What do y'all think about this Hillary Clinton meme???

Mask

"OneOfTheBest"
Platinum Member
trump can't do anything with Obamacare...Obamacare is the law of the land.

Only congress or the courts can do anything with it. And neither wants to because the insurance companies are making more money and so is the pharmaceutical companies. The same people giving them millions.

not voting for Hillary or Trump doesn't mean not voting for congress or state and local.

Neither the GOP or the Democrats are getting rid of Obamacare because it is working and their people like it.

There was just ad article saying more and more GOP like Obamacare just don't call it that.

not for nothing Trump been saying the trade agreements are fucking up jobs which we know because US steel is almost nonexistent. Look at Chicago, Pittsburgh and other places that lost because of the steel industry tanking for Chinese steel.


Ummm ok...ain't Obamacare is something they wanted to get done for a while but just couldn't?


Your take on the steel market is 100.
Being in the refinery industry I often read shipping packages, I often see Mexico, along with steel coming from overseas...


So trump business wall idea, ain't a bad idea. If they companies want to leave fine, but when u import back into the states you gonna have a price to pay via import fees.

The notion of moving your company leaving freely to avoid labor cost, but to return here to sell your product freely should be unacceptable.

Probably the only thing I agree with that trump have said.
 

ballscout1

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Such Bullshit

We are still paying for George W. Bush to this day.

Everything positive gained with Obama will be gone. It will take 30+ years to recover from Trump.

And seriously fuck you for always deflecting for republicans...

Trump and the republicans controlling all congress won't do anything to Obamacare huh....fuck you and that bullshit.


Stop talking in general and be specific.

What are we black people still paying for ?

What positive gains have we achieved under Obama.

Obama bailed out the banks that caused the housing crash but what about the homeowners who now have underwater mortgages ?

Stop using words like deflecting because that is all you do towards Hillary. Somebody points out her fuckery and you post articles about something else.

be specific.

and don't tell me what illegals and fags have gotten
 

ballscout1

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Ummm ok...ain't Obamacare is something they wanted to get done for a while but just couldn't?


Your take on the steel market is 100.
Being in the refinery industry I often read shipping packages, I often see Mexico, along with steel coming from overseas...


So trump business wall idea, ain't a bad idea. If they companies want to leave fine, but when u import back into the states you gonna have a price to pay via import fees.

The notion of moving your company leaving freely to avoid labor cost, but to return here to sell your product freely should be unacceptable.

Probably the only thing I agree with that trump have said.

No actually what they have wanted to get done was medicare for all.

Obamacare has some good components like no limit on care , no pre-existing condition disqualification, free exams but it still has high cost for drugs and services and while many uninsured are now insured there are still millions uninsured..

And it isn't just steel, its manufacturing in general.

But as I said , the next president can't get rid of Obamacare so that is just a scare tactic....GOP congress played that game because Obama would veto but it was always just a game.
 

gene cisco

Not A BGOL Eunuch
BGOL Investor
so ok...

what the F*CK we gonna do IF Trump actually wins though?

Bruh, it ain't even that serious. He's not a true Republican. You see how quickly he switched up on minimum wage? He just took the easiest path to get into the general. He's probably laughing about that Mexican wall shit and banning Muslims(both aren't black issues anyway). He played the far right like the Clintons play the black vote.

Maybe we will do the same shit under Trump/Clinton as we did under Obama. "What do you want him/her to do about black issues? He/She is president of ALL of America" :eek: That bullshit even made it into the new Barbershop movie. :smh:
 

humble

Rising Star
Registered
I think it's interesting that you have done a complete 180 degrees. You used to be the biggest Obama shill. Now you aren't supporting his Sec of State? Boom! Mind blown!

Stop talking in general and be specific.

What are we black people still paying for ?

What positive gains have we achieved under Obama.

Obama bailed out the banks that caused the housing crash but what about the homeowners who now have underwater mortgages ?

Stop using words like deflecting because that is all you do towards Hillary. Somebody points out her fuckery and you post articles about something else.

be specific.

and don't tell me what illegals and fags have gotten
 

ballscout1

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
I think it's interesting that you have done a complete 180 degrees. You used to be the biggest Obama shill. Now you aren't supporting his Sec of State? Boom! Mind blown!

I have always known that her being named Secretary of State was a backroom deal to line her up for the nomination after Obamas term was done.

She wasn't qualified but in return for the Clinton machine supporting Obama there was a payoff.

I still support Obama even though he has ignored black people generally.

Supporting Obama has nothing to do with Hillary.

You could be my friend and have another friend that I don't fuck with. One thing has nothing to do with the other.
 

Watcher

Rising Star
Platinum Member
Stop talking in general and be specific.

What are we black people still paying for ?

What positive gains have we achieved under Obama.

Obama bailed out the banks that caused the housing crash but what about the homeowners who now have underwater mortgages ?

Stop using words like deflecting because that is all you do towards Hillary. Somebody points out her fuckery and you post articles about something else.

be specific.

and don't tell me what illegals and fags have gotten

NEO-CONSERVATIVES: On January 27, 1998—three and a half years before the 9/11 attacks—the Project for the New American Century published an open letter in The Washington Times urging President Clinton to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein. Among the eighteen signatories to this letter were ten people who would later join the Bush Administration. They are:
• Donald Rumsfeld: Secretary of Defense
• John Bolton: U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations
• Paul Wolfowitz: President of the World Bank and formerly Deputy Secretary of Defense
• Zalmay Khalilzad: U.S. Ambassador to Iraq
• Robert Zoellick: Deputy Secretary of State
• Elliott Abrams: Deputy National Security Advisor
• Peter Rodman: Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs
• Paula Dobriansky: Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs
• Richard Armitage: Former Assistant Secretary of Defense
• Richard Perle: Former Chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board
Among the other founders of the Project for the New American Century were Dick Cheney, Lewis (Scooter) Libby, Jeb Bush and Dan Quayle.

In 1998, these neo-conservatives wanted to overthrow Saddam Hussein because it was “almost certain” that he would “acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction,” thus putting at risk American troops, Israel, moderate Arab states “and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil.” Sure enough, five years later, when the neo-conservatives got their invasion and Iraq was descending into chaos and looting, U.S. troops made a beeline to secure its oil facilities.

This unfinished business concerned Bush directly. Saddam had earlier tried to have assassins attack his father while on a Middle East trip. The fact that Saddam “tried to kill [his] dad” evidently weighed on his decisionmaking.

There is no doubt his hatred is mainly directed at us," Bush said. "There's no doubt he can't stand us. After all, this is a guy that tried to kill my dad at one time."


Other lies were told to this effect. Two months after the 9/11 attacks, on December 9, 2001, Dick Cheney went on Meet the Press and, when asked by Tim Russert whether “Iraq was involved in September 11,” mentioned a “report that’s been pretty well confirmed, that [9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.”

