+- Mock (https://mockforums.net)
+-- Forum: Serious Shit? (https://mockforums.net/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: POLITICS (https://mockforums.net/forum-36.html)
+--- Thread: HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT (/thread-9358.html)
RE: HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT - Carsman - 08-28-2015
If the Donald were to be elected, he would be beholden to no one!
RE: HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT - HairOfTheDog - 08-28-2015
(08-28-2015, 06:52 PM)Carsman Wrote: If the Donald were to be elected, he would be beholden to no one!
Yeah, but that includes the people he would be elected to represent.
Unlike many of the other candidates, Trump doesn't need the job; leading the country isn't a career or personal goal he seems to have worked towards achieving.
Trump used his fame and fortune to enter the race and claims that he'll use his fortune to get what HE wants done, which happens to be what about 25% of the Republican-registered voters appear to want done as well. That's a small percentage of the total U.S. population.
Everyone who disagrees or questions Trump is dismissed by him, without consideration. And, he seriously claims he can buy the compliance and respect of world leaders, though the U.S. gives more than his total net worth to Israel alone each year.
Donald Trump IS his own money-fed special interest group. That's worse for the country, in my opinion, than politicians who are beholden to many different special interest groups and need to worry about re-election and/or their careers.
RE: HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT - Carsman - 08-28-2015
(08-28-2015, 07:38 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:(08-28-2015, 06:52 PM)Carsman Wrote: If the Donald were to be elected, he would be beholden to no one!
Yeah, but that includes the people he would be elected to represent.
Unlike many of the other candidates, Trump doesn't need the job; leading the country isn't a career or personal goal he seems to have worked towards achieving.
Trump used his fame and fortune to enter the race and claims that he'll use his fortune to get what HE wants done, which happens to be what about 25% of the Republican-registered voters appear to want done as well. That's a small percentage of the total U.S. population.
Everyone who disagrees or questions Trump is dismissed by him, without consideration. And, he seriously claims he can buy the compliance and respect of world leaders, though the U.S. gives more than his total net worth to Israel alone each year.
Donald Trump IS his own money-fed special interest group. That's worse for the country, in my opinion, than politicians who are beholden to many different special interest groups and need to worry about re-election and/or their careers.
My post was an observation, in reply to upstream posts that mentioned where "politicians" work for their major campaign contributors, and are beholden to them. And not to the American public that voted them into office.
I really don't believe the Donald has a snowballs chance in hell of getting the nod, more or less the actual POTUS spot! He's just "showboating", having a blast. And making the real politicians take notice of the issues that American's want addressed.
Go Donald!
RE: HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT - HairOfTheDog - 08-28-2015
I know Cars.
I've read all of your observations about Trump, and tend to share the same view.
Your last post just made me think about how Donald Trump is virtually a special interest of his own. So, I jumped off your thought and posted mine. That's all.
RE: HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT - F.U. - 08-28-2015
![[Image: YOURFIRED_zpskgkxfxwl.jpg]](http://s215.photobucket.com/user/911JB/media/YOURFIRED_zpskgkxfxwl.jpg.html)
RE: HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT - pyropappy - 08-28-2015
(08-28-2015, 12:29 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Obviously you don't know what a "straw man argument" is, nor do you know what it means to "parrot", pappy. Those are things that you did, not I.
I didn't attempt to refute your arguments by insulting you as a person, as a straw man would. I mocked you a bit and asked you to clarify what "bubble-bursting" point you were trying to make in positing years-old information that some of us had already read about at a variety of sources and evaluated for ourselves. I was interested in your clarification, though it never came.
The fact that you parroted and linked mainstream media pieces in your attempted bubble-bursting post is kinda funny, considering that you immediately thereafter criticized self-contained knowledge and mainstream media pieces as fodder for people who have their heads up their asses. Have you come down off your perch and pulled your head out yet, pappy?
Anyway, whether or not you still have your head up your ass, you are still a conspiracy-theorist by definition. You claim to have information that refutes what the government has asserted and refutes public documents/testimony, but you have provided no substance to support your theory - despite your assertion that you knew the murdered Seal and have some unique education that transforms your innuendo and opinions into facts.
