Topic: Why Hillary would lose in 2016

So Genesis thinks she has already won. Time to let the air out on that one.

1) Their Foundations rake in tens of millions but have been noted for sloppy handling. One insider leak will make this a liability.

2) Bill and his legacy hangs about her neck.

3) Hillarycare. Nuff said if told to one who knows. If one does not know then those in the know can laugh at him.

4) Past business dealings

5) The amazing death list of people who died around the Clintons

6) Benghazi and "why does it matter, people die".

7) Her rooting for Obamacare will be in 15% of all ads against her.

8) US relations dropped considerably under her watch at the State Dept.

9) Crying

10) Similarities with IRS under Bill and Obama

11) Not publically attacking Obama ties her to Obama

12) Her own comments on age and politics

13) Popularity of Democrats dropping hard, or should I say Fast and Furious?

14) She has to "dodge bullets at foriegn airports"


I could go on but why?

Everything bad in the economy is now Obama's fault. Every job lost, all the debt, all the lost retirement funds. All Obama. Are you happy now? We all get to blame Obama!
Kemp currently not being responded to until he makes CONCISE posts.
Avogardo and Noir ignored by me for life so people know why I do not respond to them. (Informational)

Re: Why Hillary would lose in 2016

15. Only General Mills could sue to stop people posting the Quaker Oats guy on political posters, and they'd probably pretend not to get it

The core joke of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is that of course no civilization would develop personal computers with instant remote database recovery, and then waste this technology to find good drinks.
Steve Jobs has ruined this joke.

Re: Why Hillary would lose in 2016

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/11/20/b … ontenders/

Timing is funny

Everything bad in the economy is now Obama's fault. Every job lost, all the debt, all the lost retirement funds. All Obama. Are you happy now? We all get to blame Obama!
Kemp currently not being responded to until he makes CONCISE posts.
Avogardo and Noir ignored by me for life so people know why I do not respond to them. (Informational)

4 (edited by The Great Eye 21-Nov-2013 00:07:55)

Re: Why Hillary would lose in 2016

Alright, time to get some argumentation going in this forum!




2) Bill and his legacy hangs about her neck.


That's about the best thing going for her.  *cough*surplus*cough*

Yes, you can say "It was due to the Republican Congress," but that doesn't matter.  Hell, that's the point.  Think about it.  Split government in place... and it was actually able to get shit done an pass a surplus.  Compare that to 2008-2016 when a divided government was unable to pass a budget or even remotely cooperate.  When debt issues are such a salient issue in politics... this is a game-winner.


7) Her rooting for Obamacare will be in 15% of all ads against her.

Too close to call... yet (not necessarily in 2 years).  You're evaluating that this will be not only a salient issue, but an issue that people will overwhelmingly vote one side based upon.  Making that judgment call during the opening phases of the  program is probably not the best point to measure efficiency.  Not that you'll be wrong, but it's not something you can make a prediction on just yet.


8) US relations dropped considerably under her watch at the State Dept.

I do find it amusing that this is something Democrats (Obama included) cited against the Republicans.  Which forces me to beg a question... is a realignment a "drop"?  Hypothetical scenario: The US signs a series of agreements with Pakistan largely similar to those the US has with India, including nuclear dealings.  India, in response, steps back its relations with the US.  So we increased relations with Pakistan, which in turn caused harm to US relations with India.  Is that a loss?

Remember, much of international relations is purely zero-sum.  You can rarely engage in diplomacy with an Islamic nation without pissing off Israel (unless the diplomacy is specifically meant to reinforce a position in line with Israeli objectives... such as US arms sales to Saudi Arabia during the Bush era).  Every action we conduct with Pakistan causes India to become uneasy.  We can't depose a possible threat in Iraq, and subsequently gain a new ally in the Middle East, without Europeans thinking less of the US.  This is true in any region of the world where there's significant regional disputes (which is to say, most every region of the world where issues of US relations are pertinent enough to be an issue in an election).

9) Crying

I'm going to address this in the bottom, but I just want to add here, because this is by far the worst offender of what I'm about to argue there:

http://i1183.photobucket.com/albums/x47 … cepalm.png


11) Not publically attacking Obama ties her to Obama

This one's tricky... because most Republicans may have this same problem.  I'll let Genesis indulge on all the ways that would create problems.  Suffice to say, though, it would be a wash.

