HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » HassleCat » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next »

HassleCat

Profile Information

Member since: Tue Mar 17, 2015, 12:56 PM
Number of posts: 6,409

About Me

I am a disgruntled former DU member. Most people here are fine, but the site is ruined by zealous Hillary supporters. DU took my money and put my account on everlasting review. Cowards. Dishonest cowards.

Journal Archives

Good news regarding Syria

Tom Perry and Mark Potter for Reuters. http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/syrian-monitor-75-us-trained-syrian-rebels-enter-syria-from-turkey/ar-AAewpHS?li=BBgzzfc&ocid=iehp

Their article says 75 rebel fighters trained by the US “…and its allies…” have been shipped off to Syria to fight against the Islamic State. This make me feel better. Remember the article explaining we spent $500 million to train two rebels? Now we have 75, so that’s only $6.6 million each. Now that’s efficiency! When we can train a rebel fighter for less than seven million bucks, things are looking up.

This reminds me of those old commercials made by the noisy, fast talking, arm waving guys who sold furniture, used cars, etc. “I lose money on every appliance I sell! How do I stay in business? Volume! VOLUME!”

Keep talking it up. Don't stop.

We need to keep mentioning Bernie Sanders, Bernie Sanders, Bernie Sanders... like we're some kind of berserk audio loop or something. I was talking to a friend and I mentioned Bernie Sanders, of course, and I was stunned by her response. "I don't know about him. Is he the black guy?" She confused him with Ben Carson! People are so accustomed to being force fed by the popular media that they have become incurious. They only know what the media hit them over the head with.

Fact checkers follow up on GOP debates

Lori Robertson of FactCheck.org has a few observations about some things the candidates got wrong in the Republican debates.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/factchecking-the-cnn-republican-debate/ar-AAeoTPP?li=AAa0dzB&ocid=iehp

Here are some of the more interesting observations.

Donald Trump and Rand Paul both took shots at vaccinations, with Trump suggesting they cause autism, and Paul suggesting it would be better to spread out the vaccination schedule. As we all know, the whole anti-vax thing has been completely discredited. Ben Carson, who is a doctor after all, tried to set the record straight, but all three previously said parents should be allowed to depart from the recommended vaccine schedule.

Mike Huckabee said Hillary Clinton was being investigated by the FBI for destroying government records.

Trump went after his “anchor baby” issue again by claiming Mexico does not have birthright citizenship. They do, and Trump has been corrected on this before, but continues to make the claim. Trump said the US is the only country “…dumb enough…” to have birthright citizenship, even though 30 other countries have the same policy.

Carly Fiorina said the Planned Parenthood videos show what amounts to the murder of a baby to harvest its brain while it’s still alive. Maybe she thinks we do brain transplants now. She could surely use one.

Marko Rubio went after the climate change issues by claiming any effort we made o reduce emissions would do “…absolutely nothing…”

If you follow the link, there are specific explanations as to why the statements are wrong, with a list of source material showing why they are wrong. Of course, we know there’s about a 75 percent chance a Republican will be wrong whenever he or she says anything. They’re only right 25 percent of the time because they include statements such as, “My name is Donald Trump, and I lust after my daughter.” Pretty hard to get that wrong.

How do I give you $$$$ ?

Somewhere in a far-off, remote corner of this site is a place to make donations. I was there once, but I can't find it now. Help?

Family is proud of vandalism

Grind TV has this about a family who defaced a handrail in the Deschutes National Forest.

http://www.grindtv.com/nature/family-vandalized-national-forest/#fcSECVj8TQy8Y2rk.97

According to the man who made the video, he challenged the family about the vandalism, and they just blew him off, asserting their right to do what they pleased.

I’m going to put on my grumpy old man hat, and propose this is what’s wrong with America. Many people deny any obligation to their fellow citizens, sometimes going so far as to suggest they have some kind of “right” to do anything they want. “It’s a free country!” I suppose so, if you regard freedom as the opportunity to destroy things that belong to other people. But this is what they don’t get, that things like national forests belong to all of us, the citizens, not some overbearing entity they call “The Gummit.”

Do people think Clinton is a liar? Or don't they?


That question is still open, despite an article proposing to prove people do not associate Clinton with the term "liar." Hillary Clinton supporters are presenting this article by Tom Watson and Peter Daou as proof that a recent Quinnipiac poll is a “slanderous attack” on Clinton.

http://www.hillarymen.com/latest/new-report-proves-q-liar-poll-was-false-and-slanderous

Evidently, there was a Quinnipiac poll concluding that many people associate the word “liar” with Hillary Clinton. “The conclusion was a sham,” according to the article. The basis for that statement appears to be that the poll included Republicans and people who favor the Republican Party, or that the poll disproportionately reported negative comments from Republican respondents. I don’t know and I don’t care. Considering that both major political parties conduct polling with the express intent to skew and misrepresent the results, it seems a little “people who live in glass houses” of the authors to attack Quinnipiac for doing the same thing.