In fact, the CIA had told Cheney this report was false a day before his Meet the Press appearance. In a briefing that was sent to the White House Situation Room, the CIA concluded that “11 September 2001 hijacker Mohamed Atta did not travel to the Czech Republic on 31 May 2000.” Cheney cited it anyways.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/iraq-war-costs/

Tell me again how it didn't affect Black lives? A lie made up by Dick Cheney to trick all of America into war.

http://www.phillytrib.com/news/mino...e27-ef47-56c9-926a-c2c613cbdd72.html?mode=jqm

article-2075032-0F32A6EA00000578-515_306x346.jpg


Naples Daily News
Saturday, April 12, 2003

Conflict with Iraq: Study shows 20 percent of war deaths are blacks

By THOMAS HARGROVE, Scripps Howard News Service

Nearly a fifth of the fatalities among U.S. troops in the current war in Iraq are black, which will be the highest cost African Americans have paid in any of America's
wars if the trend continues.
 

ballscout1

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
NEO-CONSERVATIVES: On January 27, 1998—three and a half years before the 9/11 attacks—the Project for the New American Century published an open letter in The Washington Times urging President Clinton to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein. Among the eighteen signatories to this letter were ten people who would later join the Bush Administration. They are:
• Donald Rumsfeld: Secretary of Defense
• John Bolton: U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations
• Paul Wolfowitz: President of the World Bank and formerly Deputy Secretary of Defense
• Zalmay Khalilzad: U.S. Ambassador to Iraq
• Robert Zoellick: Deputy Secretary of State
• Elliott Abrams: Deputy National Security Advisor
• Peter Rodman: Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs
• Paula Dobriansky: Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs
• Richard Armitage: Former Assistant Secretary of Defense
• Richard Perle: Former Chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board
Among the other founders of the Project for the New American Century were Dick Cheney, Lewis (Scooter) Libby, Jeb Bush and Dan Quayle.

In 1998, these neo-conservatives wanted to overthrow Saddam Hussein because it was “almost certain” that he would “acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction,” thus putting at risk American troops, Israel, moderate Arab states “and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil.” Sure enough, five years later, when the neo-conservatives got their invasion and Iraq was descending into chaos and looting, U.S. troops made a beeline to secure its oil facilities.

This unfinished business concerned Bush directly. Saddam had earlier tried to have assassins attack his father while on a Middle East trip. The fact that Saddam “tried to kill [his] dad” evidently weighed on his decisionmaking.

There is no doubt his hatred is mainly directed at us," Bush said. "There's no doubt he can't stand us. After all, this is a guy that tried to kill my dad at one time."


Other lies were told to this effect. Two months after the 9/11 attacks, on December 9, 2001, Dick Cheney went on Meet the Press and, when asked by Tim Russert whether “Iraq was involved in September 11,” mentioned a “report that’s been pretty well confirmed, that [9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.”

In fact, the CIA had told Cheney this report was false a day before his Meet the Press appearance. In a briefing that was sent to the White House Situation Room, the CIA concluded that “11 September 2001 hijacker Mohamed Atta did not travel to the Czech Republic on 31 May 2000.” Cheney cited it anyways.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/iraq-war-costs/

Tell me again how it didn't affect Black lives? A lie made up by Dick Cheney to trick all of America into war.

http://www.phillytrib.com/news/mino...e27-ef47-56c9-926a-c2c613cbdd72.html?mode=jqm

article-2075032-0F32A6EA00000578-515_306x346.jpg


Naples Daily News
Saturday, April 12, 2003

Conflict with Iraq: Study shows 20 percent of war deaths are blacks

By THOMAS HARGROVE, Scripps Howard News Service

Nearly a fifth of the fatalities among U.S. troops in the current war in Iraq are black, which will be the highest cost African Americans have paid in any of America's
wars if the trend continues.


So once again you deflect and won't answer a question...

otay carry on.

you couldn't possibly be concerned with 20% black war deaths supporting a war hawk
 

Watcher

Rising Star
Platinum Member
So once again you deflect and won't answer a question...

otay carry on.

you couldn't possibly be concerned with 20% black war deaths supporting a war hawk
I answered your dumbass question...like you didnt know.

The war hawk label lie that you keep saying has be debunked.

Bill Clinton wouldn't invade Iraq when pressured by republicans. Learn to read.
 

Watcher

Rising Star
Platinum Member
So once again you deflect and won't answer a question...

otay carry on.

you couldn't possibly be concerned with 20% black war deaths supporting a war hawk

But don't take my word for it.

To truly understand Hillary Clinton's record, let's look at her own words and actions in an effort to see if she truly is a war hawk. Let's start with the Iraq vote because that is seen as the apex of her warlike desires. Clinton has gone on record by describing the reasoning behind her vote and the reason is as follows: George W. Bush lied about his intentions. To understand this, you have to look back to the events of October 2002 where Congress was about to vote on a resolution that would force Saddam Hussein to allow United Nations inspectors to verify whether or not Hussein had destroyed his chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons sites. Hillary Clinton, like many of her peers, believed that a yes vote would be a strong piece of leverage to finish the negotiations between the United Nations and Saddam Hussein. In fact, she spoke on the Senate floorand explained her position:

“The question is, how do we do our best to both diffuse the threat Saddam Hussein poses to his people, the region, including Israel, and the United States—and, at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations...

...There is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma...people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposing conclusions...I believe the best course is to go to the United Nations for a strong resolution for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded...

...If we get the resolution the president seeks, and Saddam complies disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated...If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise...

...Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first...I take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible. Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely—and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause—I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go away with delay will oppose any United Nations resolution calling for unrestricted inspections...

...This is a difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make. Any vote that may lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction...My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose...is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our president. And we say to him: Use these powers wisely and as a last resort.”
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2002-10-10/html/CREC-2002-10-10-pt1-PgS10233-7.htm
Seventy-six other senators agreed with Clinton's views including Joe Biden, Dianne Feinstein, Chris Dodd, and John Kerry and the resolution passed with a vote of 77-23. Of course, as we now know, President Bush did not use his powers as a last resort as Clinton implored but instead he used to vote to assert his authority to make war on Iraq in what became the worst foreign policy decision in forty years. However, to read Clinton's speech on the Senate floor and to understand the subsequent betrayal by President Bush, one can see that Clinton's vote simply echoes her philosophy that one should use military intervention only as a last resort. Unfortunately for the country, President Bush did not share this philosophy and he chose to engage in a preemptive military intervention, the effects of which led to a huge quagmire that our country, the Middle East, and the entire world as is still feeling to this day.
 

ballscout1

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
I answered your dumbass question...like you didnt know.

The war hawk label lie that you keep saying has be debunked.

Bill Clinton wouldn't invade Iraq when pressured by republicans. Learn to read.

you ain't answered shit with your cut and paste ass.

and we talking about Hildebeast being the war hawk

supported Iraq War

supported a coup in Honduras

pushed for nation building in Libya

was and is against the Iran deal.
 

ballscout1

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
But don't take my word for it.

To truly understand Hillary Clinton's record, let's look at her own words and actions in an effort to see if she truly is a war hawk. Let's start with the Iraq vote because that is seen as the apex of her warlike desires. Clinton has gone on record by describing the reasoning behind her vote and the reason is as follows: George W. Bush lied about his intentions. To understand this, you have to look back to the events of October 2002 where Congress was about to vote on a resolution that would force Saddam Hussein to allow United Nations inspectors to verify whether or not Hussein had destroyed his chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons sites. Hillary Clinton, like many of her peers, believed that a yes vote would be a strong piece of leverage to finish the negotiations between the United Nations and Saddam Hussein. In fact, she spoke on the Senate floorand explained her position:

“The question is, how do we do our best to both diffuse the threat Saddam Hussein poses to his people, the region, including Israel, and the United States—and, at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations...

