they can't win a debate on the strength of their argument.
Luckily more and more people with functioning brains are seeing past these tactics and won't fall for it.Society is now evolving beyond this victim culture and it won't wash for long now.

she blew up iraq which killed over 1 million innocent people. those are the real victims of this warmonger

[arista]

yes it was put into why vote for Trump ad
fast

I watched it on FoxNewsHD USA Live stream
with USA ads.

[Northern Monkey]

she blew up iraq which killed over 1 million innocent people. those are the real victims of this warmonger

Exactly:thumbs: She has helped to create real victims and she claims to be a victim when somebody wants to finish their point without being talked over.
Emily Thornberry being triggered by being asked questions she doesn't know the answer to is victim only to her own stupidity.
Hilary using sexism to further her campaign is a dirty move which people will see straight through.Very dirty tactics which she needs to be called out on.

[user104658]

Half seems pretty generous surely.

[joeysteele]

I dont think Ive read a more fundamentally wrong posgt on any website in my life

her speech was absolute ignorance and prejudice, its absolutely shameful to call tens of millions of people she has never ever known or met, racist sexist bigotted muslim haters etc then to apologise the next day shows it was done for reasons fo slander and cheap attention. her team tried to paint bernie as a pervert and a sexist too....sbe pretended to take the moral high ground , but she gets her team to spread the slander....this time her horrific mask has trult slipped. shes done the slander personally. thats asure sign she is slipping. she has taken money from warmongers, despots and dictators and corrupt corporate cartels and weapons suppliers for decades...she has invaded and blown up several poor nations, the iraq qar saw over 500,000 innocent women killed and she claims to be a feminist lol...shes a trult sick person, not just with pneumonia and whatever else shes lying about, but mentallly morally and spiritually sick

I could with respect say the same about yours and the amount of some speculation you make in it the truth.
However ,that's your view but I hold to my own view.

[Johnnyuk123]

Its typical of someone who is so convinced that their views are correct that they cannot see the hypocrisy of slandering people for being slanderers.

:clap1::clap1::clap1:

[the truth]

I could with respect say the same about yours and the amount of some speculation you make in it the truth.
However ,that's your view but I hold to my own view.

no you really couldnt, he hasnt invaded iraq illegally and killed over a million innocent people, he hasnt taken millions from saudi dictators and despots , he hasnt supplied weapons to radical fighters and terrorists, he didnt invade lybia or syria, he didnt call tens of millions of americans all racist sexist homophobic bigots, he doesnt claim sexism everytime someone criticizes him either

[Tom4784]

His campaign only picked up traction when he targeted Muslims and Mexicans. To deny that a lot of his supporters aren't bigotted is to deny reality.

[the truth]

His campaign only picked up traction when he targeted Muslims and Mexicans. To deny that a lot of his supporters aren't bigotted is to deny reality.

no one did deny there are bigots on both sides, so youre making a false dicotomy , but killary said half were racist sexist homophobic anti muslim bigots which is disgusting slander on an epic scale

[Tom4784]

no one did deny there are bigots on both sides, so youre making a false dicotomy , but killary said half were racist sexist homophobic anti muslim bigots which is disgusting slander on an epic scale

I'd say she was underestimating it by saying only half. He runs on a platform on ignorance, he attracts the ignorant like **** attracts flies. Most of Trump's supporters likely hold bigoted views because he's running a bigoted campaign.

[the truth]

I'd say she was underestimating it by saying only half. He runs on a platform on ignorance, he attracts the ignorant like **** attracts flies. Most of Trump's supporters likely hold bigoted views because he's running a bigoted campaign.

most of hilarys fans love a warmonger who has directly been responsible for the brutual killings of over 1 million innocent people. that means most of her fans support brutal murder

[arista]

Half seems pretty generous surely.


No it was generalization
that back fired on her.


Every network reported it as
a Foolish error by the Clinton Woman

[the truth]

No it was generalization
that back fired on her.