At this point, you're just a guy who doesn't trust politicians to always tell the truth (mind-blowing perspective, indeed); a guy who thinks that one such politician is a hell-bitch and a cunt whom everyone should fear (you're far from alone); and a guy who claims that he is somehow more enlightened and informed than everyone else without providing any substantiation (truly a rarity on the internet).
So......you've made one thing clear, pappy - you're one of millions who won't be voting for Hillary Clinton and doesn't think anyone else should either. Fair enough.
Are you daft? Obviously it is you that doesn't understand the term:
maybe this will help
Please refer to the Wikipedia explanation to help you know the proper use of this term.
So now that we understand the fallacy of your argument lets attempt to clear up you latest straw man argument.
My use of the term “bust your bubble” is referred to as figure of speech; clearly it was not as your straw man argument contends: an attempt to make a point. It was used as a reference to cocoon like envelope you Shiite Clintonites develop to protect you from any one with the audacity to disagree with you and my attempt to penetrate its warm embrace you cling to. I am flabbergasted that an astute wordsmith such as your self could not figure that out.
In my original post, I never claimed I have any information, nor offered any opinion or innuendo about Benghazi as your straw man argument contends; my point was that much of the Hellbitch’s current troubles stem from an attack coordinated from the White House. I clearly stated “This DOJ won’t investigate anything they {the Great BO, pbuh, and Valerie Jarrett} don’t allow to be investigated”; I used Benghazi as an example of one such instance.
I then made a reference to Iran-Contra; that was an attempt to point out the hypocrisy of the people supporting this administration and the Hellbitch. They are the very same people horrified by the Reagan Administration’s weapon smuggling operation to Iran for the release of the hostages and to fund the Contra’s fight against the oppressive yoke of Communism. I will agree this was subtle, and I should have known better. Shiite Clintonites need to be hit between the eyes with as much force as wit can muster.
Finally, in my original post I made the point to educate yourself before you support this woman. Again my fault, it was entirely too subtle which I corrected with my second post.
Your clumsy attempt to attach points from other of my posts to your inept interpretation of my original post as per your latest straw man argument contends, is again ludicrous. My knowing Glen was offered as an explanation of why I am passionate about this subject, and why I chose to use Benghazi as the example. It is also why I chose those clips. Put yourself in the shoes of the family of Glen; finding out the President and Secretary of State lied to your face in order to cover up their corruption demeans their loss and the bravery their son displayed. I pray you never experience that ignominy in your own life.
I thought this thread was about the Hellbitch’s quest to occupy the White House; excuse me for offering my opinion to help dissuade people from making that choice. I understand the “useful idiots” she has enthralled find that completely unacceptable, but none the less I will continue with my desire to educate people to make better choices. I am well aware my task will be extremely daunting
At this point I feel I have proven I am more enlighten and informed than you. I am sure the reason is I am not a closed minded egotistical quisling. Please use a different tactic when you respond to this post; using the straw man argument a third time will show everyone your limitations.
RE: HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT - HairOfTheDog - 08-28-2015
(08-28-2015, 09:25 PM)pyropappy Wrote: I thought this thread was about the Hellbitch’s quest to occupy the White House; excuse me for offering my opinion to help dissuade people from making that choice. I understand the “useful idiots” she has enthralled find that completely unacceptable, but none the less I will continue with my desire to educate people to make better choices. I am well aware my task will be extremely daunting
At this point I feel I have proven I am more enlighten and informed than you. I am sure the reason is I am not a closed minded egotistical quisling. Please use a different tactic when you respond to this post; using the straw man argument a third time will show everyone your limitations.
I like reading everyone's opinions, pappy. Sometimes, I become curious and ask questions, like I did with you.
You never answered my question, and that's not a problem for me. Instead, you chose to deflect from answering by tossing out your brilliant "straw-man argument", "head up your ass" and "parrot" assertions, to which I responded. Clearly, you still don't understand what those terms mean in context -- despite having consulted that non-mainstream source known as Wikipedia -- since once again, you're ignorantly projecting your personal attributes onto others.
That "useful idiots" term you've borrowed refers to political propagandists. Do you know what that means and how to use it in context, pappy? Obviously not. In your last post, you confirmed what was already clear; that you are on a self-proclaimed mission to convince people not to vote for Hillary Clinton, whom you consider a scary, hell-bitch, cunt. That makes you a political propagandist, pappy (whereas I don't care one way or the other who votes for Hillary Clinton). I'd say that also makes you a "useful idiot", only I don't think the "useful" part applies to you.
