Vegas Free-for-All - Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton

CowboyKell

Aug 14, 2015
7:20am

Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV

Quote
Originally posted by: CowboyKell
So, lets put the idea of the war itself aside, you don't like it and that's fine. However, of all that money spent on the war, how much do you think stays in Iraq and how much is actually circulated in the US economy?

Since the beginning of time on Earth the greatest motivators of growth and prosperity have been war and exploration.

Which is why Obama inherited such a booming economy from President Bush, right?

Of course it's government spending that can spur the economy (John Maynard Keynes 1883-1946). There is nothing magical about spending it on bombs and bullets that makes it super special for our joint prosperity.

But here's the thing. When the government spends money on bombs and bullets, you end up with blown up stuff and dead people - and an improved economy. When the government spends money on infrastructure and health care, you end up with better roads and healthy people - and an improved economy.

I like option B.

I like option B too. But when you are making an argument you have to remember that option A is always, ALWAYS, in every economy in history, more successful.

alanleroy

Aug 14, 2015
10:02am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh
BINGO!

Apparently you struggle distinguishing verbs in future tense vs past. Hillary's platform for 2016 does not include an escalation in the Middle East, does it? Please make a coherent point by citing that policy or admit you are being purposefully obtuse.

Oh I don't know. I think it's naïve to just dismiss how she actually voted on the Iraq war and instead just lap up her new campaign promises. Gosh...It's almost like she'll say anything if she thinks it will help get her elected.

And I think it's hypocritical to support a candidate who voted for the Iraq war after just claiming that "Its a matter of asking the question of where you want tax dollars invested...into America or Baghdad"....because we already know her real record on that topic...That's going to be a hard question for Hillary to duck in the debates. As you already mentioned it's one of the reasons she lost in 2008. Maybe history will repeat.

"Any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction."
Hillary Clinton
October 10, 2002

That may only be her first conviction.

Of course Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, Diane Feinstein and John Kerry all voted for the Iraq war too. Can't get more Democratic Elite than that.

Boilerman

Aug 14, 2015
10:26am

Block User

At this point, Boiler does not support any US intervention within the Middle East. Most Americans to do support military policy that is required to win a war. The day will come when America suffers a serious attack (far worse than 9/11) and the attitude of most Americans will change.

Until this happens, we're just wasting money.

Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh

Quote
Originally posted by: Boilerman
A Hillary wealth redistribution policy was fully expected by Boiler. The problem with such a strategy is the long term effects on the country. America is going bankrupt, and never ended policies, such as this, promise to confiscate money from a small group of voters, and distribute this money to another larger group of voters

Buying votes does work, however.

Quote
Originally posted by: pjstroh
Hillary already announced a huge POLIcY plan for making college affordable. The only policy we've heard from Republicans at this point is their policy of not agreeing with Democrats policy

One policy Republicans have made clear is they cant wait to get back to the 10 billion/month occupation of the Middle East. So its not a matter of who wants to spend vs who doesn't. Its a matter of asking the question of where you want taxdollars invested...into America or Baghdad ? And this has been the fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans since 2002.

Boilerman

Aug 14, 2015
10:55am

Block User

Hillary's new policy is to take money from one adult and give this money to ten kids who are old enough to vote. Wow, how great is that! And how transparent is that!

Boiler fully agrees that buying votes is quite effective, however.

q]Originally posted by: pjstroh
Earlier, I said: "The only policy we've heard from Republicans at this point is their policy of not agreeing with Democrats policy"

CASE IN POINT ...

Quote

Originally posted by: hoops2
Shrillery's plan doesn't address the real problem of college tuition - out control costs that have risen at a much fast faster rate than inflation.

Rinse and repeat for every policy idea in the last 8 years. Hoops belongs to the right party.

Don

Aug 17, 2015
9:20am

Block User

What the heck is wrong at the US State Department ? ? ?

******quote***
Earlier this year, Gawker Media sued the State Department over its response to a Freedom of Information Act request we filed in 2013, in which we sought emails exchanged between reporters at 33 news outlets and Philippe Reines, the former deputy assistant secretary of state and aggressive defender of Hillary Clinton. Over two years ago, the department claimed that “no records responsive to your request were located”—a baffling assertion, given Reines’ well-documented correspondence with journalists.
On August 13, lawyers for the U.S. Attorney General submitted a court-ordered status report to the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia in which it disclosed that State employees had somehow discovered “5.5 gigabytes of data containing 81,159 emails of varying length” that were sent or received by Reines during his government tenure. Of those emails, the attorneys added, “an estimated 17,855” were likely responsive to Gawker’s request, . . .
***endquote***

