They're Eating The Dogs Presidential Thread

[The_Noble_Cause]

He is the wikileaks email on Obama and the Muslim stuff...re- reading that after all these months and damn, Hills team originally was spot on about the Lil berry and the destruction he might bring.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7860

Yup. There ya go.

[Boomchild]

It is exactly the same. I have been on here for months debating the merits of the ODNI report. Have you read it? You never mention it. It blamed Russia Today for programming that wasn't even on the air. Then we have the fact that Crowdstrike walked backed their initial allegations about the severs. The whole thing is an obvious con job. Your defense boils down to this: whatever the government tells me must be the truth.

Let's not forget that the DNC servers were never examined by the FBI because the DNC REFUSED to turn them over for examination. IF someone wanted to REALLY get to the bottom of this they would freely turn them over. Perhaps there was something else they didn't want the FBI to find while looking at them.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Let's not forget that the DNC servers were never examined by the FBI because the DNC REFUSED to turn them over for examination. IF someone wanted to REALLY get to the bottom of this they would freely turn them over. Perhaps there was something else they didn't want the FBI to find while looking at them.

Correct. Crowdstrike works for the DNC too. The whole thing stinks.

[Boomchild]

I am not saying Russia didn't have a hand in things. I'm saying the collusion is a crap charge and there has never been anything to say otherwise. All I am saying is if there is evidence of Trump team collusion, present what's there and then either continue if the evidence is sufficient or move on. It's not right to spend this much money and have multiple investigations going on if it's not valid. Whoever hacked things, Russia or others, may have gotten a little more sophisticated in their attempts but it's been happening for many election cycles. Why not the fever during 2012? 2008? This is a Trump thing and only a Trump thing. The establishment and media hates him and they are doing all they can to bring him down. That's the only difference here between elections.

I find it ironic that the Dems are so hell bent on finding collusion between Trump and Russia yet completely ignored the signs of collusion between Hillary (while SOS) and big donors to The Clinton Foundation. Which was brought to light by Wikileaks releasing the emails from Clinton's private server. It clearly showed her staffers and foundation employees trying to arrange audiences with big donors and Hillary as SOS. One the most notable were the Saudis.

[The_Noble_Cause]

I find it ironic that the Dems are so hell bent on finding collusion between Trump and Russia yet completely ignored the signs of collusion between Hillary (while SOS) and big donors to The Clinton Foundation.

Worse yet, I am more disturbed that I have heard more about "Russia!" and "Putin!" from Democrats than I ever did about Obama or Al Qaeda. I have liberal professor friends texting me at 2am asking me if I am a Russian spy or whether I am still loyal to this country. Not a joke. The Left has lost their minds.

[Monker]

Monker wrote:
Wrong. It was mentioned by a staffer but struck down because Clinton wanted nothing to do with it. And, the staffer was fired for leaking it to the press. You are repeating an alt-right fake news article that was lying.

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-s ... -movement/



Funny. Obama's campaign chair, David Plouffe, disagreed:

“On the very day that Senator Clinton is giving a speech about restoring respect for America in the world, her campaign has engaged in the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we’ve seen from either party in this election. This is part of a disturbing pattern that led her county chairs to resign in Iowa, her campaign chairman to resign in New Hampshire, and it’s exactly the kind of divisive politics that turns away Americans of all parties and diminishes respect for America in the world,"

Hillary Campaign Strategist began laying the dog whistles early on:

"I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values.” Penn proposed targeting Obama’s lack of American roots."

Yeah, said after a volunteer on the Clinton campaign started leaking the birther issue...without permission. That person was fired and the head of the Iowa campaign called Plouffe and appologized and ensured he knew it was not from Clinton or the campaign.

Remember, I'm in Iowa. I remember when all this happened. And, I was for Obama at that time.

I challenge you to find ANY YouTube footage of Clinton campaigning on the birther issue. I say it doesn't exist because she did NOT campaign on it. Prove me wrong.

TRUMP made it an issue. TRUMP became popular because of it. When are his people in Hawaii going to get back to us? He is the one who owns it - all of it.

I'm a life long liberal Democrat and you are full of shit. Anyone who read the Wikileaks emails (and you admit you haven't) can read for themselves the Hillary campaign team discussing ways to smear Sanders. Her DNC buddies even wanted to bring up his "Jewish heritage."

Which has absolutely NOTHING to do with Clinton starting the birther issue. And, it has everything to do with my point of how you bring up other shit to distract from the point being made.

The very fact that you are trying to change the subject is proof enough that Clinton had nothing to do with starting the birther issue. Trump did it all. If you have a YouTube of her campaigning on the birther issue, let's see it.