Every network reported it as
a Foolish error by the Clinton Woman
and she issued a fake next day apology lol...shes a different person depending on who she is with and who she wants things from
her lead in the overall poll of polls has now collapsed to just 2.4% across the nation
she also hugged a child knowing she has contagious pneumonia just for a stage rehearsed photo opportunity
shes a twat

[Tom4784]

most of hilarys fans love a warmonger who has directly been responsible for the brutual killings of over 1 million innocent people. that means most of her fans support brutal murder

Silly comparison. She's not running on a campaign promising death and murder. People are supporting her because she isn't Trump. Trump's campaign only got to this point because he promised to build a wall and stop Muslims from entering the US. He appealed to the bigots and they flocked to him.

Honestly, you need to do better than that.

[Northern Monkey]

Now i'm not a Trump supporter.I think both candidates are terrible.However i think he's the lesser of two evils.But i think this wall thing has been blown out of proportion and used as a stick to beat him with.I mean what is wrong with walls?Really?If your country has a considerable illegal immigrant problem that is'nt getting any better then why is tightening your border security a bad thing?When Europe started getting flooded with so called refegees alot of those countries had to erect fences or they'd have been overrun.Why is a border wall to stop Mexican illegals any different?
People use 'the wall' as an excuse to try and call Trump supporters racist somehow but tightening security to stop illegals is not racist at all.

[the truth]

Now i'm not a Trump supporter.I think both candidates are terrible.However i think he's the lesser of two evils.But i think this wall thing has been blown out of proportion and used as a stick to beat him with.I mean what is wrong with walls?Really?If your country has a considerable illegal immigrant problem that is'nt getting any better then why is tightening your border security a bad thing?When Europe started getting flooded with so called refegees alot of those countries had to erect fences or they'd have been overrun.Why is a border wall to stop Mexican illegals any different?
People use 'the wall' as an excuse to try and call Trump supporters racist somehow but tightening security to stop illegals is not racist at all.

yoy want to hear something funny? huilary wanted to build a bigger barrier there years ago.....14 million illegal immigrants in american come in from that border and somehow its racist to talk about it? lol its only in this insane PC climate where simply taking care of your fellow countrymen and womens safety is considered racist. even hillary knows deep down its not racist as she wanted a wall herself but she just uses it to try and win and smear and slander these racist sexist bigotted white men she hates so much

[the truth]

heres just 3 videos of hilary wanting to build a bigger barrier on the mexican border to prevent illegal immigrants coming in....she says you have to control your borders.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ezaw-g6TIQI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhXu8IvVp2g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gUAdAYFbIc

[Mokka]

I will go on record to say it is a mistake on both parties to alienate any part of the voter base with stereotyping and name calling... but isn't that just what this whole American election has digressed to and why this whole election and it's candidates are a big joke....but unfortunately a joke that will probably impact the whole world with it's result.

I would personally still maintain that Hilary is the lesser of the two evils... as some on here would suggest it is Trump... but I think for the most part it is a choice between two evils

[the truth]

I will go on record to say it is a mistake on both parties to alienate any part of the voter base with stereotyping and name calling... but isn't that just what this whole American election has digressed to and why this whole election and it's candidates are a big joke....but unfortunately a joke that will probably impact the whole world with it's result.

I would personally still maintain that Hilary is the lesser of the two evils... as some on here would suggest it is Trump... but I think for the most part it is a choice between two evils

It is appalling

I think trump is the lesser of the 2 evils....hes right on trade, right on tariffs, right on jobs overseas, right on tackling corporate corruption, right on debt, right on social security, right to want to reduce the wars in the middle east, right on brexit, right to tighten border controls, right to discuss the drugs and crime coming into the country, right to criticize too much political correctness, but wrong to target all muslims even in the short term and wrong on guns

she is simply more of the status quo only much much worse than obama

[Northern Monkey]

It is appalling

I think trump is the lesser of the 2 evils....hes right on trade, right on tariffs, right on jobs overseas, right on tackling corporate corruption, right on debt, right on social security, right to want to reduce the wars in the middle east, right on brexit, right to tighten border controls, right to discuss the drugs and crime coming into the country, right to criticize too much political correctness, but wrong to target all muslims even in the short term and wrong on guns

she is simply more of the status quo only much much worse than obama

This^
Only i fear she will take us to the brink of a major conflict

[joeysteele]

heres just 3 videos of hilary wanting to build a bigger barrier on the mexican border to prevent illegal immigrants coming in....she says you have to control your borders.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ezaw-g6TIQI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhXu8IvVp2g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gUAdAYFbIc

Haven't you just started another thread with these same videos?
Do they really need to be all over the place.