Although this is probably your best argument... 2008 is good at reinforcing this one.  McCain made a career out of being an independent Republican, freely opposing Bush on issues when he thought it mattered.  However, the major attack against him (an attack that actually gained traction) was a categorization of McCain with Bush.  Did it make the least bit of sense?  Nope.  Did it work?  Yup.

13) Popularity of Democrats dropping hard, or should I say Fast and Furious?

Popularity's dropping with booth parties.  That means nothing.




And on all the ones I didn't specifically address (plus #9 because  it's probably the worst offender of some of these):

1: Linkie on issues of fact, specifically 4, 5, 10, 12, 14?  Not just as a fact check, but to articulate the issue you're actually addressing for debate.

2: Issue salience.  Just because you can find something bad about a person, it doesn't mean that issue is going to manifest as important enough to voters to warrant a no vote for the candidate.  The worst offender of this was #9.  I saw that, and thought "so?".  Even if it's something you think is bad, it's not something I think is bad, and even if I think it's bad, it's not something I think is so bad that it would overwhelm other issues of importance (i.e., I think things like the budget are more important than Clinton's emotional restraint).

This is the same reason why civil rights issues don't automatically decide every election every year.  Even if an issue is important enough and bipartisan enough to get a vast majority of the population on one side of the issue, there's no guarantee that said population will vote in one big happy "civil rights" voting bloc.


EDIT: I forgot about one of yours, so I should clarify.  I'll definitely concede that Benghazi is a salient enough issue to significantly harm Clinton.  #2 wasn't directed at that one.

Make Eyes Great Again!

The Great Eye is watching you... when there's nothing good on TV...

Re: Why Hillary would lose in 2016

*eyes grow wide* "oh no you didn't!"

Now I have to go mental on you Zarf! Muwahahahahahahahahahaahhahahahahahaah!

Yes you have unleased the politibeast! Prepare to suffer!

Everything bad in the economy is now Obama's fault. Every job lost, all the debt, all the lost retirement funds. All Obama. Are you happy now? We all get to blame Obama!
Kemp currently not being responded to until he makes CONCISE posts.
Avogardo and Noir ignored by me for life so people know why I do not respond to them. (Informational)

Re: Why Hillary would lose in 2016

Just as soon as I am done driving in the snow *ends rest break*

Everything bad in the economy is now Obama's fault. Every job lost, all the debt, all the lost retirement funds. All Obama. Are you happy now? We all get to blame Obama!
Kemp currently not being responded to until he makes CONCISE posts.
Avogardo and Noir ignored by me for life so people know why I do not respond to them. (Informational)

Re: Why Hillary would lose in 2016

Just mention her name and every republican within a 5 mile radius trembles tongue there was no need for such a quick reaction! I really have no idea if she'll run or not.

But if she does, and you guys can't come up with a sane, level-headed person like say Chris Christie, you're done for. And you know it.

Re: Why Hillary would lose in 2016

On the other hand, if they run with Biden, I foresee great difficulties tongue

9 (edited by Key 22-Nov-2013 00:57:20)

Re: Why Hillary would lose in 2016

1) Their Foundations rake in tens of millions but have been noted for sloppy handling. One insider leak will make this a liability.

GOP rakes in hundreds of millions, due to donations of those that are against democrats.  Even the Tea Party has money funders.

2) Bill and his legacy hangs about her neck.

As stated above, Bill Clinton sat in office where there was a treasury surplus, which many people give credit to him specifically for that.  The whole Oral Office sex scandal, doesn't mean jack since he retained office, and his "Wife stood by him."  Showing she's willing to sacrifice her dignity for the greater good of the country.

3) Hillarycare. Nuff said if told to one who knows. If one does not know then those in the know can laugh at him.

Every president and every congressman has their own view on personal and national healthcare...this is nothing going against her.  Some people will agree with her, and some won't....big deal!

4) Past business dealings

Geeze, and I think we just had a republican senator arrested for charges of Cocaine possession?  Do you really want me to go in depth of both democratical and republican past "Business Deals..."?


5) The amazing death list of people who died around the Clintons

And how many people died directly in relation to the name of "Kennedy", or the many civilian casualties in Iran and Afghanistcan under the Bush name administration....

6) Benghazi and "why does it matter, people die".

