I think hillary will steps down as secretary of state...

Shadow has a selective memory, and now that Shadow is in the sunlight, Shadow's simplistic statement shrinks to . . . nothing.

I don't have a selective memory at all. I remember very well how the progressives treated the troops. Very shabby.

Progressives exist among Republicans as well: Bloomberg, McCain (for a season), Guilani, etc. Folks can disagree with the administration without being disloyal to the troops. Anyone who does not understand that does not understand what being American means, kiddo. Yeah, you are very selective and unbalanced.
 
Shadow has a selective memory, and now that Shadow is in the sunlight, Shadow's simplistic statement shrinks to . . . nothing.

I don't have a selective memory at all. I remember very well how the progressives treated the troops. Very shabby.

Progressives exist among Republicans as well: Bloomberg, McCain (for a season), Guilani, etc. Folks can disagree with the administration without being disloyal to the troops. Anyone who does not understand that does not understand what being American means, kiddo. Yeah, you are very selective and unbalanced.

Now I'm unbalanced...what a sweet talker...stop trying to flirt with me LOL.

Edited to add: Progressives don't just disagree...they tear down.
 
Last edited:
Try reading her biography. Where the medical records of her brutal rape are published. And about the horrible treatment she experienced at the hands of her captors. Jessica should be considered a heroine....because she is one.


Aren't all rape victims heroines?

Here I have a problem with the use of the word hero or heroine. To me, a hero/heroine is someone who at the risk of life or limb does some action to save another person or people from harm. Being a victim is not heroic no matter how bad we feel about their experience.

So the fact that she fought and then survived being a POW and her brutal treatment doesn't count?
 
I could not give a fart what you think, Lumpy: got it? When you wing nut reactionaries account for your bias and start acting rational in discussion, then count on being rightfully mocked.

Thanks Jake.. I needed a laugh..:rofl:

I love irony.....

Me too! And the fact that "Mr Conservative" always defends the progressives to the death...he's a real hoot! LOL
 
I could not give a fart what you think, Lumpy: got it? When you wing nut reactionaries account for your bias and start acting rational in discussion, then count on being rightfully mocked.

Thanks Jake.. I needed a laugh..:rofl:

I love irony.....

Me too! And the fact that "Mr Conservative" always defends the progressives to the death...he's a real hoot! LOL

Quite so Darling....
 
I tear down the pretenders. Jeez, you guys are the shari'a of our far political right. Don't act like you are mainstream. You are wing nuts, pure and simple.
 
Nah, I drink very little. I just don't tolerate stupidity. Don't condemn others when your own skirts are dirty is my point.
 
I read all sides all the time about equally. Modern times, most of the time I prefer George Will, Kathleen Parker, some of William Buckley, David Brooks, and I abhor the nutty columns of Walt Williams, whom I happen to have met and like as a person. (I think most of WW's writings are pandering to one particular group for the money and notoriety he receives.) Michelle Malkin and Anne Coulter are absolute loons, in my opinion.
 
Nah, I drink very little. I just don't tolerate stupidity. Don't condemn others when your own skirts are dirty is my point.

Well,that can't be true. You are a walking/breathing testament to "stupid". Oh...and you need to practice what you preach too..hypocrite.:lol::lol:

Shadow since you lie so easily you might be a ready-made consort for conhog or bigreb. Give him a holler.
 
Nah, I drink very little. I just don't tolerate stupidity. Don't condemn others when your own skirts are dirty is my point.

Well,that can't be true. You are a walking/breathing testament to "stupid". Oh...and you need to practice what you preach too..hypocrite.:lol::lol:

Shadow since you lie so easily you might be a ready-made consort for conhog or bigreb. Give him a holler.

And on top of everything else you are lame LOL

But apparently you need the last word to feed your ego....so go...
 
I recall seeing some unedited film clips of soldiers and Marines shortly after Baghdad fell. Apparently the commanders at home and in the field neglected to tell these younguns that America was not "at war" with the Iraqi people, as some of those guys were hollering and screaming and throwing feces at Iraqis from their tank positions, all the while calling them fucking ragheads and that they intended to kill 'em all. There was a lot of mental abuse, as well as physical abuse, no doubt about it, until the Abu Ghraib incident which put a stop to such behavior.

where in the world did you get this ?

It must have been a documentary on HBO (they did a few at the start of the war), because the language wasn't bleeped. I don't remember. But everyone knows the instant bigotry that some of the lower level troops displayed initially toward the Iraqis. Many of them said the same things in blogs and message boards, so it wouldn't have been 'unusual' to see the same type of comments in a documentary (or even a brief news report) from a cable channel.
 