Yes this is hypocrisy, no doubt, however she is not saying it now so her mind has changed on the issue.

Some will see it as a mind change others as either blatantly misleading people or playing and saying anything to get elected.

However if we were to hold against Politicians. changing their minds on big issues, there would be likely few politicians left.
How I wish more of our Politicians would think again as to what they have said and maybe would have done in the past.

Yes it is hypocrisy, no one has said she is not at times being a hypocrite, However events can change things too and people have to realise that what they thought right in principle before, may not in the end be the best way to actually move forward on the issue.

Whatever her views then, she is not the one now advocating this,someone else is.
let the USA decide if they overall prefer her thinking again and altering course on it, or whether they agree with the policy put forward by Trump.

Politicians are hypocrites a lot of the time.
Unfortunately that is a sad fact of politics, how nice if they were not.

However racist or xenophobic language should have no place in politics, just as other generalised prejudices should not either.

[Maru]

This entire thread could've been avoided if more people voted in primaries... it is a democracy, but if we are apathetic about the potential result or vote "lesser of two evils" every single time while continuously vetting these two ss****ty parties then this is the result we should expect.

[Mokka]

This entire thread could've been avoided if more people voted in primaries... it is a democracy, but if we are apathetic about the potential result or vote "lesser of two evils" every single time while continuously vetting these two ss****ty parties then this is the result we should expect.

:laugh:... how many diabolical threads could have been avoided if only....

I agree whole heartedly though!

[Maru]

:laugh:... how many diabolical threads could have been avoided if only....

I agree whole heartedly though!

You'd be surprised though to see the actual numbers...our voting percentages are dismal imho.

Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees (NYT)
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/01/us/elections/nine-percent-of-america-selected-trump-and-clinton.html

I really need to stop turning off my javascript to leech articles and actually pay for the NYT. :laugh: They have really put out some some amazing stuff this election.

[the truth]

Haven't you just started another thread with these same videos?
Do they really need to be all over the place.

Yes this is hypocrisy, no doubt, however she is not saying it now so her mind has changed on the issue.

Some will see it as a mind change others as either blatantly misleading people or playing and saying anything to get elected.

However if we were to hold against Politicians. changing their minds on big issues, there would be likely few politicians left.
How I wish more of our Politicians would think again as to what they have said and maybe would have done in the past.

Yes it is hypocrisy, no one has said she is not at times being a hypocrite, However events can change things too and people have to realise that what they thought right in principle before, may not in the end be the best way to actually move forward on the issue.

Whatever her views then, she is not the one now advocating this,someone else is.
let the USA decide if they overall prefer her thinking again and altering course on it, or whether they agree with the policy put forward by Trump.

Politicians are hypocrites a lot of the time.
Unfortunately that is a sad fact of politics, how nice if they were not.

However racist or xenophobic language should have no place in politics, just as other generalised prejudices should not either.
lol yet again youre defending the undefendable
she has wanted a barrier for donkeys years but now trump says it she calls that racist? lol that means either 1) she is therefore calling herself a racist by default or 2) she has suddenly flip fliopped on a belief she has had for many years simply to try and make trump look racist. the media have given her a free pass on this endless hypocrisy because she has avoided all press conferences for nearly a year

I dont even know if she has changed her mind really, she certainly hasnt made it clear...if she has why does she think afer decades of wanting stronger border control does she sudddenly not want it and how can she justify this massive change on a huge policy?
oh lets not ask that lets all do what hillarys team have admitted they do
Deny (lie) Divert (ignore the question and answer a different one) Distract (by pointing at the white man and calling him a racist

their playbook is totally corrupt totally transparent and the game is up...