So what.  People die, is pretty self explanatory.  The republican propaganda is directly trying to tie this around Hillary's neck in the hopes of derailing a possible 2016 run for the president of the United States.  The reason why this won't wory, is the department that she helped run was DENIED additional funds, specifically for protection of US embassies AROUND THE WORLD...and the names of the Republican senators for denial of those funds are a matter of the 1971 Freedom of Information Act.  She was kept in the loop of what her departments needed MONETARY wise in order to keep security on US embassies.  However that funding MUST be procured through congress.  Congress on a majority vote denied additional funds.  SO, whose to blame for Bengazi?  Congress.  But like I said, The tea party, and the republican controlled congress believe that most americans are to stupid to figure that out.  Well, I knew this before and after the Bengazi attack.  Funding goes through congress.  Congress said no more additional funds.  Was it Hillary's problem that congress denied those funds?  That's what the republicans are saying.    Plus...Hillary isn't a mind reader, and neither is congress.  Nobody could have forseen an attack anywhere in the world.   Republicans throw shit at people AFTER the event occured, and then use Hindsight to pin blame.

7) Her rooting for Obamacare will be in 15% of all ads against her.

So, the republicans are already into mud slinging before 2016?  Nothing new there, but then again that's been part of dirty politics from before I was even born 42 years ago.

8) US relations dropped considerably under her watch at the State Dept.

And it's been any better under KERRY!?  Though I don't hear anyone blaming Kerry for the NSA spy debacle.  So tell me Einstein, why wasn't KERRY blamed for the NSA spying on our allies, and the Snowden leaks?  Go ahead...tell me?  Probably because KERRY didn't control those events?  Even though he's in a position to deal directly on those matters?  But since Hillary was a woman, she should be blamed for the events under her tenure with foreign problems...and since Kerry is a MAN, he should be given the benefit of the doubt?  Einstein...are you sexist?  Blame the woman, but not the man?  WOW...I thought you were better than that.  Guess you are slime.

9) Crying

Ohmygod...my dog just died, i'm so sad, but I must put on a brave face and NEVER cry...or...a relative I cared about recently passed away, but I must put on a stiff upper lip and never cry!  Or are you talking about bitching, moaning, complaining  crying, because I see a lot of that from EVERYONE sooner or later.  Come on...crying?  Really?

10) Similarities with IRS under Bill and Obama

I do believe a number of senators had a few accounts over in the Camon islands.  Switzerland.  I'm more apt to trust her than Bill, because Bill always rubbed me the wrong way.  Then again, Bill mostly rubbed against women so....

11) Not publically attacking Obama ties her to Obama

"If your are not WITH US, then you are AGAINST US!"  LOL!  Ok.  Just means her Democratic base won't get much votes from Tea Party or republicans.  Although since i'm republican, I'm very positive I would vote for her.  And many other republicans would to.

12) Her own comments on age and politics

....really?  A politician that has made comments on age and politics, which would have some people agree or disagree with?  really?  I'm pretty sure that her comments on age and politics isn't going to piss off 100% of every citizen of the United States.  Really?  100% arn't going to like what she said, so won't vote for her?  Who you trying to impress with this stupid logic.  Her own comments on age and politics.  I have only two words for you.  Sarah Palin.  Sarah Palin whose foot in mouth disease continues to this very hours....don't retreat, reload, all teh while having a shooters target sight with a sitting democratic senator who had been SHOT in the head?

13) Popularity of Democrats dropping hard, or should I say Fast and Furious?

Your talking about the Democratic brand name of a whole, which doesn't equate to the different districts that those sitting senators sit in.  Doesn't mean that those particular democrats will be around come next election, but that won't stop the people from replacing a democrat WITH another democrat with better qualifications...and the Fast and Furious operation was opened under a Republican president.  So whose the bigger jackass?  Obama, or Bush?

14) She has to "dodge bullets at foriegn airports"

I believe several car bombs went off when Kerry was visiting both Iraq and Afhganistan.  This doesn't include ambassadars who come under attack in anyone nation world wide during street protests where shots are fired.

=^o.o^= When I'm cute I can be cute.  And when I'm mean, I can be very very mean.  I'm a cat.  Expect me to be fickle.