...There is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma...people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposing conclusions...I believe the best course is to go to the United Nations for a strong resolution for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded...

...If we get the resolution the president seeks, and Saddam complies disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated...If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise...

...Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first...I take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible. Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely—and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause—I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go away with delay will oppose any United Nations resolution calling for unrestricted inspections...

...This is a difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make. Any vote that may lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction...My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose...is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our president. And we say to him: Use these powers wisely and as a last resort.”
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2002-10-10/html/CREC-2002-10-10-pt1-PgS10233-7.htm
Seventy-six other senators agreed with Clinton's views including Joe Biden, Dianne Feinstein, Chris Dodd, and John Kerry and the resolution passed with a vote of 77-23. Of course, as we now know, President Bush did not use his powers as a last resort as Clinton implored but instead he used to vote to assert his authority to make war on Iraq in what became the worst foreign policy decision in forty years. However, to read Clinton's speech on the Senate floor and to understand the subsequent betrayal by President Bush, one can see that Clinton's vote simply echoes her philosophy that one should use military intervention only as a last resort. Unfortunately for the country, President Bush did not share this philosophy and he chose to engage in a preemptive military intervention, the effects of which led to a huge quagmire that our country, the Middle East, and the entire world as is still feeling to this day.



mind your business and stay the fuck outta Iraq....

so how safe are the people there now ?

fukka nation builders always fuck up more than they help

wasn't worried about saddam when he was on the US payroll fighting Iran because the US overthrew and elected government and installed a Shah who sit on his people and gave rise to the fundamentalists.

but having a conversation with a mofokr who don't know shit and can only sut and paste is like spitting into the wind.
 

Damn Right

Rising Star
Registered
trump can't do anything with Obamacare...Obamacare is the law of the land.

Only congress or the courts can do anything with it.

you're only half right. a 'president trump' could definitely do something with obamacare. he could sign the bill to repeal the law, which is what would need to happen to get rid of it. although the process does start in the house, the gop already has both the house and senate. and they (again) voted to repeal Obamacare earlier this year, passing both the house and senate. but guess what? president Obama vetoed that mutha fuka soon as it got to his desk :lol: and then the gop made fools of themselves by trying to override his presidential veto. guess what? another fail. here's the info: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...de-presidents-veto-obamacare-repeal/79697108/

go here to learn how the entire process works: http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/...ident-have-the-power-to-repeal-a-federal-law/
 

ballscout1

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
The Zionist Murder Of Muammar Gaddafi
Jewish Bankers Articles, Zionist Agenda Articles



ziogadd3.jpg



THE ZIONIST MURDER
OF MUAMMAR GADDAFI

By Brother Nathanael Kapner, Copyright 2011



Support The Brother Nathanael Foundation! HERE



Or Send Your Contribution To:
The Brother Nathanael Foundation, PO Box 1242, Frisco CO 80443
E-mail: bronathanael@yahoo.com
___________________________
gaddzio.jpg



THE BRUTAL MURDER of Muammar Gaddafi by Zionist-owned Libyan insurgents is an example of what happens to political leaders who defy international Jewish bankers.


Gaddafi refused to do the bidding of the Rothschild-centered global banking cartel in 5 areas:

• A Gaddafi-Centered African Union With A Common Currency Here & Here
• A Gaddafi-Run Central Bank Of Libya Here
• A Gaddafi-Holding Of 150 Tons Of Gold Here
• A Gaddafi-Run Libyan Oil Industry Here
• A Gaddafi-Run ‘Blue-Gold’ Water Reserves Here

IN JULY OF 2011, the son and heir apparent of Muammar Gaddafi, Saif al-Islam, statedthat it wasn’t just Libya’s ‘black gold’ (oil) that the Zionist West wants, but Libya’s ‘blue gold’ (water) – the some 500 miles of the Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System that lies beneath Libya’s surface.

saifsays.jpg
The Nubian Aquifer is the only fresh water source that remains in North Africa and thus is the focusof what has become known as “Water Wars.”

Two French water firms, the largest in the world, Veolia and Suez SA,” says al-Islam, want to own the Nubian Aquifer, since they will make countless billions in profit from food grown from the water.

Both Veolia and Suez SA, like all multinational corporations, are doubtless funded by Jewish finance capital. And Louis Dreyfus International, a Jewish French firm, would apparently be the food broker.

Al-Islam points out that every IMF and World Bank loan, both controlled by Zionist Jewry, is issued on the condition that the victim-nation sells its water supplies to private investors. View Entire Story Here, Here, Here & Here.

It appears that Saif al-Islam’s testimony against Zionist Jewry has been silenced forever as he has been reportedly encircled by the Zionist-owned Libyan insurgents on October 20, 2011, the same day his father was captured and mercilessly murdered.

gadsays.jpg
Gaddafi’s main threat to International Jewry’s Banking Cartel was his plan for a common African currency—the gold-backed Libyan dinar—which would have replaced theall fiat-issued US dollar, British pound, and French franc as the main currency in Africa.

Jewish banking interests were clearly at stake as the US dollar is maintained by the Jewish-run Federal Reserve Bank; the British pound by theJewish-run Central Bank of England; and the French franc by the Jewish-run Banque de France.

Is it any surprise then that the three major invaders of Libya — America, England, and France — whose Zionist-bought leaders: Obama, Cameron, & Sarkozy, are praising the brutal and slow murder of Libyan chief, Muammar Gaddafi?

No, it is no surprise at all. View Entire Story Here, Here & Here.



ziothirst.jpg



ZIONIST BLOOD THIRST



CALLING FOR BOOTS on the ground, Jewish president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, after admitting that the Libyan invasion was to oust Gaddafi via “regime change” — sought a US-led NATO occupation of Tripoli.

In a quick follow-up to Haass’ blood thirsty call, Jewish neocon Philip Zelikow, former US State Department Counsellor and 9/11 Commission Head, wrote that “Gaddafi’s fall” would spark a “Democratic Spring” (read Jewish puppet governments) throughout the Arab world.

Leading the Zionist fray, it was the same Jewish sleaze balls who brought us the Iraq War through their lies about Saddam’s ‘weapons of mass destruction,’ namely, the “Project for a New American Century,” now reincarnated as, “The Foreign Policy Initiative,” who urged in their June 2011, “Open Letter To House Republicans,” the toppling of Muammar Gaddafi.

mitzblood1.jpg
THE SIGNATORIES to the Letter read like an invitation to a Bar Mitzvah…this time a very bloody one indeed:

Elliott Abrams, John Podhoretz, Robert and Fred Kagan, Lawrence Kaplan, Robert Lieber, Michael Makovsky, Eric Edelman, Kenneth Weinstein, Paul Wolfowitz, Randy Scheunemann. View Entire StoryHere & Here.

And of course, the leader of the Zionist rat pack, Jewish neocon William Kristol, apparently dictates US military policy as evinced in this Fox News interview: “No we cannot leave Gaddafi in power and we won’t leave Gaddafi in power.”

Kristol and his fellow blood-thirsty Jews have now seen their dream come true.

In violationof both International Law and the Geneva Convention’s prohibition of themutilation of prisoners of war, Muammar Gaddafi is now among the Zionist-murdered dead.

___________________________________



Support The Brother Nathanael Foundation!



