Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Vladimir Putin on Women

wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2014 5:54:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
"It"s better not to argue with women."

"...maybe weakness is not the worst quality for a woman."


http://abcnews.go.com...

Discuss.

Personally, if Russia truly is a democracy, I would think he just alienated half the Russian population.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2014 1:25:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
He's a global troll. But yeah, a dick move nonetheless. I can't even agree with him even though I found hillary's comments kinda unwarranted.
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 1:52:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/10/2014 5:54:29 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
"It"s better not to argue with women."

"...maybe weakness is not the worst quality for a woman."


http://abcnews.go.com...

Discuss.

Personally, if Russia truly is a democracy, I would think he just alienated half the Russian population.

I'm glad you brought this up. This is one of several reservations I have about HIllary running in 16'. I get that America is ready to prove to the world that we treat women equally by putting one into office (literally same thing with Obama), but we have to consider the effect it would have on the rest of the world. We would instantly lose respect from any male leaders who rule in a society where equalism isn't present. The lack of respect that several power players in other nations have towards women is going to be an issue.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 1:53:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 1:52:02 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 6/10/2014 5:54:29 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
"It"s better not to argue with women."

"...maybe weakness is not the worst quality for a woman."


http://abcnews.go.com...

Discuss.

Personally, if Russia truly is a democracy, I would think he just alienated half the Russian population.

I'm glad you brought this up. This is one of several reservations I have about HIllary running in 16'. I get that America is ready to prove to the world that we treat women equally by putting one into office (literally same thing with Obama), but we have to consider the effect it would have on the rest of the world. We would instantly lose respect from any male leaders who rule in a society where equalism isn't present. The lack of respect that several power players in other nations have towards women is going to be an issue.

I think you bring up an interesting point, but perhaps those other leaders would have their own concerns. If other countries did indeed have a functioning democracy, one would think that those other leaders would be far more worried of losing their base if women decided to flock to a more accommodating candidate.

For those countries that do not have a democracy and is still led by leaders who hold such views, perhaps this would be an interesting moment to determine which political system is ultimately more viable.

Finally, what goes through my head is "if not Hillary, then who?" I really think Hillary is the best candidate for 2016, same for 2008 after Romney dropped out. I didn't warm up to Obama until close to election day, and mainly because the alternative was Palin for VP and the man who thought she was a good VP pick.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 1:59:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/10/2014 5:54:29 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
"It"s better not to argue with women."

"...maybe weakness is not the worst quality for a woman."


http://abcnews.go.com...

Discuss.

Personally, if Russia truly is a democracy, I would think he just alienated half the Russian population.

Russia a democracy? Pshh.....

Of course they are. Putin earned his place in power. Hell, he racked up 98% of the Chechnya vote. Explain that?
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 2:19:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 1:53:45 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Finally, what goes through my head is "if not Hillary, then who?" I really think Hillary is the best candidate for 2016...

So, Benghazi hasn't dissuaded you? She took on too much at once (as Secretary of State) and it ended up costing innocent lives. Complete failure on her part, and then what happens? She just steps down, cleans her hands like it's nothing. I don't want a President who will simply step-down once a major blunder happens from her over-reaching.

I would pay CLOSE attention to whoever she chooses as a running mate. Ultimately though, I'd be surprised if she loses - which sucks for me because I don't want her as President. I think she'll ride into office on the same "we've got to prove something to the world" wave that pushed Obama into office. We already did the black man, time for the woman!!! Right? Watch... that's the card that will be used (obviously), and it'll work wonders.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 3:03:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 2:19:35 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 6/14/2014 1:53:45 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Finally, what goes through my head is "if not Hillary, then who?" I really think Hillary is the best candidate for 2016...

So, Benghazi hasn't dissuaded you? She took on too much at once (as Secretary of State) and it ended up costing innocent lives. Complete failure on her part, and then what happens? She just steps down, cleans her hands like it's nothing. I don't want a President who will simply step-down once a major blunder happens from her over-reaching.

I would pay CLOSE attention to whoever she chooses as a running mate. Ultimately though, I'd be surprised if she loses - which sucks for me because I don't want her as President. I think she'll ride into office on the same "we've got to prove something to the world" wave that pushed Obama into office. We already did the black man, time for the woman!!! Right? Watch... that's the card that will be used (obviously), and it'll work wonders.

Most conservatives ONLY know Hillary for Benghazi. She was by far the most successful and productive Secretary of State we ever had. Stay away from the conservative media. Its very selective in its coverage of ONE of about 15 embassy attacks in the past decade.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 3:39:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 3:03:53 AM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 6/14/2014 2:19:35 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 6/14/2014 1:53:45 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Finally, what goes through my head is "if not Hillary, then who?" I really think Hillary is the best candidate for 2016...

So, Benghazi hasn't dissuaded you? She took on too much at once (as Secretary of State) and it ended up costing innocent lives. Complete failure on her part, and then what happens? She just steps down, cleans her hands like it's nothing. I don't want a President who will simply step-down once a major blunder happens from her over-reaching.

I would pay CLOSE attention to whoever she chooses as a running mate. Ultimately though, I'd be surprised if she loses - which sucks for me because I don't want her as President. I think she'll ride into office on the same "we've got to prove something to the world" wave that pushed Obama into office. We already did the black man, time for the woman!!! Right? Watch... that's the card that will be used (obviously), and it'll work wonders.

