65% conservatives 'proud to be American,' just 37% liberals agree

Like old Rock n Roll musicians...'I knew him when'. I believe he's still kind at a personal level. He's just lost his mind. The saddest part is that he supports politicians/policies that directly have a negative effect on most aspects of his personal life. In essence, he's become a typical, uneducated Republican.

What makes it sad, is that he really used to be rather intelligent. His forte was research. He ain't the guy I knew.

He's been this all along. Perhaps you just didn't see it which is understandable. He had a lot of people fooled.
 
:palm: That is a copy of her own State Dept memo. Did she lie to herself?
My fav is South China Morning Post..Asia gets little coverage over here

Life is short. If she did wrong she was doubtless dismissed or brought to trial. The reports have somehow been suppressed!
 
You should try to read and listen to things other than racist propaganda. I listen to the BBC and read the Times, Guardian and Economist. With the odd look at the Morning Star in case they missed anything I think they cover any serious issues.
Notice what he did here. If you click the wikileaks link, it clearly shows that Clinton was tirelessly working with most of the world in order to facilitate a well planned, and well coordinated effort between numerous allies and even enemies.

He redacts anything that doesn't support his delusions, while accenting snippets that make it look like Clinton was concocting some underhanded plot to destroy the entire nation of Libya.
 
He's been this all along. Perhaps you just didn't see it which is understandable. He had a lot of people fooled.
Again...I remember him from 15 years ago. Once he began to go off the rails, I had to stop addressing his posts. When DCJ went down, I was already here. When he dragged his dog mess here, I had to put him on ignore.

But...I can see how you would hold that opinion of him. Most who 'met' him once he started sharing his Libya delusions, feel the same as you.
 
FFSake..not you too!

What LIES about Libya?? Look at her own State Dept memos..

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/23898
From: Jake Sullivan [mailtc
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2011 7:40 PM
To: Mills, Cheryl D; Nuland, Victoria
Subject: tick tock on libya

this is basically off the top of my head, with a few consultations of my notes. but it shows S'Clinton leadership/ownership/stewardship of this country's libya policy from start to finish. let me know what you think. toria, who else might be able to add to this? Secretary Clinton's leadership on Libya HRC has been a critical voice on Libya in administration deliberations, at NATO, and in contact group meetings — as well as the public face of the U.S. effort in Libya. She was instrumental in securing the authorization, building the coalition, and tightening the noose around Qadhafi and his regime.

well did your assholes investigate or charge her with something?


NO



its bull shit asshole

taking texts out of context is not going to save your evil assed party




your team in being investigated


the people doing it are republicans


yet you want to pretend they are after your party for what?
 
Notice what he did here. If you click the wikileaks link, it clearly shows that Clinton was tirelessly working with most of the world in order to facilitate a well planned, and well coordinated effort between numerous allies and even enemies.

He redacts anything that doesn't support his delusions, while accenting snippets that make it look like Clinton was concocting some underhanded plot to destroy the entire nation of Libya.
nothing "underhanded" you moron why do you make shit up? Your partisan mind is shot !

You can't even understand that HILLARY OWNED our US Libya policy! (and corraling the world - except Russia) behind it) That's exactly what this says

to break it down for your feeble brain:

It's EXPOSURE of her role "tirelessly working" to ( per her state dept)
She was instrumental in securing the authorization, building the coalition, and tightening the noose around Qadhafi and his regime.
gawd damn you are stupid, dishonest, unable to put things in context as well...

Russian 'operatives" have eaten your mind :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Life is short. If she did wrong she was doubtless dismissed or brought to trial. The reports have somehow been suppressed!
you don't bring people to trall because they run a bad policy..
You are mixing up her supreme role in Libya with the FBI investigation
 
so are we all CLEAR.. Hillary owned US policy in Libya??
As I've described it before:


( my words)- "Hillary was chief US advocate and international organizer for the US/NATO policy of humanitarian war
( i.e responsibility to protect- a.k.a. R2P) which collapsed Libya into a terrorist state"

nothing 'delusional' here.. John is just throwing his Hillary Hissey Fit.
 
Hillary Clinton and the Syrian Bloodbath
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/hillary-clinton-and-the-s_b_9231190.html
Clinton’s role in Syria has been to help instigate and prolong the Syrian bloodbath, not to bring it to a close.

In 2012, Clinton was the obstacle, not the solution, to a ceasefire being negotiated by UN Special Envoy Kofi Annan. It was US intransigence - Clinton’s intransigence - that led to the failure of Annan’s peace efforts in the spring of 2012, a point well known among diplomats

When the unrest of the Arab Spring broke out in early 2011, the CIA and the anti-Iran front of Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey saw an opportunity to topple Assad quickly and thereby to gain a geopolitical victory. Clinton became the leading proponent of the CIA-led effort at Syrian regime change.

In early 2011, Turkey and Saudi Arabia leveraged local protests against Assad to try to foment conditions for his ouster. By the spring of 2011, the CIA and the US allies were organizing an armed insurrection against the regime. On August 18, 2011, the US Government made public its position: “Assad must go.”
 
'Friends of Syria" my ass..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_of_Syria_Group

If the regime fails to accept the terms of the political initiative outlined by the Arab League and end violence against citizens, the Friends of Syria should not constrain individual countries from aiding the Syrian opposition by means of military advisers, training and provision of arms to defend themselves.
 