Re: Why Hillary would lose in 2016

So what.  People die, is pretty self explanatory.  The republican propaganda is directly trying to tie this around Hillary's neck in the hopes of derailing a possible 2016 run for the president of the United States.  The reason why this won't wory, is the department that she helped run was DENIED additional funds, specifically for protection of US embassies AROUND THE WORLD...and the names of the Republican senators for denial of those funds are a matter of the 1971 Freedom of Information Act.  She was kept in the loop of what her departments needed MONETARY wise in order to keep security on US embassies.  However that funding MUST be procured through congress.  Congress on a majority vote denied additional funds.  SO, whose to blame for Bengazi?  Congress.  But like I said, The tea party, and the republican controlled congress believe that most americans are to stupid to figure that out.  Well, I knew this before and after the Bengazi attack.  Funding goes through congress.  Congress said no more additional funds.  Was it Hillary's problem that congress denied those funds?  That's what the republicans are saying.    Plus...Hillary isn't a mind reader, and neither is congress.  Nobody could have forseen an attack anywhere in the world.   Republicans throw shit at people AFTER the event occured, and then use Hindsight to pin blame.

Phooey.

Prevent, Interdict, Avenge.

Prevent: Stevens saw it coming and asked for assistance. Didn't get it from other places that didn't send an SOS in advance.

Interdict: Didn't happen. Benghazi is 4 air hours from Italy.  This is what shocks me personally - there's the head of the Pentagon, saying, oh well, too bad, nobody in NATO can react to a terror attack inside of 24 hours. I'm really suprised we aren't attacked regularly.

Avenge:  The guys who carried out the attack are still walking around Libya being videotaped.  There's no accountability.

That's the real scandal of Benghazi - the Admin would rather have a terror attack occur than admit they don't take them seriously, and rather let them get away with it than encourage discussion of how they allowed it to occur.

as for Hillary's record in it:

She didn't take any steps to prevent it. You want to claim she didn't get the resources from Congress?  What day did she say "Ambassador Stevens needs more, you gotta pay for it?"  Go ahead and name the day she asked for it.  He asked her for more.  What did she do about that? Silence.

The Pentagon testifies that they wont help an embassy unless the State Department requests it.  What steps did she take to make sure that such requests are treated as a same-day red-hot priority?  Silence. 

She lied about what happened. She spread the lie that it was a riot about a video.  She told the VICTIMS FAMILIES AT THE FUNERAL it was a riotabout a video.  This was after Ambassador Stevens warned he was going to get attacked by Al Qaeda.

Now she's trying to make this about her.  I only complain about successful terror attacks because I dislike Hillary?  what a bitch.

She fails to coordinate bureaucrats, she lies to the American people, any complaints about her are a disgrace upon the complainer - why would I want the bitch as President?

The core joke of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is that of course no civilization would develop personal computers with instant remote database recovery, and then waste this technology to find good drinks.
Steve Jobs has ruined this joke.

Re: Why Hillary would lose in 2016

the "bullets at an airport" remark is a reference to a stupid lie that she tells about Kosovo.  She claims that she had to run the gauntlet of snipers when she went there in 1995.  Nobody. Else. Backs. Her. Up.

The core joke of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is that of course no civilization would develop personal computers with instant remote database recovery, and then waste this technology to find good drinks.
Steve Jobs has ruined this joke.

Re: Why Hillary would lose in 2016

Sophia Loren would make a good president

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/wp-con … n-horz.jpg

Hillary would not

http://media.infospesial.net/image/p/20 … linton.jpg

The core joke of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is that of course no civilization would develop personal computers with instant remote database recovery, and then waste this technology to find good drinks.
Steve Jobs has ruined this joke.

13 (edited by Key 27-Nov-2013 18:46:59)

Re: Why Hillary would lose in 2016

Hey if a terrorist cell says, "We will attack the americans!"...this tells you exactly where they will attack? OH COME ON!  Even you gotta figure that the only thing any of those damn embassies can do is go to a "heightened alert status".  And even then your not going to know if it's going to be a domestic or foreign attack.

Are they going to takeover another plane and crash it? 150-160+ nations on earth, and the United States has HOW MANY embassies world fricken wide?  Will the attack occur on land or at sea?  Maybe plant explosives on a small skiff and ram it into a destroyer in the mediteranian area?  Will the attack occur on american soil?  Europe? Middle-east?

"We will attack the americans."  <-----THIS is going to tell you when? Where? How?

As for "running the gauntlet", means they had to weave the streets with the possibility that there are snipers between start position to destination, and running in a random pattern so as not to focus attention on them.  It IS called "running a gauntlet" by both the intelligence and military community.