Or Send Your Contribution To:
The Brother Nathanael Foundation, PO Box 1242, Frisco CO 80443
E-mail: bronathanael@yahoo.com
__________________________________________


For More See: The Jews Behind NATO’s Rape Of Libya Click Here


And: The REAL Tribe SEEKING Regime Change In Libya Click Here

And: The Zionist Plan For Libya Click Here

And: International Bankers Vs Nation-States Click Here


 

ballscout1

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Main Reasons:

1: Gaddafi wouldn't bow down to the Rothschild banking cartel.
2: Purposed African Satellite
3: AMF:African Monetary Fund - No Central Bank, own currency - Bank of Investment: To control most investments in Africa
4: United States of Africa - Gaddafi wants to unite!
The countries that are bombing Libya are all Broke, they don't want him rising above becoming a powerful force, that is self-sufficient!!!
5: Gaddafi was returning to a gold standard.
6: Libya sits on Africa's largest oil and natural gas reserves.
7: A few weeks before Libya was invaded, Gaddafi had decided to sell his oil to only Russia, China and India.

Now that NATO and Obama has sent in "al-Qaeda rebels" and other CIA operatives to further destabilize the region by taking over the Libyan government, committing genocide against the dark skinned Africans and by setting up a new central bank, this region can now be controlled and used to further take over and destabilize Africa for the ruling elite who have been trying to depopulate the continent for decades.


This man was doing very good things for his people. Water canals, oil sharing, going back to the Gold standard, free school, free health care, bonuses/home upon marriage, free farms, equipment and seed, and plenty of good non GMO food to eat. Now, people are eating their cats and dogs to survive! Nothing to eat, pipelines destroyed, hospitals destroyed, houses of civilians blown up, pure poverty and dismay. This is because Gaddafi was killing his people? Of course not...

It was a CIA orchestrated killing by bringing in hired thugs to kill the Libyan people, and blame it on Gaddafi. Obama and the EU with NATO are traitors of peace and broken friendships and hand shakes. America attacks innocent countries, kills their people, steals their resources, and use depleted uranium bombs so their babies are born deformed. The Media is out to make him as evil as they possibly can in an attempt to justify all the murder and bloodshed we've brought upon Libya. Now Libya will be raped of all natural resources, and the lives of Libyans will get far worse. Few, if any Americans will never realize what has been done here.

The N.A.T.O. psychopaths have, "so the say" killed Gaddafi....Truth or Lies, who will their next scarecrow be? The foolish citizens on the streets of Tripoli rejoice thinking they've achieved some sort of freedom when in reality all they will get is the criminal globalists and a puppet government subservient to them. Libya will be liquidated of it's gold, assets and abandoned. Infrastructures will be destroyed and resources looted. Another step toward the globalist controlled African Union. Gaddafi was obviously viewed as too independent for the globalists liking and they want him removed....and/or killed! Or is it all simply a media staged event, in attempt to pull Gaddafi out of hiding?


I will post the rest in the next posts.

But even with this info, somethings start making sense.

There is DEFINITELY more than meets the eye here, at least so it seems.

What i would like is ATS's top minds to join in here and try to determine the level of truth behind this.

Let's generate some talk, i mean if this is true, we all need to spread the word. This cannot be a minor thing here.

Well, either that or its pro-Gaddafi propaganda - i dont know and dont wish to judge not knowing enough about the situation myself.
edit on 23-10-2011 by srsen because: .





The rest of the text here:



**********ALSO**********

GADDAFI PLACED $97 BILLION ON TABLE TO FREE AFRICA FROM IMPERIALISM!

Why They Want Him, Dead!

Source: Reuters Edited By: Quoriana
Posted: 2011/07/27


Source: Reuters Edited By: Quoriana
Posted: 2011/07/27

In 2010 Gaddafi offered to invest $97 billion in Africa to free it from Western influence, on condition that African states rid themselves of corruption and nepotism. Gaddafi always dreamed of a Developed, United Africa and was about to make that dream come true - and nothing is more terrifying to the West than a Developed, United Africa.

Here is a selection of the initiatives Libya has already put in place in Africa, as well as some of the projects it is planning, explaining why the West's illegal war against Libya also is a war against Entire Africa.

AFRICAN UNION: Libya is one of the biggest contributors to the budget of the African Union. A Libyan diplomat told Reuters Libya is one of five countries -- the others are Algeria, Egypt, Nigeria and South Africa -- which cover 75 percent of the Union's budget. "Libya makes its full required contribution to AU funds. Not all countries do and that buys it influence," a senior African Union official said.

MALI: For several years Mali has been confronted with the activities of the radical Islamist militia Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb in its northern deserts. Gaddafi’s money and diplomacy have helped to resolve conflicts in northern Mali between rebels and the government. In 2010 Libya has given Mali two security planes to combat insecurity in the north of the country. These conflicts could flare up again if Gaddafi exits the stage. Nowadays Gaddafi has many supporters in Mali who regularly march to protest against the Western-led military intervention in Libya.

CONGO: Libya has put $65 billion into sovereign wealth funds, including one which is specifically designed to make investments in Africa. The Libyan Arab African Investment Company, a vehicle of Libya's Africa sovereign wealth fund, owns Le Meridien, one of the biggest hotels in Congo. The hotel is undergoing refurbishment paid for by Libyan investment. In 2010, Libya planned to fund the building of a highway north of Congo's capital Brazzaville, where also the building of a mosque is planned.

LIBERIA: Libya has provided millions in investment projects, helping to strengthen the rule of President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf in one of Africa’s most impoverished nations. Gaddafi's help includes the funding of a rubber processing factory built in Gbarnga, Bong County, a technical and vocational school for the handicapped, as well as Libyan assistance in helping Liberia tackle the food crisis and renovation for the Ducor Intercontinental Hotel.

NIGER: Also in Niger Gaddafi has helped to prop up the government and the authorities would become more fragile without his financial help. Libyan Prime Minister Al-Baghdadi Ali al-Mahmoudi visited Niger in August 2010 and announced the creation of a $100 million investment fund for Niger as part of a strengthening of bilateral ties. Under earlier agreements, Libya is contributing 100 million euros for the construction of a Trans-Sahara highway in the north of Niger, according to sources close to Niger's foreign ministry. The local subsidiary of Libya Oil, along with Total, are the major players in Niger's fuel retailing business.

CHAD: Gaddafi has been a key supporter of the government, which would weaken if it lost his aid revenue. Chad has been plagued by civil wars and invasions after its independence from France in 1960. After years of unrest, Gaddafi seals a peace agreement for Chad between four Chadian rebel groups and the Chadian government in 2007, which agreement was signed in Sirte.
In 2010 Libya made a huge investment in Chad's National Telecom, which meant a boost of the number of the Chadian mobile phone users from 100,000 to two million.

CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC: Libya has helped to prop up the fragile government, sending paratroopers into the capital in 2001 to defeat a rebel assault. In 2008 Gaddafi played a role in the formation of a peace agreement between the government and rebel groups.

MAURITANIA: Gaddafi was the first head of state to visit after a 2008 coup which brought President Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz to power. Aziz, who subsequently won a presidential election, has visited Gaddafi several times since then. Even Mauritanian opposition politicians have gone to Tripoli to pledge allegiance to the Libyan leader. Mauritania has debts to Libya of about $200 million. During discussions on debt relief in May 2010, the Libyan Central Bank announced Libya would provide $50 in grants to build a hospital and a university. The university is to be named after Gaddafi.


srsen
link
The final segment - sorry for the long quotes - but i'm not sure if everyone will be able to access a Facebook link, so i will post it all here.