Ref: gawker.com

DonDiego can hardly contain himself until someone requests the e-mails of Ms. Cheryl Mills, Chief of Staff for Hillary Clinton at the State Department, and Ms. Huma Abedin, Hillary's Deputy Chief of Staff and before that her "body woman" during Clinton's campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008.

n.b. Legally all such communications belong to the US Government; they are to be retained as historical and legal records.

forkushV

Aug 17, 2015
10:25am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: CowboyKell

Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote
Originally posted by: CowboyKell
So, lets put the idea of the war itself aside, you don't like it and that's fine. However, of all that money spent on the war, how much do you think stays in Iraq and how much is actually circulated in the US economy?

Since the beginning of time on Earth the greatest motivators of growth and prosperity have been war and exploration.
Which is why Obama inherited such a booming economy from President Bush, right?

Of course it's government spending that can spur the economy (John Maynard Keynes 1883-1946). There is nothing magical about spending it on bombs and bullets that makes it super special for our joint prosperity.

But here's the thing. When the government spends money on bombs and bullets, you end up with blown up stuff and dead people - and an improved economy. When the government spends money on infrastructure and health care, you end up with better roads and healthy people - and an improved economy.

I like option B.

I like option B too. But when you are making an argument you have to remember that option A is always, ALWAYS, in every economy in history, more successful.

Which is why Obama inherited such a booming economy from President Bush, right?

Boilerman

Aug 17, 2015
11:04am

Block User

7 years and about $8 trillion later, it's still Bush's fault with Forkie. Wow.

Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV

Quote
Originally posted by: CowboyKell
Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote
Originally posted by: CowboyKell
So, lets put the idea of the war itself aside, you don't like it and that's fine. However, of all that money spent on the war, how much do you think stays in Iraq and how much is actually circulated in the US economy?

Since the beginning of time on Earth the greatest motivators of growth and prosperity have been war and exploration.
Which is why Obama inherited such a booming economy from President Bush, right?

Of course it's government spending that can spur the economy (John Maynard Keynes 1883-1946). There is nothing magical about spending it on bombs and bullets that makes it super special for our joint prosperity.

But here's the thing. When the government spends money on bombs and bullets, you end up with blown up stuff and dead people - and an improved economy. When the government spends money on infrastructure and health care, you end up with better roads and healthy people - and an improved economy.

I like option B.

I like option B too. But when you are making an argument you have to remember that option A is always, ALWAYS, in every economy in history, more successful.

Which is why Obama inherited such a booming economy from President Bush, right?

forkushV

Aug 17, 2015
11:26am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: Boilerman
7 years and about $8 trillion later, it's still Bush's fault with Forkie. Wow.

Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote
Originally posted by: CowboyKell
Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote
Originally posted by: CowboyKell
So, lets put the idea of the war itself aside, you don't like it and that's fine. However, of all that money spent on the war, how much do you think stays in Iraq and how much is actually circulated in the US economy?

Since the beginning of time on Earth the greatest motivators of growth and prosperity have been war and exploration.
Which is why Obama inherited such a booming economy from President Bush, right?

Of course it's government spending that can spur the economy (John Maynard Keynes 1883-1946). There is nothing magical about spending it on bombs and bullets that makes it super special for our joint prosperity.

But here's the thing. When the government spends money on bombs and bullets, you end up with blown up stuff and dead people - and an improved economy. When the government spends money on infrastructure and health care, you end up with better roads and healthy people - and an improved economy.

I like option B.

I like option B too. But when you are making an argument you have to remember that option A is always, ALWAYS, in every economy in history, more successful.
Which is why Obama inherited such a booming economy from President Bush, right?

Actually I blame the Great Recession, which I blame on Bush, a horrible Treasury Secretary, a horrible Fed chair, and even Bill Clinton and the centrist Democrats.

And if we're only down $8 trillion I'd be surprised. The great recession cost more like $16 trillion in household net worth alone.

CowboyKell

Aug 17, 2015
2:58pm

Block User

Some folks net worth has more than quadrupled since 2007. Of course they are to be hated and despised for that.

alanleroy

Aug 17, 2015
3:25pm

Block User

Of course a lot of that household wealth lost was artificially inflated home valuations. That's what happens when you have a housing bubble. It's even worse when millions treat their artificially inflated home equity as an ATM machine.

«‹9 ›

Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:

Diamond Membership

$3 per month

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Limited Member Rewards Online

Join Now

Platinum Membership

$50 per year

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Exclusive Member Rewards Book

Join Now