Even if the a-hole of an ambassador asked for more money or more security, doesn't mean he's going to get it.  A determined enemy isn't going to give a damn if you got 2 guards in the compound or 20.  They're still going to attack, and it's not 100% assured that there would be no casualties.

So you butt-munches attacking Hillary over a SINGLE attack vs. the attack on our embassies in PRIOR YEARS when she wasn't in charge???....Pretty much shows me that you don't like her just because either she's a woman, she's a democrat, or you just don't know the score when it comes to political manuevering by the republican party to pin blame.

Hell if this was a perfect little world, we'd all live in Walgreens!

=^o.o^= When I'm cute I can be cute.  And when I'm mean, I can be very very mean.  I'm a cat.  Expect me to be fickle.

Re: Why Hillary would lose in 2016

As far as i'm concerned if Hillary runs, Behngazi or no Behngazi, i'm still voting for her.  Because I have more faith in her leadership than I do of any republican nominee.

=^o.o^= When I'm cute I can be cute.  And when I'm mean, I can be very very mean.  I'm a cat.  Expect me to be fickle.

Re: Why Hillary would lose in 2016

yes you RINO.

Why wont you finally change your party?

Everything bad in the economy is now Obama's fault. Every job lost, all the debt, all the lost retirement funds. All Obama. Are you happy now? We all get to blame Obama!
Kemp currently not being responded to until he makes CONCISE posts.
Avogardo and Noir ignored by me for life so people know why I do not respond to them. (Informational)

Re: Why Hillary would lose in 2016

Hey if a terrorist cell says, "We will attack the americans!"...this tells you exactly where they will attack? OH COME ON!  Even you gotta figure that the only thing any of those damn embassies can do is go to a "heightened alert status".  And even then your not going to know if it's going to be a domestic or foreign attack.

You're saying it's coincidence that Ambassador Stevens asked for more security in Benghazi, and it was Benghazi got hit?  Maybe he was psychic?

Pretty sure 100% of attacks on US embassies are foriegn attacks.

Are they going to takeover another plane and crash it? 150-160+ nations on earth, and the United States has HOW MANY embassies world fricken wide?  Will the attack occur on land or at sea?  Maybe plant explosives on a small skiff and ram it into a destroyer in the mediteranian area?  Will the attack occur on american soil?  Europe? Middle-east?
"We will attack the americans."  <-----THIS is going to tell you when? Where? How?

 

They've tried all that, so, sure, they'll keep doing it.  Not sure what this has to do with Ambassador Stevens asking for more security from Hillary, and not getting it, and Hillary lying about it being a terror attack.

As for "running the gauntlet", means they had to weave the streets with the possibility that there are snipers between start position to destination, and running in a random pattern so as not to focus attention on them.  It IS called "running a gauntlet" by both the intelligence and military community.

except she said she got shot at, at the airport.  So I don't know what the military jargon about other places, has to do with the lies Hillary tells about a visit she made with dozens of people, none of whom say it happened the way she said it did.


Even if the a-hole of an ambassador

Sure. He died because Hillary pooped on the job, so, he's an asshole.  Funny how many assholes have been in Hillary's life.  Vince Foster, etc.

asked for more money or more security, doesn't mean he's going to get it.

Not with Hillary running it, he won't! Yer damn straight about that!

A determined enemy isn't going to give a damn if you got 2 guards in the compound or 20.  They're still going to attack, and it's not 100% assured that there would be no casualties.

Right, that's why the proper response to a heightened threat in an area is a rescue party outside the threat zone that will interrupt the attack.  You see that. I see that. Hillary doesn't get it.   And lies about it.  To the widows.  At the funeral.


So you butt-munches attacking Hillary over a SINGLE attack vs. the attack on our embassies in PRIOR YEARS when she wasn't in charge???....

And how many succeeded in killing the US ambassador before Benghazi?

Pretty much shows me that you don't like her just because either she's a woman

Pure speculation, see yesterday's post

she's a democrat

That's pretty much a declaration of FUBAR

or you just don't know the score when it comes to political manuevering by the republican party to pin blame

Hillary Clinton could become a Republican tomorrow -- and the corrupt bastards would welcome her -- and I wouldn't vote for her. She's as bad as Mccain.

The core joke of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is that of course no civilization would develop personal computers with instant remote database recovery, and then waste this technology to find good drinks.
Steve Jobs has ruined this joke.