[GiRTh]

You'd be surprised though to see the actual numbers...our voting percentages are dismal imho.

Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees (NYT)
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/01/us/elections/nine-percent-of-america-selected-trump-and-clinton.html

I really need to stop turning off my javascript to leech articles and actually pay for the NYT. :laugh: They have really put out some some amazing stuff this election.Excellent article.

HRC showing this level of disdain for voters isnt too surprising. She comes across as privileged and entitled most of the time any way. It is noticeable that she made the comment while talking to her fat cat friends. Maybe she should spend a little less time talking to them and a bit more time talking to the public.

[joeysteele]

lol yet again youre defending the undefendable
she has wanted a barrier for donkeys years but now trump says it she calls that racist? lol that means either 1) she is therefore calling herself a racist by default or 2) she has suddenly flip fliopped on a belief she has had for many years simply to try and make trump look racist. the media have given her a free pass on this endless hypocrisy because she has avoided all press conferences for nearly a year

I dont even know if she has changed her mind really, she certainly hasnt made it clear...if she has why does she think afer decades of wanting stronger border control does she sudddenly not want it and how can she justify this massive change on a huge policy?
oh lets not ask that lets all do what hillarys team have admitted they do
Deny (lie) Divert (ignore the question and answer a different one) Distract (by pointing at the white man and calling him a racist

their playbook is totally corrupt totally transparent and the game is up...

Look just because people have a differing view to you, that does not make your case or mine or others any the more valid, no need for derision.

I just think her rhetoric as to it is far different from Trumps.
Both come across bad on the issue, no denying that but he appears to have a more sinister attitude and tone,to any such barrier or wall as in the content of what he says and more to the point how he expresses same.

Many politicians want, or don't want things and then if the time suits, or for genuine changes of heart, change their stance on whatever it may be.

That happens with politicians the World over, not just in the UK or the USA.

[the truth]

Look just because people have a differing view to you, that does not make your case or mine or others any the more valid, no need for derision.

I just think her rhetoric as to it is far different from Trumps.
Both come across bad on the issue, no denying that but he appears to have a more sinister attitude and tone,to any such barrier or wall as in the content of what he says and more to the point how he expresses same.

Many politicians want, or don't want things and then if the time suits, or for genuine changes of heart, change their stance on whatever it may be.

That happens with politicians the World over, not just in the UK or the USA.

she voted to kill a million innocent people based on a pack of lies, you cant get much more sinister than that

[joeysteele]

she killed a million innocent people based on a pack of lies, you cant get much more sinister than that

She killed a million innocent people you say, remind me again where and when she has actually been a World leader with the power to do that, or who was her superior at the time, even if your wild charge had any real substance to it anyway.

[the truth]

She killed a million innocent people you say, remind me again where and when she has actually been a World leader with the power to do that, or who was her superior at the time, even if your wild charge had any real substance to it anyway.

As a senator On October 11, 2002, Clinton voted in favor of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq, commonly known as the Iraq War Resolution, to give President Bush authority for the Iraq War. She has blood on her hands for that forever.

During an April 20, 2004, Clinton was asked about her October 2002 vote in favor of the Iraq war resolution.

Obviously, I've thought about that a lot in the months since. No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade.... The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared.

But in a speech on June 13, 2006, Clinton tried to back track and flip flop from the worst foreign policy decision in living memory...sharply criticized President George W. Bush's handling of the Iraq War,[306] saying that Bush "rushed to war" and "refused to let the UN inspectors conduct and complete their mission ... We need to be building alliances instead of isolation around the world

she then became secretary of state in 09 and duly attacked libya and after gadaffi was smashed to pieces and dragged through the city , which she laughed about....the country fell into chaos..she supported the bombings of youoslavia, she armed thousands in syria with wepaons many of which fell into the hands of ISIS terrorists , all of which were formed from the chasm left behind in iraq and libya ...she wants to keep the american imperial stranglehold in the middle east as it is...and her whole career is backed by the most corrupt distrusted corporations in america who have lined her pockets for decades..hence the clintons despite being mere politicians for the past 30 yrs are worth over $100 million

[Ammi]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/474x/c0/4f/7a/c04f7a3cd117b631edf644d5bedb076b.jpg

[Ammi]

..Chuck Norris though...:love:...


https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/e3/5c/fe/e35cfedde4a2caa6fd8c5b3ddb6b573c.jpg

[joeysteele]

As a senator On October 11, 2002, Clinton voted in favor of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq, commonly known as the Iraq War Resolution, to give President Bush authority for the Iraq War. She has blood on her hands for that forever.