Most conservatives ONLY know Hillary for Benghazi. She was by far the most successful and productive Secretary of State we ever had. Stay away from the conservative media. Its very selective in its coverage of ONE of about 15 embassy attacks in the past decade.

Jifpop, we've already had this conversation. Should we just pick up where we left off the last time? It was basically at this point, with me asking how her benefits outweighed the cost? I think I was also asking how we would have any guarantee that she wouldn't simply step down from office again if she makes another mistake like Benghazi? (Hence my point about keeping an eye on whoever runs as her VP).

She was too ambitious, tried to balance too many things at once. She literally admitted to failing to read all the reports, which while understandable considering her position, is inexcusable when the memo's, warning, and requests for additional security were sitting on her desk for months prior to the incident.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 3:49:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 3:39:21 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 6/14/2014 3:03:53 AM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 6/14/2014 2:19:35 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 6/14/2014 1:53:45 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Finally, what goes through my head is "if not Hillary, then who?" I really think Hillary is the best candidate for 2016...

So, Benghazi hasn't dissuaded you? She took on too much at once (as Secretary of State) and it ended up costing innocent lives. Complete failure on her part, and then what happens? She just steps down, cleans her hands like it's nothing. I don't want a President who will simply step-down once a major blunder happens from her over-reaching.

I would pay CLOSE attention to whoever she chooses as a running mate. Ultimately though, I'd be surprised if she loses - which sucks for me because I don't want her as President. I think she'll ride into office on the same "we've got to prove something to the world" wave that pushed Obama into office. We already did the black man, time for the woman!!! Right? Watch... that's the card that will be used (obviously), and it'll work wonders.

Most conservatives ONLY know Hillary for Benghazi. She was by far the most successful and productive Secretary of State we ever had. Stay away from the conservative media. Its very selective in its coverage of ONE of about 15 embassy attacks in the past decade.

Jifpop, we've already had this conversation.

That is not my username. You can think of me as jifpop if you want, but show some respect.

Should we just pick up where we left off the last time? It was basically at this point, with me asking how her benefits outweighed the cost? I think I was also asking how we would have any guarantee that she wouldn't simply step down from office again if she makes another mistake like Benghazi? (Hence my point about keeping an eye on whoever runs as her VP).

I would say they outweigh the cots 800% if all you have to weigh her down is benghazi. What a joke. Its a desperate cry to pin a random accident on the Obama administration. How was it the SCOTUS's fault that the embassy was attacked? The State department is responcible for diplomacy. It was a military mistake made by military officers.

Even if she failed in Benghazi, I still don't care. She's the right choice for America at this point. Which of the GOP circle jerkers wont tear this nation apart? Can you name on viable candidate?

She was too ambitious, tried to balance too many things at once. She literally admitted to failing to read all the reports, which while understandable considering her position, is inexcusable when the memo's, warning, and requests for additional security were sitting on her desk for months prior to the incident.

Uh huh. This is very funny. I see the 2016 election already....

BENGHAZI! BENGHAZI! BENGHAZI!

Her ratings went up people. Your making her MORE popular, by looking like fools. Same with Obama. He saw a nice boost in the polls everytime a Benghazi commitee was formed. Jokes!

Her policies are the right choice for America, and although she is WAY to moderate for my taste, even you can't deny the benefits of putting Bill Clinton back into the white house. It took the Clinton's to reverse every long term effect Reagonomics instated, and Bush to turn them around again.

Its no secret now. Economy got $hitty after Reagan, got great with Bill, went dry with Bush, and now the recession is completely recovered under Obama. Stock markets up 140%, military operations to go down billions, several oil companies lost federal lands, 3% of the populace is working, and growing.

Please, don't put a Rand Paul in office (What a fool BTW. GOP presidential candidate, I envision a 10-1 electoral vote for Hillary)
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 6:33:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 2:19:35 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 6/14/2014 1:53:45 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Finally, what goes through my head is "if not Hillary, then who?" I really think Hillary is the best candidate for 2016...

So, Benghazi hasn't dissuaded you? She took on too much at once (as Secretary of State) and it ended up costing innocent lives. Complete failure on her part, and then what happens? She just steps down, cleans her hands like it's nothing. I don't want a President who will simply step-down once a major blunder happens from her over-reaching.

Benghazi is about 1% as significant as Iran Contra, and Reagan survived that without a scratch.

I would pay CLOSE attention to whoever she chooses as a running mate. Ultimately though, I'd be surprised if she loses - which sucks for me because I don't want her as President. I think she'll ride into office on the same "we've got to prove something to the world" wave that pushed Obama into office. We already did the black man, time for the woman!!! Right? Watch... that's the card that will be used (obviously), and it'll work wonders.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 1:50:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 3:49:06 AM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 6/14/2014 3:39:21 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
Jifpop, we've already had this conversation.

That is not my username. You can think of me as jifpop if you want, but show some respect.

Respect is earned, not given freely. I will not respect someone who has yet to earn it, and demanding such things is a trait of the weak.

Should we just pick up where we left off the last time? It was basically at this point, with me asking how her benefits outweighed the cost? I think I was also asking how we would have any guarantee that she wouldn't simply step down from office again if she makes another mistake like Benghazi? (Hence my point about keeping an eye on whoever runs as her VP).

I would say they outweigh the cots 800% if all you have to weigh her down is benghazi. What a joke. Its a desperate cry to pin a random accident on the Obama administration. How was it the SCOTUS's fault that the embassy was attacked? The State department is responcible for diplomacy. It was a military mistake made by military officers.