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said Thursday she would push for a no-fly zone and safe regions in Syria to address the humanitarian crisis that has spilled out in the Middle East.

“I personally would be advocating now for a no-fly zone and humanitarian corridors to try to stop the carnage on the ground and from the air,” Clinton said in an interview with WHDH-TV in Boston.

Clinton’s stance puts her at odds with the Obama administration. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Tuesday that the White House wasn’t considering a no-fly zone.

“It raises a whole set of logistical questions about how exactly what would be enforced, what sort of resources would be used to actually protect that area,” he told reporters aboard Air Force One.
https://apnews.com/5744395daa394af2b7c67cffa84b6f9b

you can't have "humanitarian corridors" without boots on the ground
 
"so are we all CLEAR.. Hillary owned US policy in Libya??" N #149
It is the U.S. president, not the secretary of State that bears ultimate responsibility for that.

And Secretary Clinton was not an absolute authoritarian.

The reports I've read of it indicate the State department offered Ambassador Stevens improved security. And Stevens accepted some, and rejected others.

In any case, it's all an exercise in the naïve;
which Obama / Clinton basher can act the most macho about it.

Silly.

Ambassador Stevens deliberately kept his consulate a soft target. He said he thought it would present less of an impression of "fortress America" in foreign lands.

The attackers skillfully exploited this. And the Hillary bashers opportunistically pretend it's a Clinton failing.

Surely it's hardly her most shining hour. But the pile-on approach of what is obviously Republican partisan quibbling just makes the quibblers look petty.
The fact is, Hillary was a driven wonk, a hard worker. She might even have been nearly as good a president as her husband.
Of the U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), former Speaker Newton Gingrich (R-GA) said: "She's serious, she's hard working, she is a first rate professional."

Supplementing that, (then) current RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman said:
"Senator Clinton is smart, uh, she's effective, uh ... very hard working."

Source: NBC-TV Meet The Press June 5, 2005
 
It is the U.S. president, not the secretary of State that bears ultimate responsibility for that.

And Secretary Clinton was not an absolute authoritarian.

The reports I've read of it indicate the State department offered Ambassador Stevens improved security. And Stevens accepted some, and rejected others.

In any case, it's all an exercise in the naïve;
which Obama / Clinton basher can act the most macho about it.

Silly.

Ambassador Stevens deliberately kept his consulate a soft target. He said he thought it would present less of an impression of "fortress America" in foreign lands.

The attackers skillfully exploited this. And the Hillary bashers opportunistically pretend it's a Clinton failing.

Surely it's hardly her most shining hour. But the pile-on approach of what is obviously Republican partisan quibbling just makes the quibblers look petty.
The fact is, Hillary was a driven wonk, a hard worker. She might even have been nearly as good a president as her husband.
not talking about Bengazi -we're talking the 2011 Libyan war.

If you want more proof Clinton was instrumental in making Qadaffi a military target -try the NYTime
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-libya.html?_r=0

Hillary Clinton,
‘Smart Power’ and a Dictator’s Fall

The president was wary. The secretary of state was persuasive. But the ouster of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi left Libya a failed state and a terrorist haven.


22libya8-jumbo-v4.jpg
 
Correct. trump is an embarrassment. Having said that, America's heinous foreign policies since the close of WW2 are nothing to be proud of. I'm LUCKY to be an American, but certainly not proud.

Go suck Chomsky's cock you commie bitch, US foreign policy since WW2 is a badge of honor.
 
It isn't quite clear when the survey was taken, but it must have been recent. Am I correct in assuming that the %ages would be reversed during the Obama years?
What bothers me is this, or any other examples like it
Even President Trump’s iconic “Make America Great Again” red hat is controversial, with only 22 percent saying they would feel safe wearing it.
Sad and disturbing in a country that prides itself on freedom of speech. I guess some think it is acceptable to resort to violence and destruction of personal property. "agree with me or else".
 
To your comment about liberals and a black president are you saying/suggesting liberals were happy just because the president was black or were liberals happy that the president was black AND liberal?

There have been liberal women on this board who have said they wanted a woman president but they wanted it to be a liberal woman. So someone like Carly Fiorina wouldn't qualify.

Another way to ask do you think liberals would be happy if Ben Carson or Alan Keys had won the Presidency just because they were black?

(my guess at the answer is party/partisanship trumps all but I'm just asking for the sake of discussion)

It's a no-brainer. Fiorina, Bachmann and Palin didn't support the issues I support so I couldn't vote for them. Same with Carson or Keyes.

I'm not going to vote for a woman just because I want a woman president and the same goes for a candidate of another race.
 
It isn't quite clear when the survey was taken, but it must have been recent. Am I correct in assuming that the %ages would be reversed during the Obama years?
What bothers me is this, or any other examples like it
Even President Trump’s iconic “Make America Great Again” red hat is controversial, with only 22 percent saying they would feel safe wearing it.
Sad and disturbing in a country that prides itself on freedom of speech. I guess some think it is acceptable to resort to violence and destruction of personal property. "agree with me or else".
I wonder which is safer, wearing a cross in the Gaza Strip or a MAGA hat at Berkeley University.......
 
Back
Top