During an April 20, 2004, Clinton was asked about her October 2002 vote in favor of the Iraq war resolution.

Obviously, I've thought about that a lot in the months since. No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade.... The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared.

But in a speech on June 13, 2006, Clinton tried to back track and flip flop from the worst foreign policy decision in living memory...sharply criticized President George W. Bush's handling of the Iraq War,[306] saying that Bush "rushed to war" and "refused to let the UN inspectors conduct and complete their mission ... We need to be building alliances instead of isolation around the world

she then became secretary of state in 09 and duly attacked libya and after gadaffi was smashed to pieces and dragged through the city , which she laughed about....the country fell into chaos..she supported the bombings of youoslavia, she armed thousands in syria with wepaons many of which fell into the hands of ISIS terrorists , all of which were formed from the chasm left behind in iraq and libya ...she wants to keep the american imperial stranglehold in the middle east as it is...and her whole career is backed by the most corrupt distrusted corporations in america who have lined her pockets for decades..hence the clintons despite being mere politicians for the past 30 yrs are worth over $100 million


I actually think we in the UK had a lot to do with the fall of Gaddafi and what then ensued in Libya.

Anyway, she was not a leader of the USA at the time of Iraq and as a Senator, along with many other Senators too of both USA parties, she was just one other vote.

Just as all the MPs in the UK, of all Parties except the Lib Dems also supported action in Iraq here.

You keep saying she did all this, she was 'not' the President, she was not the Senate or the House of representatives.
She was only supporting a motion put forward by the president,

Whatever was done would need the sanctioning of said president/s of the times, not herself, and it would need the approval of the 2 houses too, with loads more voting the same way as she did.

I know you appear to have a thing against women at times but many other Senators supported all that was done, not just Hillary, and the then presidents of the USA too.
Along with other Countries too such as France as to Libya.

You are being selective, and really in part blaming the wrong person totally for it all,just to suit your odd argument at times, the buck stops with the presidents and Prime Ministers of Countries who support any action anywhere and who indeed propose it too.
Asking their MPs or Senators to support their plans.

Last time I checked, I found nothing wrong with people being rich either, most Presidents and their families end up rich as generally our UK PMs do too.
Rather a bit of a red herring that one to me.

[the truth]

I actually think we in the UK had a lot to do with the fall of Gaddafi and what then ensued in Libya.

Anyway, she was not a leader of the USA at the time of Iraq and as a Senator, along with many other Senators too of both USA parties, she was just one other vote.

Just as all the MPs in the UK, of all Parties except the Lib Dems also supported action in Iraq here.

You keep saying she did all this, she was 'not' the President, she was not the Senate or the House of representatives.
She was only supporting a motion put forward by the president,

Whatever was done would need the sanctioning of said president/s of the times, not herself, and it would need the approval of the 2 houses too, with loads more voting the same way as she did.

I know you appear to have a thing against women at times but many other Senators supported all that was done, not just Hillary, and the then presidents of the USA too.
Along with other Countries too such as France as to Libya.

You are being selective, and really in part blaming the wrong person totally for it all,just to suit your odd argument at times, the buck stops with the presidents and Prime Ministers of Countries who support any action anywhere and who indeed propose it too.
Asking their MPs or Senators to support their plans.

Last time I checked, I found nothing wrong with people being rich either, most Presidents and their families end up rich as generally our UK PMs do too.
Rather a bit of a red herring that one to me.
I was waiting for you to play the sexist card, shame on you
where is the woman card for the 500,000 women killed in the iraq invasion and many more killed in hilarys other invasions

[Niamh.]