This isn't an issue with the Obama administration in my mind, so that is a poor assumption on your part. It's an issue with her. When reports have been going out for over 6 months asking for additional security - only to be continuously ignored under her reign- it's called a failure of leadership. The State department is also responsible for protecting the lives of the American citizens it employs, including ambassadors, embassy staff, and security detail. Benghazi was a complete joke - if anything is - in regards to the fact that what happened was completely avoidable had their requests not been ignored.

Furthermore, she stepped down with absolutely no consequence, and is now churning out some media save-face book conveniently timed just before her run is announced? She's doing nothing but playing the game - and it's quite obvious. I have no desire to have a weak willed woman in power. She didn't even respect herself enough to leave the man who was putting his dick into other women while she was wearing his wedding ring. All she cares about is power - it's so freaking obvious kid. That's why she stayed with William, that's why she's churning out a book now, and that's why she will have an entire party behind her pulling the "woman" card now that they've already played the "black" one.

I've already said this to you Jifpop, she did accomplish some good - but it doesn't outweigh the fact that she is not Presidential material. Let's face reality - she couldn't cut it as Secretary of State, nothing more - nothing less. She didn't make it.... and yet now you support her for President? Who is the one being foolish now Jifpop, seriously.

Even if she failed in Benghazi, I still don't care. She's the right choice for America at this point. Which of the GOP circle jerkers wont tear this nation apart? Can you name on viable candidate?

I've already told you I support Rand Paul. His continuous media coverage and inclusion in political discussions via interviews is a clear sign that the establishment is allowing his face to be seen and his voice to be heard. It's a complete 180 from the media blackout placed on his father in the last decade. He's currently being vetted for the run and he knows it. I like him more than Clinton. I also liked how he had the balls to put her in her place after her massive fvck-up. He's the man for the job, not the one who was sitting on the other side of that hearing table. The problem is that you fail to see that someone who couldn't even handle being Secretary of State has no place as President.

She was too ambitious, tried to balance too many things at once. She literally admitted to failing to read all the reports, which while understandable considering her position, is inexcusable when the memo's, warning, and requests for additional security were sitting on her desk for months prior to the incident.

Uh huh. This is very funny. I see the 2016 election already....
BENGHAZI! BENGHAZI! BENGHAZI!

And yet you have no real response except a humorless joke. You've still not given me anything to go on support wise. Why Jifpop, why should I support her as President? If you are sooooo adamant about Benghazi and the fact that she couldn't even cut it then as not being an issue then please - how do you justify voting for her in 2016 - convince me that I am wrong if you are so right about her being good for the job.

Her ratings went up people. Your making her MORE popular, by looking like fools. Same with Obama. He saw a nice boost in the polls everytime a Benghazi commitee was formed. Jokes!

I'm not making her ratings go up. Morons who still desire to support her are the ones doing that. Her putting out a book and getting constant media attention would be the more appropriate causes for her rise in popularity - not one person on a debate website. That was a foolish statement as well Jifpop. As for Obama, you keep bringing him into this conversation, I've already said this has nothing to do with him in my mind. We all know she was given that position as a consolation prize for letting Obama take office first, she couldn't even cut it. Face reality kid, international politics with a leadership role just isn't something she could accomplish, as evidenced by her stepping down from the position.

Her policies are the right choice for America, and although she is WAY to moderate for my taste, even you can't deny the benefits of putting Bill Clinton back into the white house. It took the Clinton's to reverse every long term effect Reagonomics instated, and Bush to turn them around again.

I knew it... I knew you had to be one of those William supporters. That's what these conversations always end up becoming with people like you. Well... derp... it'll mean Bill is back in the whitehouse... derp... Is that why you'd vote her into Office? Please tell me you can do better than that.

Its no secret now. Economy got $hitty after Reagan, got great with Bill, went dry with Bush, and now the recession is completely recovered under Obama.

Hahahaha, is it now? Interesting that you'd see it that way. I don't believe the recession is over just yet, and would greatly enjoy any sources you can provide that would convince me otherwise. I think it'd be great if we weren't in a recession anymore, unfortunately, I've yet to be convinced that is the case - feel free to convince me.

Stock markets up 140%, military operations to go down billions, several oil companies lost federal lands, 3% of the populace is working, and growing.

I'd need to check those numbers myself before giving you this one. Unfortunately, I have no desire to do so at the current moment. So again, feel free to share some sources that might enlighten me.

Please, don't put a Rand Paul in office (What a fool BTW. GOP presidential candidate, I envision a 10-1 electoral vote for Hillary)

Why not? Why is she a better candidate than him other than the reasons you provided (for her support) in this response. I'd honestly like to hear, from you, specific reasons why he shouldn't be President and specific reasons why she should. Perhaps then I will have a better understanding of where you are coming from. At this point, she most certainly doesn't have my vote over Rand Paul, please feel free to convince me to your side.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 1:51:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 6:33:42 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/14/2014 2:19:35 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 6/14/2014 1:53:45 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Finally, what goes through my head is "if not Hillary, then who?" I really think Hillary is the best candidate for 2016...

So, Benghazi hasn't dissuaded you? She took on too much at once (as Secretary of State) and it ended up costing innocent lives. Complete failure on her part, and then what happens? She just steps down, cleans her hands like it's nothing. I don't want a President who will simply step-down once a major blunder happens from her over-reaching.

Benghazi is about 1% as significant as Iran Contra, and Reagan survived that without a scratch.

