dagblog - Comments for " How Hillary Clinton Ignores Peace"

Huh? It's a stupid article

PeraclesPlease — Fri, 08 Jul 2016 03:47:10 +0000

Huh? It's a stupid article with all sorts of glaring bias and silly opinions, conjectures and slurs. I just go through paragraph by paragraph noting the inanities of something you want me to take seriously, and then you say I ain't got nuttin'? Sorry I even wasted my time reading half of it. There are certainly more intelligent, persuasive sources for foreign policy (and I don't mean it has to be some old known periodical, personal blogs are fine) , and I'm certainly happy to see non-Hillary favoring analysis providing new insight done well. But this is just a superficial gripefest tossing in a grabbag of complaints. I get it - the author doesn't like Hillary. There's nothing else serious to take away. Find something new, solid, deep.

After about a million

A Guy Called LULU — Fri, 08 Jul 2016 01:47:04 +0000

In reply to Okay, some hyperbolic fantasy

After about a million examples I am starting to pick up on a pattern in your responses when you are on the other side of an opinion. While you can make a great case when reality is weighted on your side and make pretty strong cases in whatever direction you choose when the evidence points in all quadrants, this response is typical of one end of your style spectrum. This is how you respond when you aint got nuthin’. Or else it is something you don't want to show.

Classic!

rmrd0000 — Thu, 07 Jul 2016 21:26:32 +0000

In reply to Now look . . .

Classic!

Now look . . .

oldenGoldenDecoy — Thu, 07 Jul 2016 21:23:24 +0000

In reply to That's your problem. I don't

Now look . . .

Since Hal's already up over his head he just can't stop...

~OGD~

Okay, some hyperbolic fantasy

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 07 Jul 2016 17:13:07 +0000

In reply to Was there another takeaway I

Okay, some hyperbolic paranoid dream segment about Putin getting knocked off like Qaddafi ?(lumping Hillary in with the neocon fantasy football dreamers) with more concern trolling that we're starting a new world war with Russia, some rather stomach-churning comparison of peace activists with southern blacks and the civil rights movement, a rather doubtful paean to how great things would be if the controlled rightest media weren't controlled, and then a long complaint that Hillary said to solve Israel's 2 biggest security problems so we could demand adult behavior and limits from Israel in return. That got me pehaps halfway through. I assume it doesn't get any better - you really like this stuff?

That's your problem. I don't

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 07 Jul 2016 16:56:18 +0000

In reply to Your preference was for a

That's your problem. I don't see her as a "neocon" and think "neoliberal" is a poorly defined, shitty purity epithet. I can't hold Bernie accountable either - these people are grownups, they'll do what they do, and I can only vote for them and take them as they are.

Your preference was for a

HSG — Thu, 07 Jul 2016 16:45:12 +0000

In reply to Hal, you keep using that word

Your preference was for a dishonest neo-con neo-lib. As long as you keep believing in her rather than questioning her claims and judgment we cannot hold her accountable to us.

Was there another takeaway I

A Guy Called LULU — Thu, 07 Jul 2016 16:27:49 +0000

In reply to I'm sorry, I thought you read

Was there another takeaway I missed?

Yes. It appears you dismissed the rest of the article without reading it yourself.

I just skimmed the article again. It has at least 55 paragraphs. The first paragraph mentions Trump. The second paragraph mentions Sanders. I might have missed something but I don't believe either of those two names were mentioned again and it is quite obvious that neither of them are what the essay is about.

Hal, you keep using that word

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 07 Jul 2016 16:09:02 +0000

In reply to I keep imploring people.

Hal, you keep using that word "facts", but it doesn't mean what you think it means. Look up the word "opinion" in a dictionary if you own one - it may clear up a lot of misunderstanding. I hope.

And no, we didn't "saddle" you with anything - we just voted our preference and you whining like a bitch, pardon the sexism, doesn't change a thing. so far she's trouncing her opponent in rhetorIc, strategy and fundraising. We'll be fine. You, on the other hand, just may have a problem.

I'm sorry, I thought you read

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 07 Jul 2016 15:59:45 +0000

In reply to Did this seem to you to be

I'm sorry, I thought you read the piece you posted.

The Republican candidates who advocated neoconservative warmongering crashed and burned, losing to Donald Trump who sold himself to GOP voters as the anti-neocon, daring even to trash George W. Bush’s Iraq War to an aghast field of Republican rivals.

Sen. Bernie Sanders went even further...

so starting off with the hyper-retarded framing of Trump speaking truth to power and driving the Mideast Peace Train, just not quite as hard as Bernie, I can dismiss the rest of the article as typical issue-fucking that pushes a reality-distorting meme at the expense of simple sanity.

Was there another takeaway I missed?