Anyway, if ever you develop the ability to espouse an opinion or pose a theory without becoming spastic when someone asks you a question about it or requests that you provide some foundation or insight to support it, maybe there will be something to discuss or debate with you.
For now, I'll let you bask in the glory of having convinced your non-egotistical, open-minded, exceptionally-enlightened self that you have proved yourself superior to me. I'll survive -- congratulations winner.
RE: HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT - username - 08-28-2015
(08-28-2015, 11:00 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:(08-28-2015, 09:25 PM)pyropappy Wrote: I thought this thread was about the Hellbitch’s quest to occupy the White House; excuse me for offering my opinion to help dissuade people from making that choice. I understand the “useful idiots” she has enthralled find that completely unacceptable, but none the less I will continue with my desire to educate people to make better choices. I am well aware my task will be extremely daunting
At this point I feel I have proven I am more enlighten and informed than you. I am sure the reason is I am not a closed minded egotistical quisling. Please use a different tactic when you respond to this post; using the straw man argument a third time will show everyone your limitations.
I like reading everyone's opinions, pappy. Sometimes, I become curious and ask questions, like I did with you.
You never answered my question, and that's not a problem for me. Instead, you chose to deflect from answering by tossing out your brilliant "straw-man argument", "head up your ass" and "parrot" assertions, to which I responded. Clearly, you still don't understand what those terms mean in context -- despite having consulted that non-mainstream source known as Wikipedia -- since once again, you're ignorantly projecting your personal attributes onto others.
That "useful idiots" term you've borrowed refers to political propagandists. Do you know what that means and how to use it in context, pappy? It seems not. In your last post, you confirmed what was already clear; that you are on a self-proclaimed mission to convince people not to vote for Hillary Clinton, whom you consider a scary, hell-bitch, cunt. That makes you a political propagandist, pappy (whereas I don't care one way or the other who votes for Hillary Clinton). I'd say that also makes you a "useful idiot", only I don't think the "useful" part is accurate.
Anyway, if ever you develop the ability to espouse an opinion or pose a theory without becoming spastic when someone asks you a question about it or requests that you provide some foundation or insight to support it, maybe there will be something to discuss or debate with you.
For now, I'll let you bask in the glory of having convinced your non-egotistical, open-minded, exceptionally-enlightened self that you have proved yourself superior to me. I'll survive -- congratulations winner.
I love a good smack down.
![[Image: EIO1FS4o3aFz2.gif]](http://i.giphy.com/EIO1FS4o3aFz2.gif)
You're out of your league, PP. You'd be better off gracefully acknowledging when you've had your ass handed to you as opposed to continuing this debate with HotD. But, if you don't, at least it's entertaining watching you make a fool of yourself.
RE: HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT - F.U. - 08-29-2015
That's a smack down? I guess we see it differently because I see it as a even score card. Meh, who am I to judge anyway.
RE: HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT - FAHQTOO - 08-29-2015
(08-29-2015, 08:22 AM)F.U. Wrote: That's a smack down? I guess we see it differently because I see it as a even score card. Meh, who am I to judge anyway.
You're not the only one who saw it that way.
RE: HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT - Carsman - 08-29-2015
Oh OH!
RE: HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT - HairOfTheDog - 08-29-2015
(08-29-2015, 11:13 AM)FAHQTOO Wrote:(08-29-2015, 08:22 AM)F.U. Wrote: That's a smack down? I guess we see it differently because I see it as a even score card. Meh, who am I to judge anyway.
You're not the only one who saw it that way.
I didn't see it as a smackdown either. And, I don't see myself as Patrick Swayze in drag (thanks user!
). If pappy wants to educate people and dissuade them from voting for Clinton, as he said, I don't see the hold-up or why he sees it as a personal competition with me.
I've never suggested that anyone should vote for Clinton. And, I'll consider any facts, opinions, and theories posted, including pappy's. But, I've got to see them to consider them, obviously.