Re: Why Hillary would lose in 2016

The Yell wrote:

You're saying it's coincidence that Ambassador Stevens asked for more security in Benghazi, and it was Benghazi got hit?  Maybe he was psychic?

Pretty sure 100% of attacks on US embassies are foriegn attacks.[

Wow, and here I thought you knew how to read.  If a terrorist cell says we will STRIKE AMERICANS...does that statement even tell you WHAT PARTICULAR EMBASSY IT WILL TARGET!?

NO!  It doesn't speculate that they would only TARGET embassies.  They could have easily targeted a ritzy hotel where american contractors stay.  Or cafe's where americans in other countries congregate...

SO HELL NO, nobody knew exactly that the stupid embassy was going to be hit, until it was hit.  Not Hillary Clinton, not Mr. Stevens, not President Obama, not the CIA, FBI, NSA, Snowden, or even YOU.

Let's blow up a fricken building, just to watch the idiot republicans in congress start pointing fingers, "Well we need to find someone accountable for the loss of property and life..." No shit.  Do they point the finger at the TERRORISTS?  Really, lets talk about this.  DOES CONGRESS point their finger at the Terrorists and say, "This group, these men, that carried out the attack are to blame for the loss of life."

Did they?  NO!  They all pointed their finger at a 2016 Presidentail Hopeful and in a foolish attempt to curtail those plans of a presidential run, if, IF, Hillary Clinton decided to run.

Deep down in your analytical thoughts, you know this is nothing more than political manuevering.  They don't give a crap that Stevens died.  They only care about using his death to their own political agenda of blocking a future presidential nomination of the democratic party.

http://history.state.gov/about/faq/amba … of-mission

How many U.S. Ambassadors have been killed by militants?
Since World War II, the following U.S. Ambassadors have been killed by militants:

John Gordon Mein, Ambassador to Guatemala, August 28, 1968. Mein was killed by a gunman in Guatemala City.

Cleo A. Noel, Jr., Ambassador to Sudan, March 1, 1973. Noel was taken hostage in Khartoum and killed by his kidnappers.

Rodger P. Davies, Ambassador to Cyprus, August 19, 1974. Davies was shot during a demonstration at the Embassy in Nicosia.

Francis E. Meloy, Jr., Ambassador to Lebanon, June 16, 1976. Meloy was killed by a gunman in Beruit.

Adolph Dubs, Ambassador to Afghanistan, February 14, 1979. Dubs was captured in Kabul and was killed during the rescue attempt.

J. Christopher Stevens, Ambassador to Libya, September 11, 2012. Stevens was killed in an attack on the Mission in Benghazi.

This does NOT include the TOTAL number of embassies that have been attacked since 1964.  Some where people have LOST their lives and some that have not.

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/2791362#13855894521843&{"type":"request","selfName":"attract","fName":"attract.remoteFrameLoaded","args":[null],"callbackFunction":"undefined"}

1964 United States Libreville, Gabon 1964 United States Embassy in Libreville bombings
1965 United States Saigon, South Vietnam 30 March 1965 Saigon Embassy bombing
1968 United States Saigon, South Vietnam Saigon Embassy attack
1979 United States Tehran, Iran Iran hostage crisis
1979 United States Islamabad, Pakistan 1979 U.S. Embassy Burning in Islamabad
1979 United States Tripoli, Libya 1979 U.S. Embassy Burning in Libya
1983 United States Beirut, Lebanon 1983 United States Embassy bombing
1983 United States Kuwait City, Kuwait 1983 Kuwait bombings
1986 United States Jakarta, Indonesia (See: Japanese Red Army)
1987 United States Rome, Italy (See: Japanese Red Army)
1990 United States Tel Aviv, Israel 1990 US Embassy attack in Tel Aviv
1998 United States Nairobi, Kenya 1998 United States embassy bombings
1998 United States Dar es Salaam, Tanzania 1998 United States embassy bombings
1999 United States Beijing, People's Republic of China
2002 United States Karachi, Pakistan 2002 US consulate bombing in Karachi
2004 United States Tashkent, Uzbekistan Tashkent embassy bombings
2004 United States Jeddah, Saudi Arabia Jeddah consulate attack
2006 United States Damascus, Syria Damascus terrorist attacks
2007 United States Athens, Greece Embassy of the United States in Athens
2007 United States Vienna, Austria [citation needed]
2008 United States Istanbul, Turkey 2008 United States consulate in Istanbul attack
2008 United States San‘a’, Yemen 2008 American Embassy attack in Yemen
2011 United States Damascus, Syria 2011 Syrian uprising
2011 United States Kabul, Afghanistan 2011 Kabul Attacks
2011 United States Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
2012 United States Cairo, Egypt 2012 attack on the American Embassy in Egypt
2012 United States Benghazi, Libya 2012 attack on the American Consulate in Libya
2012 United States Sanaa, Yemen 2012 attack on the American Embassy in Yemen
2008 USA Belgrade, Serbia 2008 Serbia protests"