SUDAN: The 20,000-troop peacekeeping mission in Dafur, jointly supported by the African Union and the United Nations, could be hampered if the African Union (AU) loses funding from Gaddafi and destabilize the country. Gaddafi, who blamed the crisis in Darfur on Israel, made a number of attempts to broker peace talks between Darfur rebels and the Sudanese government.
In October 2010, Gaddafi warned ahead of a vote on possible independence for South Sudan that a partition of the country would be a “contagious disease” that could spread to other African states.

ETHIOPIA: The African Union, based in Ethiopia's capital, could find itself in financial trouble if it loses the massive support that Gaddafi gives it. Under his rule, Libya supplied 15% of the AU’s membership dues, and it also paid the dues of many smaller and poorer African nations. To seek for a solution of the Eritrea-Ethiopia conflict, Gaddafi has sent a special envoy to Ethiopia in 2000. In 2008, Libya's OiLibya bought Shell Ethiopia. This agreement also included retaining all Shell employees, who were hoping to work in a better environment since a long time

SOMALIA: The African Union peace keeping mission, whose 8,000 soldiers are crucial to the battle against Islamic radicals in Somalia's capital Mogadishu, could be severely weakened if the AU lost the financial support of Gaddafi. In 2008 Libya decided to grant an investment fund to Somalia through the Sahel-Saharan Investment and Trade Bank to fund infrastructures such as roads and bridges within Somalia.

GAMBIA: Libyan firms own two hotels and the "Dream Park" entertainment centre in Gambia. Gambian agriculture has received support from Libya, including a donation of seven new tractors. In 2009 Gaddafi gave two camels to Gambian President Yahya Jammeh as a gift. The Libyan and Gambian presidents have exchanged visits and senior Gambian officials attended ceremonies in September to mark the anniversary of Gaddafi coming to power. On September 7, 2009, Gambia celebrated the 40th anniversary of the Al Fateh Revolution: "In Libya everyone enjoys Freedom!"


So that's all the text
 

ballscout1

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
you're only half right. a 'president trump' could definitely do something with obamacare. he could sign the bill to repeal the law, which is what would need to happen to get rid of it. although the process does start in the house, the gop already has both the house and senate. and they (again) voted to repeal Obamacare earlier this year, passing both the house and senate. but guess what? president Obama vetoed that mutha fuka soon as it got to his desk :lol: and then the gop made fools of themselves by trying to override his presidential veto. guess what? another fail. here's the info: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...de-presidents-veto-obamacare-repeal/79697108/

go here to learn how the entire process works: http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/...ident-have-the-power-to-repeal-a-federal-law/

I already addressed this.. I don't need to learn how the process works.I was awake in civics classes.

GOP voting to repeal was a gimmick directed to their base knowing Obama would veto...

But get the congress back...and get one with balls unlike the previous senate with haryy reid who left Obama in a lurch on more than one occasion.
 

DaAssWatcher

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Published: April 3, 1992
LITTLE ROCK, Ark., March 27—
Two years ago England, Ark., a town with a recent history of racial tensions, was about to blow again.

A fight in the high school playground between a black student and a white student had escalated to a larger racial confrontation. Black parents kept their children home from school. Whites felt the incident was overblown. The Knights of the Klu Klux Klan began distributing inflammatory leaflets in England, a town of nearly 4,000 people 22 miles southeast of Little Rock.

Using a racial epithet, they charged blacks wwith disrupting "law and order," and warned, "If you think you have troubles NOW, wait until the minorities become the MAJORITY."

After that, Gov. Bill Clinton decided to get involved.

He came to town and met privately with an integrated group of residents, urging them to form a biracial committee to work out their problems. His efforts bore fruit. A committee was set up, the two sides started to talk and tensions were defused. To Mr. Clinton's supporters, his performance typified his ability to forge biracial coalitions that work through racial animus. Bridging the Divide

Most Arkansans agree that under Governor Clinton more blacks and women have been appointed to boards, commissions and departments than under any other chief executive in the state's history. Mr. Clinton has appointed blacks to influential positions as the state's chief financial officer, health commissioner and head of the Department of Social Services, Arkansas' largest state agency.

"I never detected any reluctance on his part to appoint blacks to important positions in state government because of their color," said Mahlon A. Martin, president of the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation. "If fact, he made an affirmative effort to do so."


Mr. Clinton appointed Mr. Martin as director of the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration, the state's top fiscal job. He was the first and only black to hold that position. Legal Protection for Blacks
 

ballscout1

Rising Star
BGOL Investor



Clinton’s sole leftward economic conversion was on trade. Early in the campaign, Clinton told a reporter she opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which she had helped craft during her tenure at the State Department. This was real movement, but it probably won’t matter. President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans had the votes to pass TPP last year. It’s just a question of when House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) decides to bring it to the floor (hint: lame-duck session).

In the months since this reversal, Clinton has attacked single-payer health care and repeatedly defended her paid speeches to Goldman Sachs by invoking the logic ofCitizens United. On Wall Street reform, she has maintained her original position of implementing Dodd-Frank (with a few new disclosures). Her top economist supporters havedismissed the too-big-to-fail banking problem as unimportant. When the Sanders campaign touted research from a liberal academic, Clinton’s economic braintrust smearedhim without even reading his analysis.

Clinton herself continues to defend the 1994 welfare reform bill, which was designed to cut public assistance to the poor, and succeeded in doing so. She downplayed the entire issue of economic inequality on the grounds that solving it will not fix racism (no word on how it would impact the “super predator” problem). Her position on the minimum wage is a number salad.

Clinton, in short, remains a proponent of bread-and-circuses liberalism, not a critic of corporate power or structural economic inequality. Sanders hasn’t pushed her to the left. At best, he has driven her to say weird things in public.


Bill Clinton’s gutsy apologies: Now he owes one to Ricky Ray Rector
To look tough on crime, Clinton oversaw execution of a man so mentally ill he asked to save his last meal for later

Because it’s the most painful, I think we should start with the case of Ricky Ray Rector, whose execution Clinton made part of his campaign for president. Rector was no angel. He was a convicted double murderer. In 1981, he killed one man for refusing a friend entry to a night club, and he killed the second—a long-time friend, who was a police officer—when he came at Rector’s request to arrest him. But here’s the twist: Rector also tried to kill himself, immediately after the second murder. Instead, he gave himself a partial lobotomy, leaving himself deeply incapacitated with an IQ of about 70. It left him a completely different, utterly helpless and dependent man.




There had been an earlier case, Ford v. Wainwright, in 1986, in which the Supreme Court held it was unconstitutional to execute the insane. While Rector’s initial lawyers had not been very able, he eventually was represented by lawyers who appealed his case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the same principle should apply to the mentally incompetent as well. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case, but Thurgood Marshall—who wrote the decision in Ford v. Wainwright—took the unusual step of filing a dissent from that refusal, in which he wrote:




The issue in this case is not only unsettled, but is also recurring and important. The stark realities are that many death row inmates were afflicted with serious mental impairments before they committed their crimes and that many more develop such impairments during the excruciating interval between sentencing and execution…. Unavoidably, then, the question whether such persons can be put to death once the deterioration of their faculties has rendered them unable even to appeal to the law or the compassion of the society that has condemned them is central to the administration of the death penalty in this Nation. I would therefore grant the petition for certiorari in order to resolve now the questions left unanswered by our decision in Ford v. Wainwright.