I would pay CLOSE attention to whoever she chooses as a running mate. Ultimately though, I'd be surprised if she loses - which sucks for me because I don't want her as President. I think she'll ride into office on the same "we've got to prove something to the world" wave that pushed Obama into office. We already did the black man, time for the woman!!! Right? Watch... that's the card that will be used (obviously), and it'll work wonders.

Alright, fair enough. So why do you support her as President. I feel I might be unfairly bashing her if you guys who support her know something I don't. So please, explain to me why she should be President over someone like Rand Paul.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 1:38:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 1:51:35 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 6/14/2014 6:33:42 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

Alright, fair enough. So why do you support her as President. I feel I might be unfairly bashing her if you guys who support her know something I don't. So please, explain to me why she should be President over someone like Rand Paul.

1) Obama's foreign policy is probably the strongest mark of his presidency. Hillary was directly responsible for his record. She was known to have been tireless at the job and to have mended relationships that were badly strained during Bush II. Furthermore, Obama has been rather aggressive, as much so as during the Reagan/Bush era.

2) Hillary's resume is impressive even without her term as Secretary of State. One of Bill Clinton's most well-known pushes as POTUS was for what Obama eventually passed - health care reform (which back then was a bi-partisan issue, like Social security and Medicare). This initiative was spearheaded by Hillary while she was First Lady...unprecedented.

3) There's simply not much going on in the GOP. Bush II fractured the party, and it's yet to recover. There's simply no standard-bearer for the party, except perhaps McCain who has always been somewhat of an outsider in the GOP establishment. Bush II was directly responsible for McCain needing to completely break from the GOP establishment and to try something daring in Sarah Palin, which completely backfired for him and hastened the fracturing of the GOP. Palin marked the birth of the Tea Party.

4) Rand Paul and Ron Paul have only become popular because of the abysmal failings of Bush II. During Bush's presidency, anything and everything a GOP libertarian warned could go wrong did go wrong - globalization (especially financial globalization) was an economic catastrophe for the US, and our foreign endeavors became perceived to be so interventionalist without any real payoff that it nearly destroyed American credibility abroad.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 1:36:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 1:38:31 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/14/2014 1:51:35 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 6/14/2014 6:33:42 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

Alright, fair enough. So why do you support her as President. I feel I might be unfairly bashing her if you guys who support her know something I don't. So please, explain to me why she should be President over someone like Rand Paul.

1) Obama's foreign policy is probably the strongest mark of his presidency. Hillary was directly responsible for his record. She was known to have been tireless at the job and to have mended relationships that were badly strained during Bush II.

What relationships? This is me asking out of pure lack of knowledge in that regard. What relationships did she fix that Bush Jr. damaged so badly?

Furthermore, Obama has been rather aggressive, as much so as during the Reagan/Bush era.

2) Hillary's resume is impressive even without her term as Secretary of State. One of Bill Clinton's most well-known pushes as POTUS was for what Obama eventually passed - health care reform (which back then was a bi-partisan issue, like Social security and Medicare).

Do you mean to say she helped get the ball rolling on what would eventually evolve into Obamacare? Or some other kind of health care reform?

This initiative was spearheaded by Hillary while she was First Lady...unprecedented.

3) There's simply not much going on in the GOP. Bush II fractured the party, and it's yet to recover. There's simply no standard-bearer for the party, except perhaps McCain who has always been somewhat of an outsider in the GOP establishment. Bush II was directly responsible for McCain needing to completely break from the GOP establishment and to try something daring in Sarah Palin, which completely backfired for him and hastened the fracturing of the GOP. Palin marked the birth of the Tea Party.

I would agree that McCain made a mistake taking Palin into his campaign.

So this is why someone like Rand Paul doesn't stand a chance? Because he's with the split party at the moment? It makes sense if that is the case, I mean, I don't think anyone can deny the GOP has some internal issues to work out.

4) Rand Paul and Ron Paul have only become popular because of the abysmal failings of Bush II. During Bush's presidency, anything and everything a GOP libertarian warned could go wrong did go wrong - globalization (especially financial globalization) was an economic catastrophe for the US, and our foreign endeavors became perceived to be so interventionalist without any real payoff that it nearly destroyed American credibility abroad.

I'd say the biggest hit we took from financial globalization efforts was the blow to the American labor markets, and ultimately agree with you in both that regard and in terms of our interventionalist persona we've come to gain from our actions. Are you saying that Hillary has the best chance at fixing these two issues? How are we to know that she won't continue Obama's efforts in modern drone warfare or further expansion efforts in terms of American/Western influence in the Eastern world? Is she not just another George Soros puppet like Obama?
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 8:09:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 1:52:02 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 6/10/2014 5:54:29 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
"It"s better not to argue with women."

"...maybe weakness is not the worst quality for a woman."


http://abcnews.go.com...

Discuss.

Personally, if Russia truly is a democracy, I would think he just alienated half the Russian population.

I'm glad you brought this up. This is one of several reservations I have about HIllary running in 16'. I get that America is ready to prove to the world that we treat women equally by putting one into office (literally same thing with Obama), but we have to consider the effect it would have on the rest of the world. We would instantly lose respect from any male leaders who rule in a society where equalism isn't present. The lack of respect that several power players in other nations have towards women is going to be an issue.