[The_Noble_Cause]

But I'm conflicted, do I believe the Clinton campaign team, or do I believe Snopes/Monker? Hmmm....tough call.

Next up Monker will says the emails are all forgeries. - WATCH THIS SPACE -

It's amazing how Democrats, like Monker, question the authenticity of the Wiki emails, but then take Russian hacking claims at face value. Claims which cyber experts like John McAfee and Jeffrey Carr, have all said is total crap.

[Monker]

W was rattling his sabres even during the debates...maybe even the Republican debates. So, he was ready to send in troops on day one of his Presidency....he just needed to justify it. However, I think he did believe Cheney and Rumsfeld and the "intelligence" they had interpreted. Regardless, W had his excuse and he went in.

Wow..more bullshit. Bush ran on a platform of "no nation building" and criticized Gore for being interventionist. This is what made his war fever all the more of a jarring betrayal. All you do is lie. Get the fuck out of here.

You are just flat out WRONG:
http://www.debates.org/?page=october-11 ... transcript

W wanted regime change in Iraq from the start. He was not opposed to committing troops when he felt it was in our nations best interest. He supported Clinton's decisions regarding Serbia and Milosevic. Nowhere does he say "no more nation building."

BUSH: That's hard to tell. I think that, you know, I would hope to be able to convince people I could handle the Iraqi situation better.

MODERATOR: Saddam Hussein, you mean, get him out of there?

BUSH: I would like to, of course, and I presume this administration would as well. We don't know -- there are no inspectors now in Iraq, the coalition that was in place isn't as strong as it used to be. He is a danger. We don't want him fishing in troubled waters in the Middle East. And it's going to be hard, it's going to be important to rebuild that coalition to keep the pressure on him.

MODERATOR: You feel that is a failure of the Clinton administration?

BUSH: I do.

GORE: Well, when I got to be a part of the current administration, it was right after -- I was one of the few members of my political party to support former President Bush in the Persian Gulf War resolution, and at the end of that war, for whatever reason, it was not finished in a way that removed Saddam Hussein from power. I know there are all kinds of circumstances and explanations. But the fact is that that's the situation that was left when I got there. And we have maintained the sanctions. Now I want to go further. I want to give robust support to the groups that are trying to overthrow Saddam Hussein, and I know there are allegations that they're too weak to do it, but that's what they said about the forces that were opposing Milosevic in Serbia, and you know, the policy of enforcing sanctions against Serbia has just resulted in a spectacular victory for democracy just in the past week, and it seems to me that having taken so long to see the sanctions work there, building upon the policy of containment that was successful over a much longer period of time against the former Soviet Union in the communist block, seems a little early to declare that we should give up on the sanctions. I know the governor's not necessarily saying that but, you know, all of these flights that have come in, all of them have been in accordance with the sanctions regime, I'm told, except for three where they notified, and they're trying to break out of the box, there's no question about it. I don't think they should be allowed to.

MODERATOR: Did he state your position correctly, you're not calling for eliminating the sanctions, are you?

BUSH: No, of course not, absolutely not, I want them to be tougher.

MODERATOR: Let's go on to Milosevic and Yugoslavia, and it falls under the area of our military power. Governor, new question. Should the fall of Milosevic be seen as a triumph for U.S. military intervention?

BUSH: I think it's a triumph. I thought the president made the right decision in joining NATO and bombing Serbia. I supported them when they did so. I called upon the Congress not to hamstring the administration, and in terms of forcing troop withdrawals on a timetable that wasn't necessarily in our best interest or fit our nation's strategy, and so I think it's good public policy, I think it worked, and I'm pleased I took -- made the decision I made. I'm pleased the president made the decision he made. Because freedom took hold in that part of the world, but there's a lot of work left to be done, however.

MODERATOR: But you think it would not have happened -- do you think that Milosevic would not have fallen if the United States and NATO had not intervened militarily? Is this a legitimate use of our military power?

BUSH: Yes, I think it is. Absolutely. I don't think he would have fallen had we not used the force. And I know there are some in our party that disagree with that sentiment. I supported the president. I thought he made the right decision to do so. I didn't think he necessarily made the right decision to take land troops off the table right before we committed ourselves offensively, but nevertheless, it worked. The administration deserves credit for having made it work. It is important for NATO to have it work. It's important for NATO to be strong and confident and to help keep the peace in Europe. And one of the reasons I felt so strongly that the United States needed to participate was because of our relations with NATO, and NATO is going to be an important part of keeping the peace in the future. Now, there's more work to do. Remains to be seen, however, whether or not there's going to be a political settlement in Kosovo, and I certainly hope there is one. I’m on record as saying at some point in time I hope our European friends become the peacekeepers in Bosnia and in the Balkans. I hope that they put the troops on the ground so that we can withdraw our troops and focus our military on fighting and winning war.