In 2008, after Bill Clinton’s intemperate response to Obama winning the South Carolina primary shocked many in media, Chris Kromm, of the Institute for Southern Studies, looked back at how Ricky Ray Rector’s fate intersected with Bill Clinton in that campaign–one in which no Democrat wanted to face a “Willie Horton ad” like the one that helped destroy Michael Dukakis in 1988:




It was almost exactly this time of year 16 years ago that then-Gov. Bill Clinton, eager to break away from a tight pack of 1992 Democratic primary hopefuls, decided crime would be one his big-ticket issues. Democrats should “no longer feel guilty about protecting the innocent,” he would proclaim from the campaign trail.




How did candidate Clinton choose to show he was “tough on crime?” By flying down to Arkansas, mid-campaign, to personally preside over the execution of Ricky Ray Rector, a mentally retarded African-American man.




It was only the third death sentence carried out in Arkansas since 1973, and Clinton made a point of being on hand for the TV crews when Rector was killed by lethal injection on January 24, 1992.




In 2002, the Supreme Court ruled that executing persons who are mentally retarded is “cruel and unusual punishment.” And in the court of public opinion, many African-Americans judged that Clinton–far from being a “black president”–was in reality another white president who was all too willing to use race when it suited him.




Kromm went on to quote Margaret Kimberley at The Black Commentator:




[R]icky Ray Rector became world famous upon his execution in 1992. Then Governor Bill Clinton left the campaign trail in January of that year to sign the warrant for Rector’s execution. Rector’s mental capacity was such that when taken from his cell as a “dead man walking” he told a guard to save his pie. He thought he would return to finish his dessert.




I try to remember this story when I am told that all Black people love Bill Clinton or that he should be considered the first Black president. Clinton wasn’t Black when Rector needed him. He was just another politician who didn’t want to be labeled soft on crime.




The truth is that Bill Clinton has a complicated history of racial relations, and even some black politicians in his shoes would have done exactly the same thing. But if moving forward wholeheartedly requires us to acknowledge past errors, then Ricky Ray Rector’s execution is one more thing that Clinton should publicly regret.




The next year—his first year as president—Bill Clinton had a rocky relationship with black women when he backed out of two high-profile nominations. The first wasJohnnetta Cole, the first black female president of Spelman College, who headed Clinton’s transition team for education, labor, the arts and humanities, and was slated to be selected as Secretary of Education. Her nomination was squelched after the Jewish Daily Forward reported she’d been a member of the national committee of the Venceremos Brigade, which the always-reliable FBI said was connected to Cuba’s intelligence agencies. Nothing further needed to be said: guilt by association was automatically assumed.




The attack against Lani Guinier was far more extensive, protracted, and baseless. Guinier was a former staff attorney with the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, who had moved from being one of their top attorneys, heading their Voting Rights project, to proving herself a top-flight academic, at the University of Pennsylvania, with a series of sweeping, but well-grounded and sophisticated law review articles (most collected in her first book, “Tyranny of the Majority: Fundamental Fairness in Representative Democracy“), in which she argued for a need to rethink approaches to voting rights law, to avoid what she identified as a number of blind alleys. At the time, Guinier was only the second person ever appointed to head the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division who actually had a background in the relevant law—both as a litigator and an academic. Yet she was shamelessly and ridiculously attacked as a “quota queen” (a blatant echo of the “welfare queen” slur), when perhaps the foremost thrust of her argument was the exact opposite—a rejection of drawing districts to ensure the election of a maximum number of black elected officials. Instead, she argued the purpose of democracy was to empower the maximum number of voters to elect candidates of their own choosing, regardless of race.




Guinier argued that multi-member districts provided an alternative that could promote an environment in which cross-racial politics could more readily flourish. (Republicans at the time were already starting to exploit the weakness of candidate quota systems, packing minority voters into a handful of Southern districts—most notoriously in North Carolina—in order to deprive white Democratic politicians of black electoral support.) Guinier gave her own account of the ordeal she was put through in her 1998 book, “Lift Every Voice: Turning a Civil Rights Setback Into a New Vision of Social Justice,” in which her focus is on stressing the lessons for organizing that social justice advocates needed to learn. However, it’s also clear that Clinton and his team somehow never recognized the take-no-prisoners mindset of their congressional opponents, never even began to craft an effective response, and worst of all, never even read Guinier’s work, so they had no basis on which to do anything but knee-jerk react to the accusations of others.




In the end, Bill Clinton spent half an hour or so reading through some of what Guinier had written—but only after he’d already decided to abandon her. Even so, it was far too little time to absorb the depth of the arguments she was engaged with. It’s surely true that Bill Clinton is a quick study—but he has rarely been required to study something as deeply challenging as the areas that Guinier explored. His failure to give her the hearing her ideas deserved has impoverished all of us, while giving encouragement to those who have dramatically intensified their attacks on voting rights in the decades since then. There’s a lot there for him to apologize for, not so much about a personal offense as it is about lost opportunities to build a much more robust democratic culture.




Both Cole and Guinier have continued in highly successful careers. Cole continued to head Spelman through 1997, and was president of Bennett College from 2002 to 2007. Since 2009, she’s been Director of the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of African Art, located in Washington, D.C. Guinier moved to Harvard Law in 1998, where she’s taught ever since, though with various high-profile guest appointments. She’s written five books and scores of law review articles. But neither of them has been fully appreciated and integrated into a national public discourse that generally operates substantially below their level of intelligence. Their loss has been the nation’s loss as well.


Wonder why nobody thinks it curious that after Bill brought gentrification to Harlem he took his office to a building owned by the very people who paid his wife 3/4 of a million to talk to them...

There also hasn't been much said about how Bill and his organization and Hillary as Secretary of State been raping Haiti.

Just like he being protested by Haitians before the NY primary got very little coverage
 

Damn Right

Rising Star
Registered
I already addressed this.. I don't need to learn how the process works.I was awake in civics classes.

GOP voting to repeal was a gimmick directed to their base knowing Obama would veto...

But get the congress back...and get one with balls unlike the previous senate with haryy reid who left Obama in a lurch on more than one occasion.

that sheit wasn't a bluff. had Romney won, Obamacare would be over today. but u think harry reid didn't have 'balls'? he was ride or die in the senate. he's the one that used the 'nuclear option' in the senate! dude straight called their bluff and changed how filibusters work. the gop didn't think he would do it. sheit, I didn't even think he would do it. :lol:

so the last thing u can say about reid is that he didn't have balls. dude had balls of steel. he even wore those 'fuk yawl' shades to work after his accident :lol:

go here to read about it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...65cfe8-52b6-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_story.html
 

ballscout1

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
that sheit wasn't a bluff. had Romney won, Obamacare would be over today. but u think harry reid didn't have 'balls'? he was ride or die in the senate. he's the one that used the 'nuclear option' in the senate! dude straight called their bluff and changed how filibusters work. the gop didn't think he would do it. sheit, I didn't even think he would do it. :lol:

so the last thing u can say about reid is that he didn't have balls. dude had balls of steel. he even wore those 'fuk yawl' shades to work after his accident :lol:

go here to read about it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...65cfe8-52b6-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_story.html


Reid did not use the nuclear option he made a deal and only changed the rules on a very limited basis....and he also didn't return to the simple majority....which allowed the obstruction to occur even while the democrats had the senate


here you can read about it :rolleyes2:

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has brokered a deal with Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to avoid the so-called "nuclear option" and smooth the way for the Senate to approve seven of President Barack Obama's non-judicial branch nominees, a senior Senate Democratic aide said Tuesday.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/article24751135.html#storylink=cpy

btw the way it didn't work did it because now they just refuse to have a hearing

He could have used the nuclear option and he should have but he bitched out of fear that the democrats would not have that weapon if they were to lose control

Early on before the ACA was fully implimented they would have tried to overturn it...They won't know because it works and their base likes it...Even members of the GOP like it but on't like it called Obamacare.
 