That's a terrible reason to not want a woman president. I personally don't like Hillary or want her in office, but as a whole not wanting a woman in office because of what "other people might think" is a terrible reason that goes against standard American principles.
Nolite Timere
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 8:19:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 8:09:18 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/12/2014 1:52:02 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 6/10/2014 5:54:29 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
"It"s better not to argue with women."

"...maybe weakness is not the worst quality for a woman."


http://abcnews.go.com...

Discuss.

Personally, if Russia truly is a democracy, I would think he just alienated half the Russian population.

I'm glad you brought this up. This is one of several reservations I have about HIllary running in 16'. I get that America is ready to prove to the world that we treat women equally by putting one into office (literally same thing with Obama), but we have to consider the effect it would have on the rest of the world. We would instantly lose respect from any male leaders who rule in a society where equalism isn't present. The lack of respect that several power players in other nations have towards women is going to be an issue.

That's a terrible reason to not want a woman president. I personally don't like Hillary or want her in office, but as a whole not wanting a woman in office because of what "other people might think" is a terrible reason that goes against standard American principles.

I think alot of people would agree with you in regards to my reasoning. I'm curious now though, why don't you support her as a potential President?
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 8:24:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 8:19:59 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 6/15/2014 8:09:18 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/12/2014 1:52:02 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 6/10/2014 5:54:29 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
"It"s better not to argue with women."

"...maybe weakness is not the worst quality for a woman."


http://abcnews.go.com...

Discuss.

Personally, if Russia truly is a democracy, I would think he just alienated half the Russian population.

I'm glad you brought this up. This is one of several reservations I have about HIllary running in 16'. I get that America is ready to prove to the world that we treat women equally by putting one into office (literally same thing with Obama), but we have to consider the effect it would have on the rest of the world. We would instantly lose respect from any male leaders who rule in a society where equalism isn't present. The lack of respect that several power players in other nations have towards women is going to be an issue.

That's a terrible reason to not want a woman president. I personally don't like Hillary or want her in office, but as a whole not wanting a woman in office because of what "other people might think" is a terrible reason that goes against standard American principles.

I think alot of people would agree with you in regards to my reasoning. I'm curious now though, why don't you support her as a potential President?

You want the honest truth? I don't know specifically why I am against her, but I know that I am against liberal principles and that she is liberal minded. I can generally confer that I wouldn't want her as president from there.

But hey I'm 15, I don't see any reason to get familiar with politicians yet so I don't take a whole lot of interest in it. I don't like politics very much, lots of whining, dirty playing, and accusations and not enough progress.
Nolite Timere
Artur
Posts: 719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 4:53:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/10/2014 1:25:49 PM, Cermank wrote:
He's a global troll.
is he a troll? if he is a troll, then the remaining whole world is smaller than a rubbish because at this moment Putin is the most powerfull and influential person.

But yeah, a dick move nonetheless. I can't even agree with him even though I found hillary's comments kinda unwarranted.
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 11:27:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 8:19:59 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 6/15/2014 8:09:18 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/12/2014 1:52:02 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 6/10/2014 5:54:29 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
"It"s better not to argue with women."

"...maybe weakness is not the worst quality for a woman."


http://abcnews.go.com...

Discuss.

Personally, if Russia truly is a democracy, I would think he just alienated half the Russian population.

I'm glad you brought this up. This is one of several reservations I have about HIllary running in 16'. I get that America is ready to prove to the world that we treat women equally by putting one into office (literally same thing with Obama), but we have to consider the effect it would have on the rest of the world. We would instantly lose respect from any male leaders who rule in a society where equalism isn't present. The lack of respect that several power players in other nations have towards women is going to be an issue.

That's a terrible reason to not want a woman president. I personally don't like Hillary or want her in office, but as a whole not wanting a woman in office because of what "other people might think" is a terrible reason that goes against standard American principles.

I think alot of people would agree with you in regards to my reasoning. I'm curious now though, why don't you support her as a potential President?

I think that claim is way too close to the "Will the world respect a Black President?"
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 12:59:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 11:27:39 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/15/2014 8:19:59 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 6/15/2014 8:09:18 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/12/2014 1:52:02 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 6/10/2014 5:54:29 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
"It"s better not to argue with women."

"...maybe weakness is not the worst quality for a woman."


http://abcnews.go.com...

Discuss.

Personally, if Russia truly is a democracy, I would think he just alienated half the Russian population.

I'm glad you brought this up. This is one of several reservations I have about HIllary running in 16'. I get that America is ready to prove to the world that we treat women equally by putting one into office (literally same thing with Obama), but we have to consider the effect it would have on the rest of the world. We would instantly lose respect from any male leaders who rule in a society where equalism isn't present. The lack of respect that several power players in other nations have towards women is going to be an issue.

That's a terrible reason to not want a woman president. I personally don't like Hillary or want her in office, but as a whole not wanting a woman in office because of what "other people might think" is a terrible reason that goes against standard American principles.

I think alot of people would agree with you in regards to my reasoning. I'm curious now though, why don't you support her as a potential President?

I think that claim is way too close to the "Will the world respect a Black President?"

It is, and alot of people would probably agree with you. I just have yet to be convinced she is actually worthy of being a President after not even being able to handle the responsibilities of being Secretary of State. Alot of her supports claim she did an amazing job aside from Benghazi, and yet are too blind to realize that regardless of how she did - she couldn't cut it at the end of the day. So why on Earth would anyone think she'd make a good president when she couldn't even manage the responsibilities of a lesser office? I mean, hell, even John Kerry has managed to keep the job - she couldn't even do THAT!
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 3:53:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 1:18:56 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Do you know any better Bread and Circus candidate?