GORE: Well, I've been kind of a hard-liner on this issue for more than eight years. When I was in the senate before I became vice president I was pushing for stronger action against Milosevic. He caused the death of so many people. He was the last communist party boss there and then he became a dictator that by some other label he was still essentially a communist dictator. And unfortunately now he is trying to reassert himself in Serbian politics. Already just today the members of his political party said that they were going to ignore the orders of the new president of Serbia, and that they question his legitimacy, and he's still going to try to be actively involved. He is an indicted war criminal. He should be held accountable. Now, I did want to pick up on one of the statements earlier, and maybe I have heard, maybe I have heard the previous statements wrong, Governor. In some of the discussions we've had about when it's appropriate for the U.S. to use force around the world, at times the standards that you've laid down have given me the impression that if it's something like a genocide taking place or what they called ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, that that alone would not be, that that wouldn't be the kind of situation that would cause you to think that the U.S. ought to get involved with troops. Now, have to be other factors involved for me to want to be involved. But by itself, that to me can bring into play a fundamental American strategic interest because I think it's based on our values. Now, have I got that wrong?

BUSH: Trying to figure out who the questioner was. If I think it's in our nation's strategic interest I'll commit troops. I thought it was in our strategic interests to keep Milosevic in check because of our relations in NATO, and that's why I took the position I took. I think it's important for NATO to be strong and confident. I felt like unchecked Milosevic would harm NATO, and so it depends on the situation, Mr. Vice President.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Yeah, said after a volunteer on the Clinton campaign started leaking the birther issue...without permission. That person was fired and the head of the Iowa campaign called Plouffe and appologized and ensured he knew it was not from Clinton or the campaign.

Yes, a volunteer fell on the sword and became the patsy. Happens quite often in campaigns. Longtime Clinton aide, Syndey Blumenthal, also spread similar birther rumors. Plus, we have the Wiki emails. Take that all into account, as well as the Clinton's track record of ruthless smearing, and it's very compelling that Team H started the rumors.

Remember, I'm in Iowa. I remember when all this happened. And, I was for Obama at that time.

If you live in a basement and never interact with society, who cares?

I challenge you to find ANY YouTube footage of Clinton campaigning on the birther issue. I say it doesn't exist because she did NOT campaign on it. Prove me wrong.

That's like asking me to find footage of Karl Rove putting yard signs up accusing McCain of having an illegitimate black child. The rumor spread and it happened. I guess you don't know how whisper campaigns work.

TRUMP made it an issue. TRUMP became popular because of it. When are his people in Hawaii going to get back to us? He is the one who owns it - all of it.

It was an issue before Trump. There was no Hawaii investigation. That was Trump lying. Who cares?

Which has absolutely NOTHING to do with Clinton starting the birther issue. And, it has everything to do with my point of how you bring up other shit to distract from the point being made.

Not a distraction. Wiki emails shows Clinton team willing to exploit any issue - including religion - for political gain. Why is race or nationality far fetched?

The very fact that you are trying to change the subject is proof enough that Clinton had nothing to do with starting the birther issue.

Clinton's emails are not changing the subject. They shed light on her campaign tactics. Are you afraid to discuss them? Making fun of jews ok with you, Monker? Are you a jew hater? Let's get it all out in the open now.

If you have a YouTube of her campaigning on the birther issue, let's see it.

Again, not how dirty tricks work. Maybe someday you'll understand politics.

[The_Noble_Cause]

You are just flat out WRONG:
http://www.debates.org/?page=october-11 ... transcript

W wanted regime change in Iraq from the start. He was not opposed to committing troops when he felt it was in our nations best interest. He supported Clinton's decisions regarding Serbia and Milosevic. Nowhere does he say "no more nation building."

BUSH: That's hard to tell. I think that, you know, I would hope to be able to convince people I could handle the Iraqi situation better.

MODERATOR: Saddam Hussein, you mean, get him out of there?

BUSH: I would like to, of course, and I presume this administration would as well. We don't know -- there are no inspectors now in Iraq, the coalition that was in place isn't as strong as it used to be. He is a danger. We don't want him fishing in troubled waters in the Middle East. And it's going to be hard, it's going to be important to rebuild that coalition to keep the pressure on him.

MODERATOR: You feel that is a failure of the Clinton administration?

BUSH: I do.