Last edited:

Damn Right

Rising Star
Registered
Reid did not use the nuclear option

:hmm:

here's the headline:

Reid, Democrats trigger ‘nuclear’ option; eliminate most filibusters on nominees

here's the link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...65cfe8-52b6-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_story.html


here's the headline:

senate majority leader mitch mconnell being "urged to keep Democrats’ anti-filibuster ‘nuclear option’"

here's the link: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-urged-to-keep-democrats-anti-filib/?page=all


when you claim that 'reid didn't 'change the rules on a very limited basis' you're wrong. and teetering on the edge of being an idiot about it since I not only pointed out your mistake, I posted source info to show you, had u decided to read it. just admit that you don't know what tha fuk the 'nuclear option' is, why it was used or what it's for. at all. that way I won't have to keep coming back in here to correct your numerous fuk ups :smh:
 
Last edited:

Damn Right

Rising Star
Registered
....and he also didn't return to the simple majority.....

:smh:

"On November 21, 2013, Senate Democrats used the "nuclear option" to require only a majority vote to end a filibuster of certain executive and judicial nominees, not including Supreme Court nominees, rather than the 3/5 of votes previously required."
 

ballscout1

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
:hmm:

here's the headline:

Reid, Democrats trigger ‘nuclear’ option; eliminate most filibusters on nominees

here's the link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...65cfe8-52b6-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_story.html


here's the headline:

senate majority leader mitch mconnell being "urged to keep Democrats’ anti-filibuster ‘nuclear option’"

here's the link: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-urged-to-keep-democrats-anti-filib/?page=all


when you claim that 'reid didn't 'change the rules on a very limited basis' you're wrong. and teetering on the edge of being an idiot about it since I not only pointed out your mistake, I posted source info to show you, had u decided to read it. just admit that you don't know what tha fuk the 'nuclear option' is, why it was used or what it's for. at all. that way I won't have to keep coming back in here to correct your numerous fuk ups :smh:

and next time u make a claim, have some source material to back it up.


The article you posted is from 2014 and harry reid was no longer the majority leader.

the deal i posted prevented them from using the option but left it available.....which is why the article you posted says the GOP wants o keep that option because it may benefit them...

i am not gonna post twice but the super majority is bullshit and gives the minority party to much power and takes the obligation away from the voters.

it keeps the majority party from getting anything done and we end up with the type of gridlock we have had for almost 8 years.
 

ballscout1

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
:smh:

"On November 21, 2013, Senate Democrats used the "nuclear option" to require only a majority vote to end a filibuster of certain executive and judicial nominees, not including Supreme Court nominees, rather than the 3/5 of votes previously required."

This is what I said ..the deal changed the fillibuster on a limited basis. the true nuclear option would have changed the rules entirely

end a filibuster of certain executive and judicial nominees
 

Watcher

Rising Star
Platinum Member

Another right wing hit piece.

I post something proving Clintons have done good for African Americans and your response is a republican lie....,

Keep supporting trump and the kkk POS

Fox & Friends: Hillary Clinton's Plan To Combat ISIS "May Not End Up Being Enough At All For Anyone" Because Her Position On Boko Haram "Was Not Strong Enough." On the November 19 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-hosts Tucker Carlson and Elisabeth Hasselbeck and Fox's chief White House correspondent Ed Henry attempted to discredit Hillary Clinton's foreign policy record ahead of her speech. The group speculated that she may not be "the right person" to implement a plan to combat ISIS because if you "dig back into" her record, she "was not strong enough" in addressing the Nigeria-based terrorist group, Boko Haram. Hasselbeck asserted Clinton's strategy for combatting ISIS therefore "may not end up being enough at all for anyone":

ED HENRY: [Hillary Clinton's plan to combat ISIS] is not really going to be much different from what President Obama said. I think what she wants to do is bring a sense of urgency, which we did not see from President Obama at that news conference in Asia obviously earlier this week. And what she wants to do frankly is a do-over because if you go back to the debate last Saturday, national security is supposed to be her strong suit, she brings the best resume, she's got the most on paper. But when she got these national security questions she fumbled some of them. I mean at one point saying this is not America's fight but America needs to show leadership. So there's these contradictions in there, and in terms of, she's already taken ground troops off the table. She has said she supports the president sending up to 50 special forces on the ground in Syria, but nothing different than that, nothing beyond that. So I think you're going to hear a lot about working with allies, doing more on social media, but in terms of actual boots on the ground, you're not going to see that, that's for sure.

TUCKER CARLSON: The Syrian Civil War's been going on for quite some time.

HENRY: Several years.

CARLSON: Right. Is there any sense that she isn't maybe the right person for this new plan, since, of course, she was secretary of state when that war began.

HENRY: That is part of the problem here when I talk about the resume is that when you actually put it into practice, she was the secretary of state for a president who said this was the J.V. squad. Now in fairness to her, she didn't say that, number one. And number two, she was seen as somebody inside the administration who was more hawkish, who was pushing the president to arm the Syrian rebels much sooner. She pushed to intervene in Libya, but that hasn't worked out. You obviously see ISIS on the ground there and the president has acknowledged that was his biggest, he says, foreign policy mistake is that they didn't have a plan for the day after Gaddafi fell. And you heard this come up in the debate as well, well Hillary Clinton, you voted for the war in Iraq, then called that a big mistake, and have recanted that. But then why didn't you relearn the lessons of Iraq with Libya? You pushed for intervention, didn't have a follow-up.

ELISABETH HASSELBECK: People might even dig back into her position on Boko Haram at the time, which was not strong enough. You know, the outline, really, for her strategy may not end up being enough at all for anyone. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 11/19/15]

Under Clinton Boko Haram Leaders Were Blacklisted By State For The First Time, And Experts Have Defended The Strategy As The "Right One" Not To Embolden The Terrorist Group
State Department Under Hillary Clinton Put Top Boko Haram Leaders On Terrorist List. In June 2012, the U.S. State Department under Hillary Clinton identified three leaders of Boko Haram as "foreign terrorists," as Reuters reported at the time, noting that it constituted the "first time [State] has blacklisted members of the Islamist group":

The United States on Thursday named three alleged leaders of the Nigerian militant group Boko Haram as "foreign terrorists," the first time it has blacklisted members of the Islamist group blamed for attacks across Africa's most populous nation.

The State Department identified the three as Abubakar Shekau, calling him the "most visible" leader of the group, and Abubakar Adam Kambar and Khalid al-Barnawi, who it said were tied both to Boko Haram and to al Qaeda's north African wing.

