|
Nintendo Kid posted:Dude made millions of dollars, stop whining. He clearly had access to serious capital to even make that much from the manipulation, you can't do that with $8228.40 and a Metrocard. Maybe he found a way, NintendoKid, maybe he found a way.
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 21:26 |
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Dude made millions of dollars, stop whining. He clearly had access to serious capital to even make that much from the manipulation, you can't do that with $8228.40 and a Metrocard. I think the point is that it's not exactly a victory over big investment banks or funds.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
McAlister posted:
She voted to go to war in Iraq. She has no credibility because of this one fact alone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
*ed-209 crashes through basement wall* you are attempting to impoverish the ultra-rich. you have five seconds to comply b-b-but I'm rich!!! I am now authorized to use lethal force
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:She voted to go to war in Iraq. She has no credibility because of this one fact alone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
How nice of her to come to the correct conclusion after the chain of events leading to a million deaths had been set into irreversible motion. Clinton '16: I can come around against genocide eventually
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
Clinton's defining feature seems to be "support bad positions until it becomes politically inconvenient to do so."
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
Remember Bush and his Administration didn't lie about Iraq one bit, so anyone who supported the war did so because they love genocide and pretextless wars.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
Radish posted:Clinton's defining feature seems to be "support bad positions until it becomes politically inconvenient to do so." Which sounds a lot better when you think of all the politicians whose defining features seems to be "support bad positions at all costs."
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Remember Bush and his Administration didn't lie about Iraq one bit, so anyone who supported the war did so because they love genocide and pretextless wars. Yes, the argument that Hillary Clinton is just that stupid is an effective one in defending her presidential bid in light of support for a terrible war. ElegantFugue posted:Which sounds a lot better when you think of all the politicians whose defining features seems to be "support bad positions at all costs."
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
Almost everybody was tricked into thinking the Iraq war was a good idea in 2003.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
Ah, the "Bush told me too so I did it" defense. Credible as always. I mean it's not like Senators have access to intelligence reports or anything.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Almost everybody was tricked into thinking the Iraq war was a good idea in 2003. Samurai Sanders fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Apr 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Almost everybody was tricked into thinking the Iraq war was a good idea in 2003. Sorry, you don't get to rewrite history. A minority of Democrats voted for the war, and Hillary supported it. 111 Democrats voted for war, and 156 opposed. That's not "almost everybody". Of course, the resolution was also passed in 2002, not 2003, so maybe everyone changed to support it a year later and that's what you meant? GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Apr 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
If Lincoln Chafee was cognizant enough to question the idea that Saddam and al Qaeda were linked or that Iraq had an active WMD program, then Clinton has absolutely no excuse. There are some really rose-tinted glasses in this forum concerning Clinton and the Iraq vote.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
ElegantFugue posted:Which sounds a lot better when you think of all the politicians whose defining features seems to be "support bad positions at all costs." If there's one thing we need more of its politicians who respond to public pressure and opinions because right now the elected are far more to the right than the public average. Remember the point of the elected official is to represent their constituents to their best of their ability and make at times executive decisions in their best interest, not to follow an ideological rigor that doesn't respond to reality. gently caress you thread I think you might have just made me speak in favor of Hillary  I want anybody else, anybody. But I'll take her over these mammon worshiping god tier shits.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
This probably has an obvious answer, but why were all the Saudi connections to 9/11 swept under the rug in the leadup to the Iraq war?RuanGacho posted:If there's one thing we need more of its politicians who respond to public pressure and opinions because right now the elected are far more to the right than the public average. Who cares if they're to the right of the public average? They're right in the middle of what the people in their district believe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
Radbot posted:This probably has an obvious answer, but why were all the Saudi connections to 9/11 swept under the rug in the leadup to the Iraq war? Because the Saudi's are on our side.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Because the Saudi's are on our side. How so?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Radbot posted:This probably has an obvious answer, but why were all the Saudi connections to 9/11 swept under the rug in the leadup to the Iraq war? IIRC it was because the Bushes are really close with the House of Saud.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Radbot posted:How so?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
Radbot posted:This probably has an obvious answer, but why were all the Saudi connections to 9/11 swept under the rug in the leadup to the Iraq war? Because $9 a gallon gas.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
Radbot posted:How so? Oil discounts in exchange for military equipment. Just can't seem to crack down on that Wahhabism though 
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:Ah, the "Bush told me too so I did it" defense. Credible as always. I mean it's not like Senators have access to intelligence reports or anything. You mean the same intelligence reports later proven to be based on false evidence? Yes you're correct, they could have read those reports and confirmed all of Bush's lies. But please, which liberal leaders were declaring Colin Powell a liar the day after his UN speech?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