Anyway, I'm still all eyes/ears if pappy wants to give his opinions or share his facts about whether it was the U.S. rather than Qatar that was financially backing the transfer or arms from Libya to Syrian rebels -making it similar to Iran-Contra; and what the government (specifically Clinton) is covering up in regards to Benghazi and why pappy thinks Clinton lied; and why Clinton's actions in regards to China and Serbia are problematic/dangerous for the country....and any one of the other topics he tossed out there but didn't address. I, nor anyone else, can possibly be educated as to pappy's personal opinions and theories on those topics as they specifically relate to Hillary Clinton unless he shares them.
"Pull your head out of your ass and go find out for yourself what I think I know, but won't tell you", and "I'm more enlightened and informed than you", and talk about "straw men", "useful idiots", "neo-Clintonites", "hell-bitch cunts" and all that jazz may be somewhat amusing for a bit, but they don't serve to educate or dissuade or facilitate discussion.
RE: HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT - username - 08-29-2015
(08-29-2015, 12:38 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:(08-29-2015, 11:13 AM)FAHQTOO Wrote:(08-29-2015, 08:22 AM)F.U. Wrote: That's a smack down? I guess we see it differently because I see it as a even score card. Meh, who am I to judge anyway.
You're not the only one who saw it that way.
I, nor anyone else, can possibly be educated as to pappy's personal opinions and theories on those topics as they specifically relate to Hillary Clinton unless he shares them.
Exactly. And the reference to Glen and inference that PP has some inside information....? It reminds me of references to "purposes" and "ultimate goals"....but shhhhh, they're a secret and I can't tell you.
I imagine Pappy is a fairly intelligent person but these school yard antics are at best annoying. If you can't talk about something (or won't) why bring it up as part of a discussion? In and of itself it's meaningless.
RE: HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT - HairOfTheDog - 08-29-2015
Trump Inserts Weiner into Clinton E-mail Controversy
![[Image: triple-copy.jpg]](https://rasica.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/triple-copy.jpg)
Trump took aim at Hillary Clinton through her personal aide Huma Abedin (left) last night in Boston.
Trump told the crowd that Huma is a security risk because she's married to Anthony Weiner (center), who Trump says he knows well and is a "perv", a "bad guy", and "one of the greatest sleazeballs of our times".
Source: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/donald-trump-takes-aim-huma-abedin-perv-anthony-weiner-n418116
---------------------------------------------
I agree with Trump when it comes to Weiner's character, but I don't share his view that since Huma is married to Weiner she must by default be sharing secret government information with him. They're separate people.
I don't think it's a given that all men with security clearances share secret info with their professional wives, nor that all women with security clearances share secret info with their professional husbands. Trump can't possibly know one way or the other, but he said he doesn't think there's even a 5% chance that Huma isn't sharing secrets with her pervy husband.
In any event -- pulling the Weiner speculation out of the equation -- whether security was breached between Clinton and Huma via private email accounts and servers is part of the ongoing Clinton email investigation. Huma is one of two Clinton aides who was ordered to turn over her emails to the Fed.
Huma Abedin has been a target for conservatives looking to bring down Clinton for a long time. Over the years, I can recall Michele Bachman and others calling for inquiries and investigations on a few different fronts:
- The fact that Huma Abedin got government security clearance when her family is reportedly affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood.
- The fact that Huma Abedin got a government leave-payout of $30k.
- The fact that Huma Abedin continued to maintain a government security clearance after Clinton left Sec of State office and while Huma was also working part time for a private firm whose leader has ties to the Clinton Foundation...
Huma Abedin has never been charged with any crimes or policy violations, as far as I know. While she's been questioned/attacked by some, her professionalism, patriotism and character have been defended by many politicians on The Hill -- most notably and fiercely by Az. Republican Senator John McCain who's known her professionally for over 10 years.
Anyway, if recent patterns hold true, I expect other GOP candidates to follow Trump's lead and to see/ hear more about Huma Abedin and probably Weiner for awhile.
RE: HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT - pyropappy - 08-29-2015
Let me say this as succinctly and clearly as possible. This thread is about the Hellbitch’s quest to win the White House. Your straw man argument attempts to change the debate will not work. I have never claimed to have any knowledge of Benghazi or any other special operation carried out by this nation as your straw man argument contends. What you infer from my comments is your problem, not mine. I have clearly explained my position and at no time implied any of the things you accuse.