Puppy...that was the progressives and thier campaign to heap ridicule and verbal abuse on Jessica Lynch.

They have a selective memory...:eusa_angel:

I suggest it's you who has a selective memory. Jessica was a heroine to everyone until SHE told the truth about her ordeal. Seems it had been, shall we say, embellished greatly. But I still don't think anyone blamed HER.

Jessica Lynch Sets Record Straight - The Early Show - CBS News

Try reading her biography. Where the medical records of her brutal rape are published. And about the horrible treatment she experienced at the hands of her captors. Jessica should be considered a heroine....because she is one.

I didn't dispute that at all. The implication was that Democrats (liberals) were abusive toward her for some political edge. Not true.
 
you know. abu ghraib was the turning point in the decline of the beginning of the war and the piling on of the democrats to sellout their own president. a few misguided soldiers treated the iraqi combatants like the oregon cops treated rambo in first blood, and used it as a tool to beat bush instead of saddam. as it turns out.... they were right, no harm done.

I recall seeing some unedited film clips of soldiers and Marines shortly after Baghdad fell. Apparently the commanders at home and in the field neglected to tell these younguns that America was not "at war" with the Iraqi people, as some of those guys were hollering and screaming and throwing feces at Iraqis from their tank positions, all the while calling them fucking ragheads and that they intended to kill 'em all. There was a lot of mental abuse, as well as physical abuse, no doubt about it, until the Abu Ghraib incident which put a stop to such behavior.

Yup.. I think what you say is true but there is another perspective your not considering.. the younguns themselves. These young soldiers are prepared for war, their not trained to love the enemy their trained to kill the enemy. Consider putting your life and body on the line, the excitement and fear, the stress, the relieve that your still alive, the unknown. Perhaps to us civilians war doesn't make sense but we train these young people to do the unnatural dirty work, and there are proven methods of training to get the job done, to win, survive, protect their fellow soldiers and consider the fact that the enemy wasn't dressed up in identifiable opposing army garb, they could easily be part of the crowd..
No doubt there was outrageous abuses and the war turned politically correct after Abu Ghraib but still to use it as a political tool, was chicken shit by the media and the Democrat Party leadership and no doubt put our soldiers in additional danger for political gain..

That's right, and that's why I said it was the failure of their COs to advise them how to treat this type of "enemy."
 
Wow. Sometimes I have to wonder about the quality of education in America.

Secretaries of State rarely go over 4 years in office not because of any change in the political winds or other reasons but mostly because this job takes a lot out of them. George Shultz during the Reagan administration, Dean Rusk during the JFK-LBJ administrations and John Foster Dulles during the Eisenhower administration stand out as Secretaries of State who popped the 4 year mark. Cordell Hull was SECSTATE for about 11 and a half years during the FDR administration. So if Hillary Clinton were to step down in 2012, it should not be a surprise nor should it be interpreted as anything significant. It's par for the course.

As far as running in 2012, you've got to kidding. For the Democrats, it's a lose-lose situation. UNLESS Obama decides on his own to NOT seek re-election, then he is the defacto nominee for the Democrats. However, he's so much of an idealist that I don't see him stepping aside for the good of the Party; I see him as too stubborn to admit that his concept of politics is wrong. It's not a matter of him going down with the ship; he's scuttling it! If the Democrats were stupid enough to ask him not to run, it would be the political kiss of death because it would be construed as having significant problems within the party.

The smart money is on Hillary probably stepping down in order to spend more time with her family (yeah, think that one over and then ROFL your ass all over the floor), watch the Train Wreck of 2012 from the sidelines, and then step forward in 2016 and the Great Savior of the Democratic Party. I think she has the patience for it. I think it's a great mistake to underestimate her political skills.

Excellent analysis, and my thoughts exactly.
:clap2:

If Hillary were to step down only to run for 2012, she would lose. Campaigning is brutal, and she would already have the disadvantage of being exhausted from her duties as Secretary of State. I actually DO see Obama possibly stepping down. He has hinted at that as far back as the fall of 2009 right after he won the nomination, that he intended to push his domestic agenda through in order to get the nation back on track to deal with the myriad problems that have been put on hold or underfunded for decades (while our infrastructure, education system, health care, etc., rotted). Actually, I was looking just yesterday for some of the quotes in various interviews where he's made that statement. Obama simply doesn't care about clinging to political capital. He is firm in his convictions, and if the public sees otherwise, his party can push him out or he will not be reelected. I honestly don't think he cares.
 

Forum List

Back
Top