"These designations demonstrate the United States' resolve in diminishing the capacity of Boko Haram to execute violent attacks," it said, saying that Boko Haram or associated militants were responsible for more than 1,000 deaths in the past 18 months. [Reuters, 6/21/12]

State Dept. Blacklisted Leaders, Not Boko Haram As A Group, So As Not To Empower The Terrorist Group. Reuters went on to report that the State and Treasury departments listed individuals on the terrorist list, rather than Boko Haram as a group, so as not to "elevate the group's profile," which was a concern voiced by academic experts on Africa. From Reuters:

U.S. officials say the decision to list individual Boko Haram members, rather than apply the more sweeping "Foreign Terrorist Organization" label to the group as a whole as some U.S. lawmakers have demanded, reflected a desire not to elevate the group's profile.


In January, Lisa Monaco, the Justice Department's top national security official, sent a letter to the State Department arguing the Nigerian group met the criteria for a "foreign terrorist" listing because it either engaged in terrorism that threatens the United States or had a capability or intent to do so.

But a group of academic experts on Africa sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last month urging her not to take the step, saying it could backfire by enhancing the group's reputation among potential recruits and other militants. [Reuters, 6/21/12]

Fiscal Times: A Close Examination Of Boko Haram At The Time Showed That Clinton Made The Right Decision Not Designating The Group As A Terrorist Organization In 2012. The Fiscal Times explained in May 2014 that "a close examination of the group at the time, and the reasons why she didn't" designate Boko Haram a foreign terrorist organization in 2012 "show that the decision she made was the right" decision:


http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/11/19/fox-amp-friends-revives-a-debunked-myth-about-h/206984
 

DaAssWatcher

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Another right wing hit piece.

I post something proving Clintons have done good for African Americans and your response is a republican lie....,

Keep supporting trump and the kkk POS

Fox & Friends: Hillary Clinton's Plan To Combat ISIS "May Not End Up Being Enough At All For Anyone" Because Her Position On Boko Haram "Was Not Strong Enough." On the November 19 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-hosts Tucker Carlson and Elisabeth Hasselbeck and Fox's chief White House correspondent Ed Henry attempted to discredit Hillary Clinton's foreign policy record ahead of her speech. The group speculated that she may not be "the right person" to implement a plan to combat ISIS because if you "dig back into" her record, she "was not strong enough" in addressing the Nigeria-based terrorist group, Boko Haram. Hasselbeck asserted Clinton's strategy for combatting ISIS therefore "may not end up being enough at all for anyone":

ED HENRY: [Hillary Clinton's plan to combat ISIS] is not really going to be much different from what President Obama said. I think what she wants to do is bring a sense of urgency, which we did not see from President Obama at that news conference in Asia obviously earlier this week. And what she wants to do frankly is a do-over because if you go back to the debate last Saturday, national security is supposed to be her strong suit, she brings the best resume, she's got the most on paper. But when she got these national security questions she fumbled some of them. I mean at one point saying this is not America's fight but America needs to show leadership. So there's these contradictions in there, and in terms of, she's already taken ground troops off the table. She has said she supports the president sending up to 50 special forces on the ground in Syria, but nothing different than that, nothing beyond that. So I think you're going to hear a lot about working with allies, doing more on social media, but in terms of actual boots on the ground, you're not going to see that, that's for sure.

TUCKER CARLSON: The Syrian Civil War's been going on for quite some time.

HENRY: Several years.

CARLSON: Right. Is there any sense that she isn't maybe the right person for this new plan, since, of course, she was secretary of state when that war began.

HENRY: That is part of the problem here when I talk about the resume is that when you actually put it into practice, she was the secretary of state for a president who said this was the J.V. squad. Now in fairness to her, she didn't say that, number one. And number two, she was seen as somebody inside the administration who was more hawkish, who was pushing the president to arm the Syrian rebels much sooner. She pushed to intervene in Libya, but that hasn't worked out. You obviously see ISIS on the ground there and the president has acknowledged that was his biggest, he says, foreign policy mistake is that they didn't have a plan for the day after Gaddafi fell. And you heard this come up in the debate as well, well Hillary Clinton, you voted for the war in Iraq, then called that a big mistake, and have recanted that. But then why didn't you relearn the lessons of Iraq with Libya? You pushed for intervention, didn't have a follow-up.

ELISABETH HASSELBECK: People might even dig back into her position on Boko Haram at the time, which was not strong enough. You know, the outline, really, for her strategy may not end up being enough at all for anyone. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 11/19/15]

Under Clinton Boko Haram Leaders Were Blacklisted By State For The First Time, And Experts Have Defended The Strategy As The "Right One" Not To Embolden The Terrorist Group
State Department Under Hillary Clinton Put Top Boko Haram Leaders On Terrorist List. In June 2012, the U.S. State Department under Hillary Clinton identified three leaders of Boko Haram as "foreign terrorists," as Reuters reported at the time, noting that it constituted the "first time [State] has blacklisted members of the Islamist group":

The United States on Thursday named three alleged leaders of the Nigerian militant group Boko Haram as "foreign terrorists," the first time it has blacklisted members of the Islamist group blamed for attacks across Africa's most populous nation.

The State Department identified the three as Abubakar Shekau, calling him the "most visible" leader of the group, and Abubakar Adam Kambar and Khalid al-Barnawi, who it said were tied both to Boko Haram and to al Qaeda's north African wing.

"These designations demonstrate the United States' resolve in diminishing the capacity of Boko Haram to execute violent attacks," it said, saying that Boko Haram or associated militants were responsible for more than 1,000 deaths in the past 18 months. [Reuters, 6/21/12]

State Dept. Blacklisted Leaders, Not Boko Haram As A Group, So As Not To Empower The Terrorist Group. Reuters went on to report that the State and Treasury departments listed individuals on the terrorist list, rather than Boko Haram as a group, so as not to "elevate the group's profile," which was a concern voiced by academic experts on Africa. From Reuters:

U.S. officials say the decision to list individual Boko Haram members, rather than apply the more sweeping "Foreign Terrorist Organization" label to the group as a whole as some U.S. lawmakers have demanded, reflected a desire not to elevate the group's profile.


In January, Lisa Monaco, the Justice Department's top national security official, sent a letter to the State Department arguing the Nigerian group met the criteria for a "foreign terrorist" listing because it either engaged in terrorism that threatens the United States or had a capability or intent to do so.

But a group of academic experts on Africa sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last month urging her not to take the step, saying it could backfire by enhancing the group's reputation among potential recruits and other militants. [Reuters, 6/21/12]

Fiscal Times: A Close Examination Of Boko Haram At The Time Showed That Clinton Made The Right Decision Not Designating The Group As A Terrorist Organization In 2012. The Fiscal Times explained in May 2014 that "a close examination of the group at the time, and the reasons why she didn't" designate Boko Haram a foreign terrorist organization in 2012 "show that the decision she made was the right" decision:


http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/11/19/fox-amp-friends-revives-a-debunked-myth-about-h/206984
Did you ever watch the video or you just saw Hillary's face and went straight to attack mode with mouth foaming??
Is she or is she not a criminal?
 

II Dxnum

Rising Star
Registered
Of course it's true. Only a fool or someone disingenuous aka a hillary supporter would disagree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ugk

Watcher

Rising Star
Platinum Member
Did you ever watch the video or you just saw Hillary's face and went straight to attack mode with mouth foaming??
Is she or is she not a criminal?
Did you watch the video? If you did you would know one of the lies in there was the Boko Haram one.

No she is not a criminal. Is she in Prison?
 
Top