[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

I agree whole heartedly though!

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Mokka

... 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/2...d-clinton.html

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

[the truth]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

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]

Originally Posted by Maru

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/2...d-clinton.html

I really need to stop turning off my javascript to leech articles and actually pay for the NYT. 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]

Originally Posted by the truth

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]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

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]

Originally Posted by the truth

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]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

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]

[Ammi]

..Chuck Norris though......

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by the truth

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]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

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.]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..Chuck Norris though......

That's brilliant

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by the truth

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]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

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]

Originally Posted by the truth

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]

Originally Posted by the truth

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...

....

Originally Posted by the truth

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

Originally Posted by the truth

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]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

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]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

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]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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.