..Chuck Norris though...:love:...


https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/e3/5c/fe/e35cfedde4a2caa6fd8c5b3ddb6b573c.jpg

That's brilliant :laugh2:

[joeysteele]

I was waiting for you to play the sexist card, shame on you
where is the woman card for the 500,000 women killed in the iraq invasion and many more killed in hilarys other invasions

No shame at all,and not playing the sexist card either, you are at times rather harder on Women than others with full respect.

In fact here on this issue,you are the only one blaming one woman for millions being killed while sidestepping the fact it was Male PMs and male Presidents who proposed the action in the first place, not her.

Perhaps had you laid the blame at the door of the actual leaders of the nations, rather than just one woman Senator of the time, the picture would have been very different.

Had she never been Secretary of State in the USA, and never even been a senator, the actions and deaths you claim to hold 'only' her,(a Woman),responsible for, would still have happened, as all the same action would still have been taken with or without Hillary Clinton's one solitary vote.

[the truth]

No shame at all,and not playing the sexist card either, you are at times rather harder on Women than others with full respect.

In fact her on this issue,you are the only one blaming one woman for millions being killed while sidestepping the fact it was Male PMs and male Presidents who proposed the action in the first place, not her.

Perhaps had you laid the blame at the door of the actual leaders of the nations, rather than just one woman Senator of the time, the picture would have been very different.

Had she never been Secretary of State in the USA, and never even been a senator, the actions and deaths you claim to hold 'only' her,(a Woman),responsible for, would still have happened, as all the same action would still have been taken with or without Hillary Clinton's one solitary vote.

Youre telling lies now as well as slandering me, pretty shameful
I never ever said everything was down to her, being a woman is 100% irrelevant ....shes been a disastrous secretary of state overseeing the collapse of the middle east and she voted to blow up iraq illegally. she is responsible for that along with tony bliar and warmonger bush and many other politicians whom I have absolutely slaughtered on here for years. which of course blows you lie about gender bias out of the water. hillary is also a warmonger.

[joeysteele]

Youre telling lies now as well as slandering me, pretty shameful
I never ever said everything was down to her, being a woman is 100% irrelevant ....shes been a disastrous secretary of state overseeing the collapse of the middle east and she voted to blow up iraq illegally. she is responsible for that along with tony bliar and warmonger bush and many other politicians whom I have absolutely slaughtered on here for years. which of course blows you lie about gender bias out of the water. hillary is also a warmonger.

All your posts on here, there for all to read,you have only stated that 'she',Hillary Clinton, is responsible for a million deaths, for Libya and even Iraq.
You say not a single thing as to anyone else being involved in those decisions and actions.
You only state she is.

Only in the post above have you added the more important names,of the actual leaders who were the ones responsible for the actions taken.
I agree you have slaughtered them at other times on tibb but not on this thread, you only blame her.

Not even all the other MPs, the other Senators, the others in the House of representatives that voted in the action to be taken.
To hold Hillary Clinton responsible for the action and any deaths, is a disservice and to then sidestep all those other hundreds, yes hundreds,( even just here in our Parliament there were hundreds in support), of people who supported said action,I feel was a misrepresentation and wrong.

Your last post above has balanced more the point you were making and I agree with that latest post far more.
It is however the first such more open post on this whole thread.

[Maru]

Youre telling lies now as well as slandering me, pretty shameful
I never ever said everything was down to her, being a woman is 100% irrelevant...

....

most of hilarys fans love a warmonger who has directly been responsible for the brutual killings of over 1 million innocent people. that means most of her fans support brutal murder

she blew up iraq which killed over 1 million innocent people. those are the real victims of this warmonger

she = singular... there is no we in she

the_truth, if you didn't intend to say it was only her that led to these things, you may want to go back on your wording....for example, "she aided or "contributed" may have been better... your original statements do sound like you are blaming her directly as you put it...

[the truth]

All your posts on here, there for all to read,you have only stated that 'she',Hillary Clinton, is responsible for a million deaths, for Libya and even Iraq.
You say not a single thing as to anyone else being involved in those decisions and actions.
You only state she is.