GORE: Well, when I got to be a part of the current administration, it was right after -- I was one of the few members of my political party to support former President Bush in the Persian Gulf War resolution, and at the end of that war, for whatever reason, it was not finished in a way that removed Saddam Hussein from power. I know there are all kinds of circumstances and explanations. But the fact is that that's the situation that was left when I got there. And we have maintained the sanctions. Now I want to go further. I want to give robust support to the groups that are trying to overthrow Saddam Hussein, and I know there are allegations that they're too weak to do it, but that's what they said about the forces that were opposing Milosevic in Serbia, and you know, the policy of enforcing sanctions against Serbia has just resulted in a spectacular victory for democracy just in the past week, and it seems to me that having taken so long to see the sanctions work there, building upon the policy of containment that was successful over a much longer period of time against the former Soviet Union in the communist block, seems a little early to declare that we should give up on the sanctions. I know the governor's not necessarily saying that but, you know, all of these flights that have come in, all of them have been in accordance with the sanctions regime, I'm told, except for three where they notified, and they're trying to break out of the box, there's no question about it. I don't think they should be allowed to.

MODERATOR: Did he state your position correctly, you're not calling for eliminating the sanctions, are you?

BUSH: No, of course not, absolutely not, I want them to be tougher.

MODERATOR: Let's go on to Milosevic and Yugoslavia, and it falls under the area of our military power. Governor, new question. Should the fall of Milosevic be seen as a triumph for U.S. military intervention?

BUSH: I think it's a triumph. I thought the president made the right decision in joining NATO and bombing Serbia. I supported them when they did so. I called upon the Congress not to hamstring the administration, and in terms of forcing troop withdrawals on a timetable that wasn't necessarily in our best interest or fit our nation's strategy, and so I think it's good public policy, I think it worked, and I'm pleased I took -- made the decision I made. I'm pleased the president made the decision he made. Because freedom took hold in that part of the world, but there's a lot of work left to be done, however.

MODERATOR: But you think it would not have happened -- do you think that Milosevic would not have fallen if the United States and NATO had not intervened militarily? Is this a legitimate use of our military power?

BUSH: Yes, I think it is. Absolutely. I don't think he would have fallen had we not used the force. And I know there are some in our party that disagree with that sentiment. I supported the president. I thought he made the right decision to do so. I didn't think he necessarily made the right decision to take land troops off the table right before we committed ourselves offensively, but nevertheless, it worked. The administration deserves credit for having made it work. It is important for NATO to have it work. It's important for NATO to be strong and confident and to help keep the peace in Europe. And one of the reasons I felt so strongly that the United States needed to participate was because of our relations with NATO, and NATO is going to be an important part of keeping the peace in the future. Now, there's more work to do. Remains to be seen, however, whether or not there's going to be a political settlement in Kosovo, and I certainly hope there is one. I’m on record as saying at some point in time I hope our European friends become the peacekeepers in Bosnia and in the Balkans. I hope that they put the troops on the ground so that we can withdraw our troops and focus our military on fighting and winning war.

GORE: Well, I've been kind of a hard-liner on this issue for more than eight years. When I was in the senate before I became vice president I was pushing for stronger action against Milosevic. He caused the death of so many people. He was the last communist party boss there and then he became a dictator that by some other label he was still essentially a communist dictator. And unfortunately now he is trying to reassert himself in Serbian politics. Already just today the members of his political party said that they were going to ignore the orders of the new president of Serbia, and that they question his legitimacy, and he's still going to try to be actively involved. He is an indicted war criminal. He should be held accountable. Now, I did want to pick up on one of the statements earlier, and maybe I have heard, maybe I have heard the previous statements wrong, Governor. In some of the discussions we've had about when it's appropriate for the U.S. to use force around the world, at times the standards that you've laid down have given me the impression that if it's something like a genocide taking place or what they called ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, that that alone would not be, that that wouldn't be the kind of situation that would cause you to think that the U.S. ought to get involved with troops. Now, have to be other factors involved for me to want to be involved. But by itself, that to me can bring into play a fundamental American strategic interest because I think it's based on our values. Now, have I got that wrong?

BUSH: Trying to figure out who the questioner was. If I think it's in our nation's strategic interest I'll commit troops. I thought it was in our strategic interests to keep Milosevic in check because of our relations in NATO, and that's why I took the position I took. I think it's important for NATO to be strong and confident. I felt like unchecked Milosevic would harm NATO, and so it depends on the situation, Mr. Vice President.

That the best you got? Mentioning "pressure" and "coalition"? Those are generic diplomatic terms. He ran against nation building. End of story. In this clip below, he practically sounds like a peacenik hippie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6nW2Uow-zk

[Monker]

Your link is irrelevent to this conversation.

I said that during the debates W gave the impression that he was ready to go to war in Iraq.