That's who the people want.

What you mean is that the people want to vote for someone that is marketable. You can hardly blame them. Romney proved himself to be unmarketable during his 2012 campaign.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 3:54:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/10/2014 1:25:49 PM, Cermank wrote:
He's a global troll. But yeah, a dick move nonetheless. I can't even agree with him even though I found hillary's comments kinda unwarranted.

I initially thought about writing a gigantic post in response to this but decided not to, lol.

All I'll say is that that's a rather astute observation about Putin...that he's not really forwarding his own vision but rather just kind of rubbing it in the West's face when their vision proves to be problematic. That certainly is rather trollish.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Artur
Posts: 719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 3:57:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
it does not matter whether we love Putin or not, he is a good person or not, we can not change the fact that he is the powerfull person at the moment.
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 4:10:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 1:36:38 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 6/15/2014 1:38:31 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/14/2014 1:51:35 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 6/14/2014 6:33:42 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

Alright, fair enough. So why do you support her as President. I feel I might be unfairly bashing her if you guys who support her know something I don't. So please, explain to me why she should be President over someone like Rand Paul.

1) Obama's foreign policy is probably the strongest mark of his presidency. Hillary was directly responsible for his record. She was known to have been tireless at the job and to have mended relationships that were badly strained during Bush II.

What relationships? This is me asking out of pure lack of knowledge in that regard. What relationships did she fix that Bush Jr. damaged so badly?

Fair enough, this could be more my own perception than any factual splintering of relationships. What I will point out though is that Colin Powell was a rather popular Secretary of State that got crucified on comments he made to the UN regarding WMDs and Iraq. We ended up turning our backs to the UN when we waged that war, and Powell's resignation was not only a political hari-kiri by Powell but also a statement about how far the Bush administration was willing to split with the UN, which IMHO is an organization that was set up to facilitate US administration of a post-WWII world order.

By turning our backs to the UN, we turned our backs on the responsibility we shouldered in regards to building the world back up after WWII. I don't think there's much if any precedence for the US doing this in such a public fashion. Iran, sure, but not us.

Hillary worked rather feverishly in getting some semblance of working with the rest of the world again. Powell was known to have been the least traveled SECDEF in US history, Hillary in contrast was known to have been the most traveled.

Furthermore, Obama has been rather aggressive, as much so as during the Reagan/Bush era.

2) Hillary's resume is impressive even without her term as Secretary of State. One of Bill Clinton's most well-known pushes as POTUS was for what Obama eventually passed - health care reform (which back then was a bi-partisan issue, like Social security and Medicare).

Do you mean to say she helped get the ball rolling on what would eventually evolve into Obamacare? Or some other kind of health care reform?

I would say that Obamacare is simply another step in the evolution. It's the first time some sort of comprehensive health care reform legislation was passed since Medicare.

This initiative was spearheaded by Hillary while she was First Lady...unprecedented.

3) There's simply not much going on in the GOP. Bush II fractured the party, and it's yet to recover. There's simply no standard-bearer for the party, except perhaps McCain who has always been somewhat of an outsider in the GOP establishment. Bush II was directly responsible for McCain needing to completely break from the GOP establishment and to try something daring in Sarah Palin, which completely backfired for him and hastened the fracturing of the GOP. Palin marked the birth of the Tea Party.

I would agree that McCain made a mistake taking Palin into his campaign.

So this is why someone like Rand Paul doesn't stand a chance? Because he's with the split party at the moment? It makes sense if that is the case, I mean, I don't think anyone can deny the GOP has some internal issues to work out.

Agree, a split party is a losing party. We have a democratic system, and it's simply numbers at that point. The political game IMHO is typically the GOP's to lose, but when there's a fracture in the party, that means that any one faction within the GOP will not be able to win a majority come election time.

4) Rand Paul and Ron Paul have only become popular because of the abysmal failings of Bush II. During Bush's presidency, anything and everything a GOP libertarian warned could go wrong did go wrong - globalization (especially financial globalization) was an economic catastrophe for the US, and our foreign endeavors became perceived to be so interventionalist without any real payoff that it nearly destroyed American credibility abroad.

I'd say the biggest hit we took from financial globalization efforts was the blow to the American labor markets, and ultimately agree with you in both that regard and in terms of our interventionalist persona we've come to gain from our actions. Are you saying that Hillary has the best chance at fixing these two issues? How are we to know that she won't continue Obama's efforts in modern drone warfare or further expansion efforts in terms of American/Western influence in the Eastern world? Is she not just another George Soros puppet like Obama?

Drone warfare is a highly publicized issue that when it comes down to it is currently immaterial in modern warfare. Add up all the civilian casualties from drone warfare and compare it to the civilian casualties in Iraq, and you will get something less than 2% the rate of death, probably less than 1%. People are just afraid of the implications.

I don't know what you mean by the Soros comment and I'm not willing to speculate on what you mean.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 5:04:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 4:10:39 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Fair enough, this could be more my own perception than any factual splintering of relationships. What I will point out though is that Colin Powell was a rather popular Secretary of State that got crucified on comments he made to the UN regarding WMDs and Iraq. We ended up turning our backs to the UN when we waged that war, and Powell's resignation was not only a political hari-kiri by Powell but also a statement about how far the Bush administration was willing to split with the UN, which IMHO is an organization that was set up to facilitate US administration of a post-WWII world order.