Radbot posted:How so? Teams are more important than actions, and as an enemy of our enemies, the Saudi's are on our team, because there are only ever two sides and our side is the right side, so anyone not on the other side is on our side. See: Continued support for Israel and a distinct lack of criticism even when they have taken actions directly hostile to the United States. More realistically - we rely on them for a lot of oil, and calling them out on their behaviour would have had political ramifications that would have ended poorly for the people in power. Trabisnikof posted:But please, which liberal leaders were declaring Colin Powell a liar the day after his UN speech? GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Apr 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Again, the majority of Democratic politicians opposed the war in Iraq. You mean the majority of House Democratic politicians. Common mistake.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
I don't think I'll ever understand how the powers that be have been able to keep Americans friendly towards Saudi Arabia when they're the source of so much Islamic terrorism - they seem like such an easy target, and yet it's never suggested by anyone that we cut ties with them. It verges on conspiracy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
Radbot posted:This probably has an obvious answer, but why were all the Saudi connections to 9/11 swept under the rug in the leadup to the Iraq war? What is the connection, is it this, from the nypost: quote:The 3,300-square-foot home on Escondito Circle belonged to Esam Ghazzawi, a Saudi adviser to the nephew of then-King Fahd. But at the time, it was occupied by his daughter and son-in-law, who beat a hasty retreat back to Saudi Arabia just two weeks before the attacks after nearly a six-year stay here. Advisor to a nephew of King Fahd is absolutely nothing officially. Ibn Saud's issue was 36 adult sons from 22 different women. Extrapolate to another generation of that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You mean the majority of House Democratic politicians. Common mistake. The majority of Congressional politicians. Sorry for not clarifying. I had assumed people could figure it out from context.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I don't think I'll ever understand how the powers that be have been able to keep Americans friendly towards Saudi Arabia when they're the source of so much Islamic terrorism - they seem like such an easy target, and yet it's never suggested by anyone that we cut ties with them. It verges on conspiracy. Nobody will survive an election (nor will their party) for raising gas prices to a massive degree, and all the add-on effects that would have. Saudi Arabia is going to have a very bad ever after the moment that something aside from oil becomes more cost efficient.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Almost everybody was tricked into thinking the Iraq war was a good idea in 2003. Are you going to walk this statement back yet? You seemed to have missed the part where I pointed out how wrong it was.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Nobody will survive an election (nor will their party) for raising gas prices to a massive degree, and all the add-on effects that would have. Saudi Arabia is going to have a very bad ever after the moment that something aside from oil becomes more cost efficient. So we'd all rather suck Saudi dick than try to move to domestic energy sources. OK then, I can see why Americans would want to do that (they're very stupid).
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Are you going to walk this statement back yet? You seemed to have missed the part where I pointed out how wrong it was. http://www.pewresearch.org/2008/03/19/public-attitudes-toward-the-war-in-iraq-20032008/
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You mean the majority of House Democratic politicians. Common mistake. A majority of Senate Dems voted yea, including Biden, Reid, and Kerry. In particular, nobody who fancied themselves a 2004 candidate voted against it (except maybe Graham). It is an everlasting shame of the Democratic Party that they did not unify to oppose the Iraq war, but certainly not Hilary's alone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
Radbot posted:So we'd all rather suck Saudi dick than try to move to domestic energy sources. OK then, I can see why Americans would want to do that (they're very stupid). When we try to move to "domestic" energy sources people whine about pipelines.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:http://www.pewresearch.org/2008/03/19/public-attitudes-toward-the-war-in-iraq-20032008/ 72% is not "almost everyone", since a full quarter of the population opposed it. Hillary Clinton is hardly a representative of the sort of "everyone" you're talking about here anyway - within her cohort, Democratic Congressmembers, she was in a minority. As such, how is your now contextualized statement about how "almost everybody" was convinced Iraq was a good idea a defense of Hillary Clinton's vote? Is the argument that she only voted to support the war because it had popular support among the public, despite the evidence it was the wrong decision? (willing to make tremendously bad decisions for our country and our people to score political points) Is the argument that she personally was tricked despite most of her cohorts deciding to oppose the war? (Stupid? Naive?) How is this a defense of her vote?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
Radbot posted:So we'd all rather suck Saudi dick than try to move to domestic energy sources. OK then, I can see why Americans would want to do that (they're very stupid). Yes, the average American is completely unable and unwilling to think beyond their back yard. On the other hand, a huge amount of Americans near the poverty line couldn't possibly afford the cost of living if such a price increase were to happen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:When we try to move to "domestic" energy sources people whine about pipelines. "Domestic" "Canada"
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:"Domestic" Canada's the 51st state after all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 21:26 |
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:When we try to move to "domestic" energy sources people whine about trains. ftfy
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 19:02
|
|