Your reply was W was all about nation building...as if I didn't know what I was talking about.

Bullshit. I posted a transcript to one of the debates.

He said he wanted regime change in Iraq.
He said he wanted stronger sanctions.
He said he wanted to strengthen the coalition.
He agreed with Clinton's use of force to take down dictators, including Milosevic.
Gore even questioned him on when he felt it was OK to use force. W said he would commit troop if he felt it was in the nations best interest.

You were wrong, and don't want to admit it.

What W did in Iraq is perfectly consistent to what he said he would do in what I quoted above. End of story.

You should stop saying things are bullshit when it is YOU who doesn't know what they are talking about. You forgot what was in the debates - I didn't.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Your link is irrelevent to this conversation.

I said that during the debates W gave the impression that he was ready to go to war in Iraq.

If that was case, he would have lost.

Your reply was W was all about nation building...as if I didn't know what I was talking about.

Correct. You don't. You're the guy who was on here proudly saying "Hillary had permission to use a private server." All you do is lie.

Bullshit. I posted a transcript to one of the debates.

He said he wanted regime change in Iraq.
He said he wanted stronger sanctions.
He said he wanted to strengthen the coalition.
He agreed with Clinton's use of force to take down dictators, including Milosevic.
Gore even questioned him on when he felt it was OK to use force. W said he would commit troop if he felt it was in the nations best interest.

You were wrong, and don't want to admit it.

One debate answer is proof positive that he ran on invading a country? I don't think so. W ran as being against meddling in foreign affairs and not being the world's policeman.

What W did in Iraq is perfectly consistent to what he said he would do in what I quoted above. End of story.

If that was true, there wouldn't be thousands of articles published on how the Iraq War was a total reversal of his campaign. Articles like these:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... -building/
http://archive.boston.com/news/nation/a ... _involved/
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/2 ... h-goldberg
http://www.antiwar.com/sperry/?articleid=9800

So what is more likely? Everyone else is lying or just you - the guy that is already a proven fraud?

You should stop saying things are bullshit when it is YOU who doesn't know what they are talking about. You forgot what was in the debates - I didn't.

In other words, you got caught in a lie, ran to Google, and cherry picked a quote from Bush. A quote which doesn't even support your argument. Nice try bitch. Everyone on here sees right through your laughing stock dumb ass.

[Monker]

TNC - you are a complete fool.

Monker wrote:
Your link is irrelevent to this conversation.

I said that during the debates W gave the impression that he was ready to go to war in Iraq.



If that was case, he would have lost.

Dude, I just posted the transcript.

Monker wrote:
Your reply was W was all about nation building...as if I didn't know what I was talking about.


Correct. You don't.

Dude, I posted the transcrpit from the debate and quoted the portions I was talking about. You do know how to read, correct?

Monker wrote:
Bullshit. I posted a transcript to one of the debates.

He said he wanted regime change in Iraq.
He said he wanted stronger sanctions.
He said he wanted to strengthen the coalition.
He agreed with Clinton's use of force to take down dictators, including Milosevic.
Gore even questioned him on when he felt it was OK to use force. W said he would commit troop if he felt it was in the nations best interest.

You were wrong, and don't want to admit it.

One debate answer is proof positive that he ran on invading a country? I don't think so. W ran as being against meddling in foreign affairs and not being the world's policeman.

Well, you obviously don't know how to read.

There was a entire series of ?/answers...not just one.
I did not comment on what "he ran on". I commented on the debate...not the entire campaign.

Read the debate answers again. He said he wanted regime change in Iraq. He said he was for using troops if it was in the interests of the US. He agreed with removing Milo..and other Clinton military action. All he needed was the reason to send in the troops to get rid of Saddam...and he got that with the WMD threat.

All the clues were there...hardly anybody saw them - obviously not you.

Monker wrote:
What W did in Iraq is perfectly consistent to what he said he would do in what I quoted above. End of story.


If that was true, there wouldn't be thousands of articles published on how the Iraq War was a total reversal of his campaign. Articles like these.

Can you please retake k - 12 schooling and learn how to read?

I did not comment on his CAMPAIGN. I commented on the DEBATE.

So what is more likely? Everyone else is lying or just you - the guy that is already a proven fraud?

I think what is likely is you do not know how to read. Nor do you understand the deifference between an entire campaign and the answers in a debate.

In other words, you got caught in a lie, ran to Google, and cherry picked a quote from Bush. A quote which doesn't even support your argument.

Oh, please. I debated this subject to death in the WC on BT. I knew what was in the debates...because it was used against me for saying exactly what you are saying now. I went to Google to see if I could find a transcript of it. I did. I did not cherry pick...I posted a link to the entire debate. I copy/pasted the relevant part that I was talking about for your 5yr old reading ability to attempt to comprehend.