By turning our backs to the UN, we turned our backs on the responsibility we shouldered in regards to building the world back up after WWII. I don't think there's much if any precedence for the US doing this in such a public fashion. Iran, sure, but not us.

Agreed.

Hillary worked rather feverishly in getting some semblance of working with the rest of the world again. Powell was known to have been the least traveled SECDEF in US history, Hillary in contrast was known to have been the most traveled.

Alright, so she would be active in terms of presence around the world. I suppose this is a good thing, but will her ambitions of global presence hinder her abilities to focus on the vital issues on the domestic front? One of the reasons I support Rand Paul is because, although he isn't nearly as isolationist as his father, he has an awareness and desire to fix certain issues we face domestically especially considering his non-interventionist military policy. Wouldn't Hillary continue these military actions such as drone warfare overseas that Obama is currently partaking in?

2) Hillary's resume is impressive even without her term as Secretary of State. One of Bill Clinton's most well-known pushes as POTUS was for what Obama eventually passed - health care reform (which back then was a bi-partisan issue, like Social security and Medicare).

Do you mean to say she helped get the ball rolling on what would eventually evolve into Obamacare? Or some other kind of health care reform?

I would say that Obamacare is simply another step in the evolution. It's the first time some sort of comprehensive health care reform legislation was passed since Medicare.

I'm still not sold on Obamacare, so for me, it's not necessarily a step in the right direction if she continues his plans in that regard. There are some serious flaws with the program, imo, in regards to the increased cost in government spending on healthcare that is now a burden not only on the public but also on the government. Also, the issue of sharing the burden, currently - not everyone - is paying into this system who actually receive the benefits. That needs to be fixed. I do not support the wealthy having to pay for the healthcare of the poor. The program that claims to benefit all, should be paid for by all.

3) There's simply not much going on in the GOP. Bush II fractured the party, and it's yet to recover. There's simply no standard-bearer for the party, except perhaps McCain who has always been somewhat of an outsider in the GOP establishment. Bush II was directly responsible for McCain needing to completely break from the GOP establishment and to try something daring in Sarah Palin, which completely backfired for him and hastened the fracturing of the GOP. Palin marked the birth of the Tea Party.

I would agree that McCain made a mistake taking Palin into his campaign.

So this is why someone like Rand Paul doesn't stand a chance? Because he's with the split party at the moment? It makes sense if that is the case, I mean, I don't think anyone can deny the GOP has some internal issues to work out.

Agree, a split party is a losing party. We have a democratic system, and it's simply numbers at that point. The political game IMHO is typically the GOP's to lose, but when there's a fracture in the party, that means that any one faction within the GOP will not be able to win a majority come election time.

I agree, and that is a major problem for anyone who isn't a democrat.

4) Rand Paul and Ron Paul have only become popular because of the abysmal failings of Bush II. During Bush's presidency, anything and everything a GOP libertarian warned could go wrong did go wrong - globalization (especially financial globalization) was an economic catastrophe for the US, and our foreign endeavors became perceived to be so interventionalist without any real payoff that it nearly destroyed American credibility abroad.

I'd say the biggest hit we took from financial globalization efforts was the blow to the American labor markets, and ultimately agree with you in both that regard and in terms of our interventionalist persona we've come to gain from our actions. Are you saying that Hillary has the best chance at fixing these two issues? How are we to know that she won't continue Obama's efforts in modern drone warfare or further expansion efforts in terms of American/Western influence in the Eastern world? Is she not just another George Soros puppet like Obama?

Drone warfare is a highly publicized issue that when it comes down to it is currently immaterial in modern warfare. Add up all the civilian casualties from drone warfare and compare it to the civilian casualties in Iraq, and you will get something less than 2% the rate of death, probably less than 1%. People are just afraid of the implications.

That's because the implications involve the loss of innocent lives. Everyone understands that with wars (or in this case, a military conflict based on resource allocation) comes death. The issue is, at-least for me, the innocent children who are killed in such conflicts by U.S. drones. It's a needless and avoidable waste of life.

I don't know what you mean by the Soros comment and I'm not willing to speculate on what you mean.

In December of 2006, Soros, who had previously hosted a fundraiser for Obama during the latter's 2004 Senate campaign, met with Obama in Soros's New York office. Just a few weeks later, on January 16, 2007, Obama announced that he would form a presidential exploratory committee and was contemplating a run for the White House. Within hours, Soros sent the senator a contribution of $2,100, the maximum amount allowable under campaign-finance laws. Later that week, the New York Daily News reported that Soros would support Obama rather than Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, though Soros pledged to back the New York senator were she to emerge as the nominee.1 But it was clear that Soros considered Obama to be the more electable candidate of the two. Most importantly, Obama's economic and political prescriptions for America were wholly accordant with those of Soros.

The effects of their relationship:

Barack Obama's decision to prop up New Guinea's oil industry while at the same time derailing American energy independence. American energy starvation is the Obama plan on the table, but watch the hand behind his back. Who owns Interoil, the New Guinea oil company? A major holder of Interoil is George Soros. This is nearly the same situation that occurred last year with Brazilian oil company named Petrobas. The Obama administration lent Brazil millions to prop up the Brazilian oil company, Petrobas. Soros owned large stock holdings and the next thing you know, Obama tells Brazil we want to become their best customer. At the same time, Obama has shut down the Gulf coast oil industry and refused to process oil exploration and drilling permits to American companies.