Last time I checked, Hillary Clinton was not in charge of the state department during all those attacks.

And personally I don't care WHO you vote for.  The only person I care about voting is myself.

Ambassador Stevens only did his JOB when requesting additional security, just like any other embassy, world wide.  When an embassy receives reports, that a possible attack may take place, it just isn't ONE embassy being informed, it's all of them.  Remember what I said.  If a terrorist threat goes public, ALL embassies are informed of a POSSIBLE attack somewhere in the world.  "We will attack americans..." Does not state WHERE.  And since it does not state where, the state department addresses ALL embassies world wide of a security threat, and to take action.  Most of that action is nothing more than HEIGHTENED ALERT STATUS.  Now....do you think Stevens is the only mother sonofabitch that requested ADDITIONAL security?  HOW many embassies world wide, possibly asked for additional security? 20?  50?  120+?

Do you think that Stevens should be immortalized as the only smart, intelligent piece of crap that he was, to request additional help?

Personally, I think your all a bunch of a-holes for not even taking this whole Bhengazi political firestorm with a grain of salt.  Our embassies have been attacked world wide since 1964 and before that even.  Bullets, bombs, riots, revolutions....YOU NAME IT.

And you pissants are attempting to glorify one moronic ambassadar and pin the blame on one woman?  How many morons do I have to hammer this shit into?  You want to come at me, like you believe that I don't know what's going on behind the congressional curtains? Go ahead, i'll throw that crap you fling right back in your face.

=^o.o^= When I'm cute I can be cute.  And when I'm mean, I can be very very mean.  I'm a cat.  Expect me to be fickle.

18 (edited by Key 28-Nov-2013 00:11:52)

Re: Why Hillary would lose in 2016

The Yell wrote:

Well, I don't like Hillary.  But we should blame her.

Einstein wrote:

Hehehehe I know.  Let me post repubilcan propoganda because it's ALL true.  I KNOW, i'll post something stupid like puting all the blame of a terrorist attack on the state department head.

WOW!  IS THIS the best analysis you people could come up with?  You don't llike the chance of her running for president in 2016, so your easy to grab on the idea that the woman is in TOTAL, responsible for a terrorist attack on a U.S. embassy, and that she SHOULD have ORDERED more security to just ONE stinking embassy, out of how many embassies world wide?

NO shit?  This is the best crap you could fling around like stinking apes?

We got a sequestrian draw down of security forces and government offices?  Embassies are government offices, so if anything their going to get LESS security, NOT MORE.  On that I blame the WHOLE of congress, not just one woman.  Majority of embasses are staffed by Marines.  The marines are part of the United States Armed forces and falls under the jurisdiction of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.   The State department may make a request for additional support of manpower THROUGH the proper security appropriations committee which is staffed by senators of the United States.  Those committees are both chaired by republican or democratic majorities.  Currently that majority is republican.

THROUGH the full chain of command, full responsibility lies with congress for assessing and distributing proper funding to the State Department for equipement and/or service members in the military.  But even the State Department has to fall within a strict guidelines of a BUDGET for the TO&E.  And if you do not know what a TO&E stands for, LOOK IT UP you bunch of lazy asses.

That means, if the State Department told me to go to Bhengazi, when I was part of the military...I could affectionaly tell them, that they were NOT in my chain of command, and to direct their request to the proper channels.

Even Hillary had to follow the legal framework of the Budget and Approprations committees which were chaired by republican dick heads.  If that committee denied extra money to the budget for the embassy, then there would be no additional troops at those locations.  Food, housing, equipment, vehicles...this all costs money, and that money is restricted to a TIGHT budget.

Take your heads out of your asses!