Furthermore, I have no intention of every discussing any special operation carried out by this nation on this thread nor any other thread you may start. I will gladly discuss the issues of the day and my opinions on them if they interest me. Clearly keeping that woman out of the White House interests me. To discuss any information I may or may not have must be done face to face, and because it is against the rules to discuss personal information on this site, the odds of that happening are slim.
I will again suggest, if you have interests of what special operations this country has carried out or any other topic that peaks your curiosity research the topic for yourself; there are a myriad of options open to you. You may or may not be surprised as to what open source material has been published by many sources. Read them all, look for confirmation of your suspicions and contradictions in the record. My point has been clear from the beginning; you cannot trust the government or any news source to tell you the truth. All your straw man arguments cannot change that.
Because this thread is about my contention she does not deserve to be commander in chief I will start you off: research Operation Gothic Serpent. Good luck
I will caution, the special operations community is a close, tight knit community; they do not appreciate queries from outside sources. The various units have chat rooms and web pages online, parties, reunions and clubs just like any other group. You will need some kind of credential to get inside them if you choose that route. Be forewarned, watch your tongue if you venture in there.
With that said, Frank requests you stay on topic.
RE: HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT - Duchess - 08-29-2015
RE: HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT - Duchess - 08-29-2015
Who the hell is Frank?
The first time I saw The Department of Homeland Security reading Mock I damn near shit.
RE: HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT - pyropappy - 08-29-2015
(08-29-2015, 05:48 PM)Duchess Wrote:
Who the hell is Frank?
The first time I saw The Department of Homeland Security reading Mock I damn near shit.
![[Image: frankidiot.gif]](http://www.popforum.net/images/smilies/frankidiot.gif)
RE: HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT - Duchess - 08-29-2015
Hi Frank!
RE: HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT - HairOfTheDog - 08-29-2015
The posts here are on-topic as it stands, pappy.
You did in fact make direct claims that Hillary Clinton lied to the American people in regards to Benghazi, and you compared the Ambassador's and CIA actions in Libya to Iran-Contra (inspiring my question about Qatar - which is not a straw-man argument by any reasonable interpretation, but it doesn't matter). Moving on....
You brought up Benghazi and it is a relevant current topic in relation to Clinton since she'll be appearing before Gowdy and the House Committee again in October, and due to the related email/server investigation.
I've followed Benghazi in the aftermath of the tragic attacks. After 2 years of investigation by multiple agencies and grilling by congresspersons, here are the top level results from the GOP-led House Intelligence Committee Report released in Nov. 2014.
- The CIA and the military acted properly in responding to attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi and asserted no wrongdoing by Obama administration appointees. The CIA operatives were heroes.
- The allegations that a CIA response team was ordered to “stand down” after the State Department compound came under attack were determined to be false.
- The allegations that a military rescue was quashed were determined to be false.
- The speculation that that Ambassador Stevens and the CIA (for which Doherty was contracting) were involved in a secret operation to spirit weapons out of Libya and into the hands of Syrian rebels were determined to be false.
- The State Department, under Hillary Clinton's leadership, was aware of security concerns in the months leading up to the attacks and did not respond adequately or quickly enough to address those concerns (which I personally hold as a mark against her).
- There were conflicting reports regarding the attackers, activity/protests outside of the complex before the attacks, and many other factors. The possibility of an advance-planned terror attack was not released to the public quickly and Susan Rice continued to push the "Muslim video protest" to the public without mentioning other reported scenarios. However, no intentional deception was proven by anyone in the Obama administration. (I personally think Rice is inept and Obama was wrong in not dumping her.)
I don't believe that the GOP-led Committee would try to cover for wrong-doing by President Obama or Hillary Clinton -- not by a long shot. But, I can imagine many reasons why they might withhold or strategically position findings for other reasons.
If new or incriminating information comes out during the hearings in October, is discovered in the course of the email investigation, or is proven and made available by any other credible means, it may well affect my assessment (and many others') in regards to Hillary Clinton's viability as a presidential candidate.
I consider myself sufficiently informed to develop my own opinions on the topics you threw out, and I have no basis or motivation to compare my level of knowledge or enlightenment to anyone else.
But, perhaps your posts here have inspired some readers to search for information for the first time, and perhaps that will inspire them not to vote for Hillary Clinton. I'm not personally concerned about swaying other people's votes, but I understand that you are and that's certainly not a problem, pappy.