You obviously did not know what was said in the debates and I did. Get over yourself already.

[Monker]

Btw Monker, CNN has been on Russia basically all day. Now Poppy, or whatever her sour puss name is, is trying to say that Trump said he had tapes of Comey in order to keep Comey honest, and now that Trump doesn't have tapes that proves possible witness tampering? Unfuckingreal, Trumps ploy got Comey to spill the real beans...HONESTLY! Comey spilled on Lynchs obstruction with Bill on the Tarmac, Comey spilled that he did in fact tell Trump 3 times that he wasn't under investigation, and he got Comey to spill that HE WAS THE LEAKER, how can you intimidate a witness to tell the truth? These people are nuttier than Monker.

I have not seen any TV coverage today.

But, I do know that it is TRUMP who said on FOX that he had tapes to get Comey to think twice about what he was saying. To which the reporter said, "Smart!" So, that is where Poppy is getting that from - TRUMP HIMSELF.

Now, i don't know about the rest of it. Sounds like crap to me. I don't watch Poppy or any daytime news.

[Monker]

Pssssst Monker, don't tell anybody but....

EVERY FUCKING BODY WANTED REGIME CHANGE IN IRAQ!

I didn't.

[Monker]

"Yeah, said after a volunteer on the Clinton campaign started leaking the birther issue...without permission. That person was fired and the head of the Iowa campaign called Plouffe and appologized and ensured he knew it was not from Clinton or the campaign."

Thank you for admitting it cames from Clintons camp, and that someone fell on a knife for her to get it out there. After all, Hillary wouldn't want to look like the dirty playing,cheating, lying bitch she is. People might think the DNC rigged an election for her. They rigged, cheated, and stacked the deck so much they can't accept the fact they LOST.

That's not what happened.

That person did it on their own and was promptly fired when it was found out. That person was axed...no knife involved.

[Boomchild]

Not a distraction. Wiki emails shows Clinton team willing to exploit any issue - including religion - for political gain. Why is race or nationality far fetched?

Speaking of those emails. I remember one that was more attributed to the DNC but was about a HC campaign event. It was focused on a certain ethnic group and was described as a "taco bowl".

[The_Noble_Cause]

Dude, I just posted the transcript.

Proving what? That he believes in coalitions if necessary, like all candidates have? Who cares? What u are saying is the equivalent of saying that Trump did not campaign on building a wall. Bush campaigned on a humble foreign policy and against nation building. I lived it. You are a liar.

Dude, I posted the transcript from the debate and quoted the portions I was talking about. You do know how to read, correct?

I read it. It's generic boilerplate that all candidates say. I posted video and multiple articles. Can you watch video? Can you read?

Well, you obviously don't know how to read.

There was a entire series of ?/answers...not just one.
I did not comment on what "he ran on". I commented on the debate...not the entire campaign.

And I sent you a video and articles where Bush said:

"I wouldn’t have sent troops to Haiti. I didn’t think it was a mission worthwhile. It was a nation building mission. And it was not very successful. It cost us a couple billions of dollars and I’m not sure democracy is any better off in Haiti than it was before."

"We are getting out of the nation-building business. We’re rebuilding other countries while weakening our own."

"I'm not sure the role of the united states is to go around the world and say this is the way it gotta be."

"If we don’t stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we’re going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I’m going to prevent that. I’m going to rebuild our military power."

Can you please retake k - 12 schooling and learn how to read?

I did not comment on his CAMPAIGN. I commented on the DEBATE.

Most the quotes I posted took place in the debates. He ran to the left of Gore on foreign policy. Similar to what Trump did to Hillary.

Oh, please. I debated this subject to death in the WC on BT.

I still have CJ's email. Maybe I'll contact her and take a dumpster dive through the archives. When I prove you are lying again, do you promise to delete your account?

[The_Noble_Cause]

That person did it on their own and was promptly fired when it was found out. That person was axed...no knife involved.

"Did it on their own" - prove it. Was the staffer ever named? Ever interviewed? You can't prove any of this. And another longtime Clinton associate, Sydney Blumenthal, spread the same birther rumors. We also have the Wikileaks that FF linked to. What do you have? Just blind faith in the media and politicians - the most dishonest people alive.


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politic ... 54777.html

[Boomchild]

Worse yet, I am more disturbed that I have heard more about "Russia!" and "Putin!" from Democrats than I ever did about Obama or Al Qaeda. I have liberal professor friends texting me at 2am asking me if I am a Russian spy or whether I am still loyal to this country. Not a joke. The Left has lost their minds.

