Hillary is starting look doubtful....

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by boardman

Her door of opportunity is wide open at the moment. It would be nice to see the Democrats eat their own for a change.

Have you forgotten 2008? That was an epic battle between Clinton & Obama.

[boardman]

Originally Posted by bigtex

Have you forgotten 2008? That was an epic battle between Clinton & Obama.

I really just remember HC nipping at Obama's heels while he pretty much dismissed her antics. (kinda the way he dismisses everything else). EW would punch back like you can only see in a girl fight.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by boardman

I really just remember HC nipping at Obama's heels while he pretty much dismissed her antics. (kinda the way he dismisses everything else). EW would punch back like you can only see in a girl fight.

I do not believe EW will even through her hat into the ring.

Even if she did, I believe a moderate Democrat and a moderate Republican will get their party's nomination in 2016.

EW is not considered a moderate Dem!

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Stupidity runs deep in your clan dull knife.
1 You do not know the color of one stones skin
2 you do not know the color of my skin.
3 There is not a more raciest than you are being a Jew hater as you have demonstrated over and over.
4 Time for you to STFU
5 As I said before u give a pass to someone indicating I am queer, but want to give me shit when I reply with another jab. You are just a irritating old coot. Get a life while there is still time.
6 Keep grasping straws in hopes of getting enough for your straw man argument.

Getting pretty defensive, aren't you, LittleEva? I don't know about "stone's skin", nor do I care about yours. You are the one who used an African American to make a derogatory comment about another, using it as an insult. Not me.

And you are wrong about me being a "Jew hater". I don't support Israel. There's a difference, which you are unable to comprehend.

Sorry, dude. Just admit you're a racist, and try to get better.

[LexusLover]

[QUOTE=bigtex;1055564337]Actually, I predicted the ill fated and ill advised, spring of 2003 invasion of Iraq would not end up well for American interests, long before it became fashionable for many others to do so./QUOTE]

AFTER the invasion, of course. PRIOR TO IT ... you were not opposed to it.

But I understand your "concerns" ...

.... that's why I would not recommend betting with you.

You re-call it after the coin toss and proclaim victory.

But look at it this way ... you have lots of company ...

Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, etc. etc.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

AFTER the invasion, of course. PRIOR TO IT ... you were not opposed to it.

A miracle has finally occurred. There is a shred of truth in a LLIdiot post regarding "the invasion."

Of course, I wasn't opposed to "the invasion" prior to "the invasion" actually occurring. At that point, there was no actual "invasion" to oppose. DUH!

The invasion" was merely one of several options being discussed during the weeks and months leading up to the ill fated and ill advised, spring of 2003 "invasion" of Iraq.

While "the invasion" was my least favorable option at the time, I remained hopeful that common sense would eventually prevail. Obviously, the common sense approach did not occur! After all, no one with any common sense, ever mistook Shrubbie and Darth Cheney for having a common sense approach to resolving world problems.

My stern opposition came immediately after the "invasion" actually occurred. Why? Because Shrubbie set common sense aside and authorized the ill fated and ill advised, spring of 2003 "invasion" of Iraq that ultimately led to 4500+ American soldiers losing their lives, at a cost of almost $1 trillion taxpayer dollars.

BAD DECISION!

From a historical perspective, "the invasion" was, and still remains, the worst American foreign policy decision by an American President since the Vietnam War.

With all that said, I would like to commend LLIdiot for finally telling us something truthful on these pages. We all know that LLIdiot has a long, sordid history of telling his distorted version of the truth. But we remain hopeful that more LLIdiot truths will soon follow! Minus the distorted version(s), of course!

Way to go LLIdiot!

[Jewish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by bigtex

Of course, I wasn't opposed to "the invasion" prior to "the invasion" actually occurring. At that point, there was no actual "invasion" to oppose. DUH!

So if someone sez they are going to invade someone, you cannot oppose "the invasion" in advance because it hasn't occurred?
So, if I propose JD gets out his flamethrower and turns you to a crisp, you cannot oppose that until it actually occurs?

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Getting pretty defensive, aren't you, LittleEva? I don't know about "stone's skin", nor do I care about yours. You are the one who used an African American to make a derogatory comment about another, using it as an insult. Not me.

And you are wrong about me being a "Jew hater". I don't support Israel. There's a difference, which you are unable to comprehend.

Sorry, dude. Just admit you're a racist, and try to get better.

You poor hand wringing old queen,there has been more pissing and moaning coming from your direction over something that was not directed at you. Have you become a bleeding heart liberal? Whining old fart..

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

So if someone sez they are going to invade someone, you cannot oppose "the invasion" in advance because it hasn't occurred?
So, if I propose JD gets out his flamethrower and turns you to a crisp, you cannot oppose that until it actually occurs?

Why am I not surprised that one of LLIdiot's, idiot sons would jump to the defense of the Patriarch of the Notorious Idiot Klan, errrr Clan?

For the record, I clearly stated that "the invasion" "was my least favorite option at the time" (go back and read my previous post) prior to "the invasion" actually occurring. I was not opposed to the threat of "the invasion", it was "the invasion" itself that I opposed. Apparently neither you or your Patriarch understand that a basic concept in negotiations, is the threat of what you might do. It does not necessarily mean that you will do it, but the threat is there.

Obviously, "the invasion" could not take place until "the invasion" actually occurred.

Bottom line: There is a distinct difference between the threat of an "invasion" and "the invasion" itself.