The State Department receives a certain amount of funding per year.  PER YEAR.  And the state department has to distribute that funding to all sectors under it's influence, not to just Bhengazi.  We got embassies in Nigeria, romania, bosnia, Latvia, South Africa, Italy, Europe, Africa, Asia, South America....

...really?  Like a bunch of republican dipshits your all focused on one building, and one man's death?  Out of the hundreds located world wide.  Staffed by other ambassadors, ambasidorial staff, and assigned security details.

I mean the stupidity is mind boggling that NONE of you people even attempted to scratch the surface of how our administration works, how political grandstanding and manuevering applies in the game of political hardball, or that none of you even could say that you personally could have stopped the attack on Bhengazi or you would have made different choices AFTER THE FACT.

Republican Senator wrote:

  We can not allow the chance that Hillary Clintons growing popularity, may on the off chance propel her to election status for the democratic party, to achieve a position within the Oval office.  We will instead create the focus of her ENTIRE career on the single event where a U.S. ambassador was killed...in the line of duty for god and country, and that SHE was fully responsible for that death.

Fubar? Yell, your telling ME, fubar?  I know FUBAR when I see it.  And so should you.

=^o.o^= When I'm cute I can be cute.  And when I'm mean, I can be very very mean.  I'm a cat.  Expect me to be fickle.

Re: Why Hillary would lose in 2016

If she (Hillary) runs, she'll win. Key wins the debate imo.

~*✠ ]PW[ Forever ✠*~

Re: Why Hillary would lose in 2016

Abuse of quotes and more.

Now I go full out war here. That big Obamacare thread will pale beside the post I will do here.

Everything bad in the economy is now Obama's fault. Every job lost, all the debt, all the lost retirement funds. All Obama. Are you happy now? We all get to blame Obama!
Kemp currently not being responded to until he makes CONCISE posts.
Avogardo and Noir ignored by me for life so people know why I do not respond to them. (Informational)

Re: Why Hillary would lose in 2016

Key's rantings are offered by the highest authorities in the Obama regime -- they pretend they have no authority, no capability and no responsibility to thwart terrorist attacks.  The political blame goes to the people who die screaming for help, the assholes.   It's a wonder we aren't bombed on daily.

Hillary Clinton can't run a federal department.
Hillary Clinton can't explain why she can't run a federal department.
Hillary Clinton blames everyone who wants to know why she can't run a federal department.

The core joke of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is that of course no civilization would develop personal computers with instant remote database recovery, and then waste this technology to find good drinks.
Steve Jobs has ruined this joke.

Re: Why Hillary would lose in 2016

https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos … 8129_n.jpg

Everything bad in the economy is now Obama's fault. Every job lost, all the debt, all the lost retirement funds. All Obama. Are you happy now? We all get to blame Obama!
Kemp currently not being responded to until he makes CONCISE posts.
Avogardo and Noir ignored by me for life so people know why I do not respond to them. (Informational)

Re: Why Hillary would lose in 2016

Cool sign, I suppose you're gonna say the guy that put it up got killed by Monicas ex-boyfriends Wives personal SWAT team, or worse, now at gitmo lol. tongue I love American politics! Just fascinating.

~*✠ ]PW[ Forever ✠*~

Re: Why Hillary would lose in 2016

We will instead create the focus of her ENTIRE career on the single event where a U.S. ambassador was killed...in the line of duty for god and country, and that SHE was fully responsible for that death.

The new Democrat mantra -- of COURSE we suck, DECENT people don't care about that

She has no career apart from 2 terms as senator and her stint as Secretary of State.  Other than that she was a private shyster, and some guy's wife.  Where's the core of her career, her time at Rose Law Firm juggling bribes?

The core joke of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is that of course no civilization would develop personal computers with instant remote database recovery, and then waste this technology to find good drinks.
Steve Jobs has ruined this joke.

25 (edited by Key 28-Nov-2013 22:50:02)

Re: Why Hillary would lose in 2016

What?  You couldn't find a single website that shows her entire career?  Really?...

Really?.....

Truly?.......

NO kidding?......

You can't find a SINGLE website describing her total career?

I find this FASCINATING!

It took me less than 15 seconds to find the attacks on ambassadors and embassies, world wide....and you can't even spare the same 15 seconds to find info on her career?

=^o.o^= When I'm cute I can be cute.  And when I'm mean, I can be very very mean.  I'm a cat.  Expect me to be fickle.