WOW! Is McCarthy still alive??

[Monker]

Dude, I just posted the transcript.

Proving what?

No wonder people think you are a Russian spy. Are you having these posts translated into Russian so you can read them?

He wanted regime change.
He approved of using military force to remove "bad" leaders.
He would deploy troops if he felt it was in the best interest of the US.

All he needed was the "proof" that it was in the interest of the US. WMD was his excuse.

What u are saying is the equivalent of saying that Trump did not campaign on building a wall.

So, in one of the debates Trump said he believed in something else?

Bush campaigned on a humble foreign policy and against nation building. I lived it. You are a liar.

YOU FUCKING IDIOT - I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE CAMPAIGN.

Oh, please. I debated this subject to death in the WC on BT.

I still have CJ's email. Maybe I'll contact her and take a dumpster dive through the archives. When I prove you are lying again, do you promise to delete your account?

Oh, she'll love you for that.

I'll narrow it down for you when you get the archives. I was talking to either Rich or NavyBluSls. I was saying mini-Bush gave no indication that he would invade Iraq prior to being elected. In fact, he argued against such things. One of the two argued back saying Bush wanted regime change and wasn't against sending troops and said so in the debates, if I had been paying attention.

So, next time, maybe YOU should pay more attention to the debates. He went out campaigning with one message and in the debates he said something else.

[The_Noble_Cause]

No wonder people think you are a Russian spy. Are you having these posts translated into Russian so you can read them?

As already mentioned, can you read this?

"I wouldn’t have sent troops to Haiti. I didn’t think it was a mission worthwhile. It was a nation building mission. And it was not very successful. It cost us a couple billions of dollars and I’m not sure democracy is any better off in Haiti than it was before."

"We are getting out of the nation-building business. We’re rebuilding other countries while weakening our own."

"I'm not sure the role of the united states is to go around the world and say this is the way it gotta be."

"If we don’t stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we’re going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I’m going to prevent that. I’m going to rebuild our military power."

He wanted regime change.
He approved of using military force to remove "bad" leaders.
He would deploy troops if he felt it was in the best interest of the US.

All he needed was the "proof" that it was in the interest of the US. WMD was his excuse.

One debate question. Big deal.

So, in one of the debates Trump said he believed in something else?

Candidates flip flop all the time.

YOU FUCKING IDIOT AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE CAMPAIGN.

Debates are part of a campaign. Does that really need clarifying?

So, next time, maybe YOU should pay more attention to the debates. He went out campaigning with one message and in the debates he said something else.

Except pretty much all of the non-intervention quotes I posted are from the debates.

[Monker]

You are just arguing for arguing sake now...pretty pathetic. I said it was in the debate, it is. As much as you want to argue against, it doesn't change that fact.

No wonder people think you are a Russian spy. Are you having these posts translated into Russian so you can read them?

As already mentioned, can you read this?

"I wouldn’t have sent troops to Haiti. I didn’t think it was a mission worthwhile. It was a nation building mission. And it was not very successful. It cost us a couple billions of dollars and I’m not sure democracy is any better off in Haiti than it was before."

"We are getting out of the nation-building business. We’re rebuilding other countries while weakening our own."

"I'm not sure the role of the united states is to go around the world and say this is the way it gotta be."

"If we don’t stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we’re going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I’m going to prevent that. I’m going to rebuild our military power."

He wanted regime change.
He approved of using military force to remove "bad" leaders.
He would deploy troops if he felt it was in the best interest of the US.

All he needed was the "proof" that it was in the interest of the US. WMD was his excuse.

One debate question. Big deal.

So, in one of the debates Trump said he believed in something else?

Candidates flip flop all the time.

YOU FUCKING IDIOT AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE CAMPAIGN.

Debates are part of a campaign. Does that really need clarifying?

So, next time, maybe YOU should pay more attention to the debates. He went out campaigning with one message and in the debates he said something else.

Except pretty much all of the non-intervention quotes I posted are from the debates.

[Monker]

"Yeah, said after a volunteer on the Clinton campaign started leaking the birther issue...without permission. That person was fired and the head of the Iowa campaign called Plouffe and appologized and ensured he knew it was not from Clinton or the campaign."

Thank you for admitting it cames from Clintons camp, and that someone fell on a knife for her to get it out there. After all, Hillary wouldn't want to look like the dirty playing,cheating, lying bitch she is. People might think the DNC rigged an election for her. They rigged, cheated, and stacked the deck so much they can't accept the fact they LOST.

That's not what happened.

That person did it on their own and was promptly fired when it was found out. That person was axed...no knife involved.