DUH!!!

So yes, I did not oppose "the invasion" until it actually occurred. Why? Because there was no "invasion" to oppose until the invasion" actually happened.

These Idiot's are a DENSE Klan, errrrr Clan.

As for your brother JDIdiot's mentioning a flamethrower. Where in the hell did that come from? Was it a threat? If so, it is probably not a very good idea to advertise intentions.

I have nothing against flamethrowers. They have a variety of military and enforcement uses. But I personally have never had any desire to own one.

It should be noted that I am a lifelong gun enthusiast. I have several rifles but my favorite is a .300 Mark V Weatherby Magnum. It is extremely accurate with ample knockdown power and excellent long-range capabilities. It should be noted that I am pretty damn good behind the trigger!

Just sayin'

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

So if someone sez they are going to invade someone, you cannot oppose "the invasion" in advance because it hasn't occurred?
So, if I propose JD gets out his flamethrower and turns you to a crisp, you cannot oppose that until it actually occurs?

You have dissected and diagrammed the mental processes of BigTits ...


... he can't bet on something until there is a coin toss on which to bet!!!!!

Actually what BigTitsLiarStalker is trying to "cover" with BIG LETTERS .... IS

he wanted the Bush Administration to give the "inspectors" six (6) more MONTHS before beginning any "invasion" .... !

Added to the 12 prior YEARS of trying to get cooperation!

BigTitsLiarStalker would stand out in the street (on the sidelines) and insist the cops give the kidnapper/murderer SIX MORE HOURS with his favorite family member BEFORE THEY KICK THE DOOR to find and extract "his favorite family member"!!!!!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bigtex

For the record,


Bottom line: There is a distinct difference between the threat of an invasion and "the invasion" itself.

So yes, I did not oppose "the invasion" ....

"We" know about threatening military action and not taking it ...

... and "we" have recently seen the consequences of doing so!

Well, "we" except apparently you, BigTitsLiarStalker!!!

As a result I am now aware of why you are a loyal Obaminable supporter!

To you, and Obaminable, .....

......... HOT AIR is a good offense.

But thanks for finally admitting the invasion was ok with you!

"Carry on"!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

So if someone sez they are going to invade someone, ....

Not to detract from this therapy session with BigTits ....

...http://news.msn.com/world/gaza-rocke...rian-lull-ends

Green Light!

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

he wanted the Bush Administration to give the "inspectors" six (6) more MONTHS before beginning any "invasion" .... !

Yes, additional time for the Weapons Inspectors to complete their assigned task was much more than the option I was referring to. It was clearly the best and most viable option! I thought that at the time and I am even more convinced today.

I suspect that most of the 4500+ families who lost a loved one following the ill fated and ill advised spring of 2003 would probably agree. Attaining final confirmation from the Weapons Inspectors should have been a top priority, but it obviously was not to the Shrubbie/Darth Administration.

It was not as if "the invasion" had to occur during the spring of 2003. If WMD's were found by the Weapons Inspectors, 'the invasion' could have just as easily been delayed to the fall of 2003. Could it not?

LLIdiot, you are living proof that it is hard to teach an old, worn out dog, new tricks! Go ahead and cling to your mistaken notion that Shrubbie made a noble gesture and the even more mistakable notion that the world is now a safer place because of the actions of the "Decider-in-Chief."

Meanwhile, an overwhelming percentage of the residents of this country soon came to realize that the ill fated and ill advised spring of 2003 of Iraq was a mistake of monumental proportions. In fact, I would submit that it was the worst foreign policy mistake made by an American President since the Vietnam War. Truth be known, there is not a close 2nd!

LLIdiot, thanks for nothing!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bigtex

Yes, additional time for the Weapons Inspectors to complete their assigned task was much more than the option I was referring to.

Oh.....!!! NOW you want to redefine the "assigned task" of the "Weapons Inspectors"!!!!!

Like I said ...... before ..... don't bet with BigTitsLiarStalker ....

Since this is a Hillary (aka Hillarious) thread ... why don't we ask her what was ...

...the "assigned task" of the "Weapons Inspectors"!!!!!

I think before, BigTitsLiarStalker, you proclaimed their "assigned task" was to "FIND" the "NUCLEAR WEAPONS/MATERIAL" in Iraq .....

.. are you still sticking with that "proclamation" of yours?

Before you further humiliate yourself .. brush up .... and here is a CNN link .... to give you some Liberal Cover ...... of "credibility"!!!

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/30/world/...ns-fast-facts/

Please review carefully Paragraph C beginning on Page 4 of the U.N. Resolution 687 (which was "accepted by Iraq on April 6, 1991).

1991 to 2003 = 12 years!

You want 6 more months ..... for what?

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Oh.....!!! NOW you want to redefine the "assigned task" of the "Weapons Inspectors"!!!!!

Actually, my position has not changed since the ill fated and ill advised spring of 2003 invasion of Iraq.

While my position did not change, your memory (or lack thereof) conveniently has!

In any event, you were wrong then and you are even more wrong today.

The simple fact remains, the ill fated and ill advised spring of 2003 invasion of Iraq was a huge mistake. It remains a huge mistake today, eleven years later. In fact, it was the worst mistake made by an American President since the War in Vietnam.

LLIdiot, your blatant attempt to obfuscate will not change the simple facts!

As your favorite nephew TrendingIdiot would say:

FACT JACK

Before I forget: Thanks for nothing! Idiot!!!!!