There is so much more on the relationship between those two... It's amazing. Clearly Hillary is also under Soros' thumb, hence my question originally. Now you know :)
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 5:11:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Sources for the last part of that response:

1) http://freedomoutpost.com...

2) http://www.discoverthenetworks.org...

and additional sources - just a few among hundreds.

3) http://www.westernjournalism.com...

4) http://sorosfiles.com...

5) http://freebeacon.com...
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 5:21:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 5:04:39 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 6/16/2014 4:10:39 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

2) Hillary's resume is impressive even without her term as Secretary of State. One of Bill Clinton's most well-known pushes as POTUS was for what Obama eventually passed - health care reform (which back then was a bi-partisan issue, like Social security and Medicare).

Do you mean to say she helped get the ball rolling on what would eventually evolve into Obamacare? Or some other kind of health care reform?

I would say that Obamacare is simply another step in the evolution. It's the first time some sort of comprehensive health care reform legislation was passed since Medicare.

I'm still not sold on Obamacare, so for me, it's not necessarily a step in the right direction if she continues his plans in that regard. There are some serious flaws with the program, imo, in regards to the increased cost in government spending on healthcare that is now a burden not only on the public but also on the government. Also, the issue of sharing the burden, currently - not everyone - is paying into this system who actually receive the benefits. That needs to be fixed. I do not support the wealthy having to pay for the healthcare of the poor. The program that claims to benefit all, should be paid for by all.

Yeah, I'm not an advocate for Obamacare specifically, but I'm certainly an advocate for some sort of feasible health care reform. An evolution of Obamacare would not necessarily mean that Obamacare is a success. After all, Hillary's initial proposal was a failure when she was first lady...but IMHO she laid the political groundwork for Obamacare to get passed. That the first lady (or any actual politician for that matter) was able to do this level of politicking on an issue that most people wanted to see happen is quite impressive.

4) Rand Paul and Ron Paul have only become popular because of the abysmal failings of Bush II. During Bush's presidency, anything and everything a GOP libertarian warned could go wrong did go wrong - globalization (especially financial globalization) was an economic catastrophe for the US, and our foreign endeavors became perceived to be so interventionalist without any real payoff that it nearly destroyed American credibility abroad.

I'd say the biggest hit we took from financial globalization efforts was the blow to the American labor markets, and ultimately agree with you in both that regard and in terms of our interventionalist persona we've come to gain from our actions. Are you saying that Hillary has the best chance at fixing these two issues? How are we to know that she won't continue Obama's efforts in modern drone warfare or further expansion efforts in terms of American/Western influence in the Eastern world? Is she not just another George Soros puppet like Obama?

Drone warfare is a highly publicized issue that when it comes down to it is currently immaterial in modern warfare. Add up all the civilian casualties from drone warfare and compare it to the civilian casualties in Iraq, and you will get something less than 2% the rate of death, probably less than 1%. People are just afraid of the implications.

That's because the implications involve the loss of innocent lives. Everyone understands that with wars (or in this case, a military conflict based on resource allocation) comes death. The issue is, at-least for me, the innocent children who are killed in such conflicts by U.S. drones. It's a needless and avoidable waste of life.

Again, I'm not comparing military casualties in Iraq to civilian casualties from drone attacks. I'm comparing civilian casualties in Iraq to civilian casualties from drone warfare. The numbers for drone warfare pale in significance to the numbers from conventional warfare.

I don't know what you mean by the Soros comment and I'm not willing to speculate on what you mean.

In December of 2006, Soros, who had previously hosted a fundraiser for Obama during the latter's 2004 Senate campaign, met with Obama in Soros's New York office. Just a few weeks later, on January 16, 2007, Obama announced that he would form a presidential exploratory committee and was contemplating a run for the White House. Within hours, Soros sent the senator a contribution of $2,100, the maximum amount allowable under campaign-finance laws. Later that week, the New York Daily News reported that Soros would support Obama rather than Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, though Soros pledged to back the New York senator were she to emerge as the nominee.1 But it was clear that Soros considered Obama to be the more electable candidate of the two. Most importantly, Obama's economic and political prescriptions for America were wholly accordant with those of Soros.

None of this even suggests that Soros was causal in framing Obama's mindset.

The effects of their relationship:

Barack Obama's decision to prop up New Guinea's oil industry while at the same time derailing American energy independence. American energy starvation is the Obama plan on the table, but watch the hand behind his back. Who owns Interoil, the New Guinea oil company? A major holder of Interoil is George Soros. This is nearly the same situation that occurred last year with Brazilian oil company named Petrobas. The Obama administration lent Brazil millions to prop up the Brazilian oil company, Petrobas. Soros owned large stock holdings and the next thing you know, Obama tells Brazil we want to become their best customer. At the same time, Obama has shut down the Gulf coast oil industry and refused to process oil exploration and drilling permits to American companies.

This is an interesting theory, but there are much larger players in energy besides Brazil or New Guinea.

Personally, I would also look into Reagan and Bush I's strong connections in the Middle East. Bush was on very friendly terms with various oil sheikhs. Reagan's inauguration coincided with the end of the Iran hostage crisis. Coincidence?

Did that make them unelectable? No.

I would also note that the Middle East is THE PLAYER when it comes to fossil fuels and thus the energy market. Aramco alone is several times the size of all the US oil majors COMBINED.

There is so much more on the relationship between those two... It's amazing. Clearly Hillary is also under Soros' thumb, hence my question originally. Now you know :)
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?