Sure Monker, sure. We already know what a good little marching lemming you are. After all, this looks nothing like what people refer too as the "Clinton Political Machine". Clinton was losing to a man that "In a better time, he'd be getting me coffee" and they took a shot.

Read the McCatchy article that TNC. It is detailed right there - IN *HIS* article.

[Monker]

IMO, Kiosks are going to be a disaster. I remember when they added the Coke machines that were able to serve a 100 different varieties. During busy times, they had to have someone standing by the pop machine to explain to people how to use it. A complete waste of time

Digital ordering online is something every restaurant should have nowadays. I can see that working...and IS in many places already.

liberal logic to the rescue....


Cowen says McDonald's will upgrade 2,500 restaurants to its "Experience of the Future" technology by year-end, which includes digital ordering kiosks.

The firm raises its rating on McDonald's to outperform from market perform and price target for the shares to $180 from $142.

Same store sales estimate for 2018 raised to 3 percent from 2 percent.

McDonald's shares hit an all-time high on Tuesday as Wall Street expects sales to increase from new digital ordering kiosks that will replace cashiers in 2,500 restaurants.

Cowen raised its rating on McDonald's shares to outperform from market perform because of the technology upgrades, which are slated for the fast-food chain's restaurants this year.

McDonald's shares rallied 26 percent this year through Monday compared to the S&P 500's 10 percent return.

Andrew Charles from Cowen cited plans for the restaurant chain to roll out mobile ordering across 14,000 U.S. locations by the end of 2017. The technology upgrades, part of what McDonald's calls "Experience of the Future," includes digital ordering kiosks that will be offered in 2,500 restaurants by the end of the year and table delivery.

"MCD is cultivating a digital platform through mobile ordering and Experience of the Future (EOTF), an in-store technological overhaul most conspicuous through kiosk ordering and table delivery," Charles wrote in a note to clients Tuesday. "Our analysis suggests efforts should bear fruit in 2018 with a combined 130 bps [basis points] contribution to U.S. comps [comparable sales]."

He raised his 2018 U.S. same store sales growth estimate for the fast-food chain to 3 percent from 2 percent.

The analyst raised his price target for McDonald's to $180 from $142, representing 17.5 percent upside from Monday's close. He also raised his 2018 earnings-per-share forecast to $6.87 from $6.71 versus the Wall Street consensus of $6.83.

[The_Noble_Cause]

You are just arguing for arguing sake now...pretty pathetic. I said it was in the debate, it is. As much as you want to argue against, it doesn't change that fact.

One debate out of 3 or 4 debates, plus an entire platform with non-interventionism as a key plank. Boy, you really got me.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Read the McCatchy article that TNC. It is detailed right there - IN *HIS* article.

Pretty much says that a Clinton volunteer in Iowa was fired according to the Clinton’ campaign.
No name provided. No nothing. To date, I have found nothing on this volunteer. Ever think the Clinton people just said this to deflect? And the media, the stenographers that they are, simply transcribed it? And the people, the gullible sheep that they are, simply lapped it up?

When the Bernie campaign fired a staffer for accessing DNC information, we got the staffer's name (Josh Uretsky) and he went on multiple interviews to give his side of the story.

[Monker]

I said it was there, and it is there. Get over it already.

You are just arguing for arguing sake now...pretty pathetic. I said it was in the debate, it is. As much as you want to argue against, it doesn't change that fact.

One debate out of 3 or 4 debates, plus an entire platform with non-interventionism as a key plank. Boy, you really got me.

[Monker]

Yeah, there is a conspiracy under every rock. Sure.

There is no reason to know the person's name. The head of the campaign said she fired the person right away. Every article I have read has said the same thing. There has never ANY proof that Clinton herself promoted the birther idea.

Yet, instead of accepting this simple solution, you want to make it a complicated conspiracy with hidden agendas, schemes that have no evidence even existed, and demand proof for things that don't need any proof.

Whatever.

Read the McCatchy article that TNC. It is detailed right there - IN *HIS* article.

Pretty much says that a Clinton volunteer in Iowa was fired according to the Clinton’ campaign.
No name provided. No nothing. To date, I have found nothing on this volunteer. Ever think the Clinton people just said this to deflect? And the media, the stenographers that they are, simply transcribed it? And the people, the gullible sheep that they are, simply lapped it up?

When the Bernie campaign fired a staffer for accessing DNC information, we got the staffer's name (Josh Uretsky) and he went on multiple interviews to give his side of the story.

[The_Noble_Cause]

I said it was there, and it is there. Get over it already.

Great. But he didn't run on bombing countries. He ran to the left of Gore on foreign policy talking up a "humble foreign policy", "no nation building"...so what is your point? Anybody can cherry pick anything.