Only in the post above have you added the more important names,of the actual leaders who were the ones responsible for the actions taken.
I agree you have slaughtered them at other times on tibb but not on this thread, you only blame her.

Not even all the other MPs, the other Senators, the others in the House of representatives that voted in the action to be taken.
To hold Hillary Clinton responsible for the action and any deaths, is a disservice and to then sidestep all those other hundreds, yes hundreds,( even just here in our Parliament there were hundreds in support), of people who supported said action,I feel was a misrepresentation and wrong.

Your last post above has balanced more the point you were making and I agree with that latest post far more.
It is however the first such more open post on this whole thread.

theyre all warmongers, period. as far a sim concerned anyone who voted for the illegal bombing of iraq should be barred from pub lic office for life and stand trial for war crimes. it beggars belief that after making such a decision she then became secretary of state...further she was disastrous in the role...now we get the loony left telling us were only picking on her because shes a woman.? she is a dreadful person with an horrific past. worse still she wants to keep pushing imperialism in the middle east

[user104658]

Anyone who thinks that any individual at either end of the political spectrum had any say whatsoever in what went down in Iraq, purely and simply, does not understand the world.

[Northern Monkey]

Anyone who thinks that any individual at either end of the political spectrum had any say whatsoever in what went down in Iraq, purely and simply, does not understand the world.Illuminati Bilderberg elites?

[the truth]

Anyone who thinks that any individual at either end of the political spectrum had any say whatsoever in what went down in Iraq, purely and simply, does not understand the world.

everyone had a say ive no idea what youre talking about. everyone voted and somehow the majority were hoodwinked by a pack of lies

[user104658]

Illuminati Bilderberg elites?

I don't believe in the illuminati per se, but there are global events that transcend red/blue politics and are going to happen, no matter who has influence, no matter who is in power. 9/11 --> Iraq war is one of those event chains.

[Northern Monkey]

I don't believe in the illuminati per se, but there are global events that transcend red/blue politics and are going to happen, no matter who has influence, no matter who is in power. 9/11 --> Iraq war is one of those event chains.Yes those two events are definitely linked.I don't believe the 9/11 controlled demolition conspiracy theories but the way we went into Iraq straight after is definitely quite suspicious.Almost as if they were already waiting for an excuse to go in before.

[the truth]

Yes those two events are definitely linked.I don't believe the 9/11 controlled demolition conspiracy theories but the way we went into Iraq straight after is definitely quite suspicious.Almost as if they were already waiting for an excuse to go in before.

the neo cons had a masterplan a few years earlier, saddam had started sellling oil in euros , that alone was costing the usa billions
the whole iraq war propoganda was a massive lie as we knew then and know now. the war was about oil , it was about revenge, it was about building pipelines and getting a foothold in the persian gulf.
some people think the americans allowed pearl harbour to happen and they claim the fact vast numbers of ships and weapons were absent shows they were expecting it, to give them an excuse to drop their atomic bomb. how on earth did 100s of japanese planes fly 1000s of miles across the atlantic unseen to bomb pearl harbour?
they also believe 911 was allowed to happen. hard to believe, but when you consider the fact bush was actually in business with the bin laden family and allowed them to fly out of america after 911 ...then maybe anything is possible

[bots]

Yes those two events are definitely linked.I don't believe the 9/11 controlled demolition conspiracy theories but the way we went into Iraq straight after is definitely quite suspicious.Almost as if they were already waiting for an excuse to go in before.

i think the timeline of events is somewhat skewed here. We first had the war against iraq when they invaded kuwait, there was also the matter of him firing chemical weapons at his own people. Then we had 9/11 which led to the conflict in Afghanistan. People that link 9/11 to iraq are just not following the time line and the true connection of events.