At the end of the article, there is this biography of the authors.

Peter Daou and Tom Watson founded #HillaryMen to provide actionable analysis of the 2016 campaign focusing on the gender barrier in U.S. politics. Peter is a former senior digital adviser to Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Global Initiative. He is a veteran of two presidential campaigns (Kerry '04 and Clinton '08). Tom is an author and Columbia University lecturer who advises companies and non-profits on social activism.

Imagine that! A couple guys active in the Clinton campaign find “proof” that an uncomplimentary poll is all wrong. Who woulda thunk it? This is something we have to watch out for in the primary season, candidate supporters appearing and saying, “Look! This proves it!” Yes, the poll may be incorrect in concluding people think of Clinton as a liar. But it’s just as wrong to “debunk” the poll and then say, “Ha! This proves people like Hillary!” It does not.

Funny billboard in Kim Davis' home town.


Here is a billboard in Kim Davis’ home town. This is from a USA Today article by Trisha Tahdani.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/billboard-in-kim-davis-town-sends-big-message/ar-AAee7v7?li=AAa0dzB&ocid=iehp

I think it’s also interesting she lives in Morehead, Kentucky.

More head? Seems like a great place for Satan to work his evil.

Sorry I couldn't paste the photo into this post. You'll have to follow the link. It will be worth it, I promise.



Clinton cleared of one thing, not everything

Washington Monthly has an article by Nancy LeTourneau.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2015_09/rumors_vs_facts_on_hillary_cli057563.php

I’m posting this in GD Primaries so we can all comment on it. This article has been promoted by Clinton supporters as blanket exoneration. It is not that, not even close. It does clear her of one specific accusation in the mostly manufactured email scandal. Clinton acted appropriately in deciding which emails were personal, and could be deleted and not retained as part of the official record.

The accusation of mishandling classified information remains. I think it’s mostly BS, a result of agency turf wars and hatred of Clinton among the moronic “intelligence community.” But it’s still there, even if it’s bogus, and the Department of Justice finding in the linked article does not clear Clinton of all the accusations. Sorry, Hillary supporters, but you’re jumping the gun here. It’s likely Clinton will be exonerated of everything in time, but you’ll have to wait for it. It hasn’t happened yet.

Clinton address to Brookings not neocon

Here is a link to the transcript of Hillary Clinton's address to the Brookings Institution.

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/events/2015/09/09-clinton-iran/20150909_clinton_iran_transcript.pdf

It's not full of chickenhawk stuff. Clinton is trying to adopt a posture that's very supportive of Israel and not offensive to the other countries in the region. There is a lot of talk about what a bad, bad boy Iran has been, and will continue to be, but Clinton doesn't threaten to blow them off the map or anything like that. The overall tone of the speech leans toward a sort of cold war containment strategy, positioning US military assets to protect our interests, etc. But there are no "If they do this, we will bomb them" type threats. It's not a neocon position, more of a cold war approach favored by both parties for so many years.

Cold war foreign policy may resemble neocon foreign policy in basic approach, but the extremes to which the neocons are willing to go really sets them apart. Keep in mind, these are the people who made up evidence to justify invading another country and spending a trillion dollars to kill half a million Iraqis, not to mention 4,000 of our own people. These re the people who hang on every word coming from Dick Cheney. Yes, Clinton's foreign policy might represent something of a throwback, a sort of devolution from what we have under Obama, but it's nothing like what we would get from a neocon like GW Bush, or maybe his brother Jeb.

Transcript of Clinton's talk at Brookings

Here is a link to the transcript of Hillary Clinton's address to the Brookings Institution. I need more time to read it carefully, but it looks pretty hawkish, maybe even neocon chickenhawkish.

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/events/2015/09/09-clinton-iran/20150909_clinton_iran_transcript.pdf

Edit: It's not full of chickenhawk stuff. Clinton is trying to adopt a posture that's very supportive of Israel and not offensive to the other countries in the region. There is a lot of talk about what a bad, bad boy Iran has been, and will continue to be, but Clinton doesn't threaten to blow them off the map or anything like that. The overall tone of the speech leans toward a sort of cold war containment strategy, positioning US military assets to protect our interests, etc. But there are no "If they do this, we will bomb them" type threats. It's not a neocon position, more of a cold war approach favored by both parties for so many years.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next »