[the truth]

i think the timeline of events is somewhat skewed here. We first had the war against iraq when they invaded kuwait, there was also the matter of him firing chemical weapons at his own people. Then we had 9/11 which led to the conflict in Afghanistan. People that link 9/11 to iraq are just not following the time line and the true connection of events.
we all know the timeline of events, the yanks and brits rewrote saddams history but claiming genocide on 5000 iraqis which theyd previously blamed on the iranians...the fact is bush senior didnt finish off sadam in kuwait and bush junior wanted to finish the job. 911 had zero connection to iraq, absolutely zero. the terrorists were saudis and pakistanis and the mastermind was in pakistan.

[Northern Monkey]

i think the timeline of events is somewhat skewed here. We first had the war against iraq when they invaded kuwait, there was also the matter of him firing chemical weapons at his own people. Then we had 9/11 which led to the conflict in Afghanistan. People that link 9/11 to iraq are just not following the time line and the true connection of events.

Yes you are right.But then part of me wonders if the WTC and Afghanistan kind of set the tone for us to go into Iraq not long after.It was a good time to do it when the public was desensitised to us going into conflicts in the Middle East.Going into Iraq would have been much more of a shocker to the general public had 9/11 and Afghan not happened in the recent past.Look at the protests there was when we went into Iraq already.Imagine what they would have been like had 9/11 never happened.Would we still have gone in do you think?9/11 may have softened public opinion slightly for going to war.

[Johnnyuk123]

The only basket case is Hillary Clinton.

[joeysteele]

we all know the timeline of events, the yanks and brits rewrote saddams history but claiming genocide on 5000 iraqis which theyd previously blamed on the iranians...the fact is bush senior didnt finish off sadam in kuwait and bush junior wanted to finish the job. 911 had zero connection to iraq, absolutely zero. the terrorists were saudis and pakistanis and the mastermind was in pakistan.


Absolutely right on that one, I think too that Iraq the 2nd time was purely the finishing off job of Bush jnr for Bush snr. as you rightly say above.
I agree 100% with you on that.

[user104658]

i think the timeline of events is somewhat skewed here. We first had the war against iraq when they invaded kuwait, there was also the matter of him firing chemical weapons at his own people. Then we had 9/11 which led to the conflict in Afghanistan. People that link 9/11 to iraq are just not following the time line and the true connection of events.
9/11 generated a burst of bloodthirsty patriotism in the USA that had been missing since the individualist, self-centric hippy 60s/70s and yuppie 80s. It restored an appetite for war that had been destroyed by Vietnam and was clearly missing in the first Gulf. It was well over a decade ago now and is still used as a key event to encourage flag-waving.

The US population would not have easily accepted "shock and awe" and the full scale invasion of Iraq without 9/11.

[bots]

9/11 generated a burst of bloodthirsty patriotism in the USA that had been missing since the individualist, self-centric hippy 60s/70s and yuppie 80s. It restored an appetite for war that had been destroyed by Vietnam and was clearly missing in the first Gulf. It was well over a decade ago now and is still used as a key event to encourage flag-waving.

The US population would not have easily accepted "shock and awe" and the full scale invasion of Iraq without 9/11.

Saddam initiated his own destruction by his invasion of Kuwait, after that he was on borrowed time. The US very much had the appetite for war during the first gulf war with storming Norman. Their hands were tied then by the rules of that engagement, which were to free Kuwait. From that point forward they and the rest of the world waited on an opportunity to finish the job. We may have ended up going to war the second time under false/invisible evidence, but Saddam was the one who stood up and said he had the capability, and if you make such threats, you better be able to back it up or face the consequences.

So, really, 9/11 was an event with little significance with respect to iraq. He was just an asshole whose time had run out.

[the truth]

Saddam initiated his own destruction by his invasion of Kuwait, after that he was on borrowed time. The US very much had the appetite for war during the first gulf war with storming Norman. Their hands were tied then by the rules of that engagement, which were to free Kuwait. From that point forward they and the rest of the world waited on an opportunity to finish the job. We may have ended up going to war the second time under false/invisible evidence, but Saddam was the one who stood up and said he had the capability, and if you make such threats, you better be able to back it up or face the consequences.

So, really, 9/11 was an event with little significance with respect to iraq. He was just an asshole whose time had run out.

and 1 million people died to remove him and after the war and the asshole was killed the nation was infinitely worse