Jump to content

WhatTheBuck

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    28269
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by WhatTheBuck

  1. 17 minutes ago, Tuco said:

    This is an excellent point.  Although, I'm not sure how much is what you describe and how much is the fear of "losing" Afghanistan.  Whoever pulls out is likely to get with some bad news cycles of some truly horrific shit.  Some people credit Obama with creating ISIS because of the force drawdown in Iraq. 

    When in reality they're just an offshoot of Al Qaeda who Bush allowed to escape from Tora Bora and metastasize. The generals who led their military campaign across Syria and Iraq were former Baathists from the Iraqi army who Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bremer fired after the invasion. They took their experience and their arms and joined the opposition. Meanwhile team Dubya failed spectacularly in their effort to train a new Iraqi military, or to select a competent Shiite leader.

  2. 7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    Well, yeah....probably.  But I've had no problem with us negotiating with the Taliban/other bad guys there in the past, and don't now.  Some sort of negotiated peace is the only way to end the quagmire.

    The Taliban have known from Day 1 that we will eventually leave. When we do, they will retake Kabul. They won't offer us any concessions. Or they'll just lie about them. They'll go right back to enforcing their strict misinterpretation of Sharia law. They've known that whether we stay for 5, 10, 20, or 50 years, they will outlast us. 

    It's a lot like N. Korea. There we negotiate with Un while China pulls the strings. In Afghanistan we'll negotiate with the Taliban while Pakistani intelligence pulls the strings. 

    • Like 1
  3. 20 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

    Unlike our previous presidents, hopefully Trump has enough sense to finally extricate us from that quagmire for good.

     

    Donald Trump is going to give Afghanistan back to the terrorists.

  4. 2 hours ago, BrazilHorn said:

    Quick search shows between 3.7-10M. She’s not poor. You may have a different definition of rich than I do. 

    I used Romney as similar example to her as rich,elitist and out of touch. 

    Not sure your point. If you believe she will play nationally good for you. I don’t. 

    $6 Million is a pretty big range. How confident are you in those numbers? And what do you think a person of her age and with her resume should be worth?

    Why don't you finish answering and show us the net worth of the other politicians I mentioned? Is she rich compared to them?

    Warren wasn't born rich. Neither were the Obamas or the Clintons. None of them are as wealthy as the Bushes or Trumps. George HW Bush has more of an East Coast elite heritage than any of them.

     

  5. 1 hour ago, Thetexashammer said:

    I agree. Right up to the point where she refuses to admit that she lied. Her hubris is what will destroy her. A person of good character admits error and moves on to the next issue. 

    A person with wretched low character is the president and is the biggest liar to ever hold the office. Watergate, Iran-Contra, The Iraq War, Donald Trump...and Elizabeth Warren saying she has Native American heritage. Which party can we trust?

    Let's suppose the worst --- that Warren's family never told her that she had Native American heritage, that she took a secret DNA test and knows that she has no Native American heritage, but she lied about it because it would help her politically. 

    First of all, so fucking what? That would still pale in comparison to Trump's birtherism campaign and countless other deceptions perpetrated by the Liar in Chief, not to mention countless Republicans in the last half century. 

    Second, how big of a factor was her claim in anything? You're going to have a tough time convincing me that that was the difference in winning her a Senate seat from the great State of Massachusetts. I never even heard about the claim until hysterical Republicans started screaming "Pocahontas!" and "Liawatha!" After a few years of that and they don't come up with any new attacks it looks like that's all they've got. And it looks like they've got nothing. 

  6. 14 hours ago, BrazilHorn said:

    I think she suffers from same issue of Hillary. Elitist, rich, not super warm etc

    i don’t doubt she’ll run but she won’t play well nationally unless she changes a lot. 

    Elizabeth Warren is rich? That's news to me. How much is she worth? For that matter, how much is Hillary worth?

    Now tell me how much Trump is worth. (Ha ha! Good luck with that.) How about the members of his cabinet and senior advisers? How about George HW, Jeb, and George W Bush? Mitt Romney?

  7. 34 minutes ago, Queen Bitch said:

    So I don’t follow stories only covered by Fox because they’re always fake whataboutism (ahem, Seth Rich)....

    But can someone fill me in on this “HRC used a British spy to get dirt on DJT” story and how it’s different?

    I suspect you're a troll but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. 

    Everybody does opposition research. There's nothing illegal about it. The Clinton campaign hired a guy to do oppo research on Trump. As a former member of MI6, he was able to use his Russian contacts to get info on the Trump campaign's suspicious activity connected to people close to Putin. If there wasn't suspicious activity in the Trump campaign regarding Russia, that research wouldn't have happened. (Duh.)

    The point of opposition research is to get factual info (preferably factual dirt that you can use against them) on your opponent. Nobody uses oppo research to manufacture lies because they don't need to. You can manufacture lies in house. You don't need to farm that out. So the accusation that the Steele dossier can't be trusted because it was paid for by the Clinton campaign doesn't hold water. That's just a political game. 

    The Trump campaign wanted to get factual dirt on Clinton but they went about it illegally. The Russians reached out to them, acknowledging that it was coming from the Russian government. That's illegal. They had been warned by the FBI that the Russians might try something and not only did they not report the Russians, they met with them! And lied and lied and lied about it. 

    We don't know exactly what was discussed at that meeting. But it appears that the only thing the Russians might have offered them on Clinton were the hacked emails. Not only would it be a crime to accept anything from a foreign government, accepting hacked emails from anyone would be a crime. Hacking is a crime and those emails are criminal contraband. 

    So, while both campaigns wanted factual dirt on their opponent that they could use in the campaign, one went about it legally, the other illegally. You'll note that no one in the Clinton campaign ever lied about hiring Christopher Steele to do oppo research. That's because it was perfectly legal and they had nothing to hide.

    • Like 7
  8. 6 hours ago, Underdog said:

    img_1439.jpg

    Used to be one near the HEB Plaza in RR that didn't stay open very long. 

    Their BBQ is awful. They must boil their ribs. I Iike their potato salad with the jalapeño bits in it. They don't have containers to sell it in bulk so I got them to sell me a big yellow cup full for the price of two servings. It went well with ribs smoked properly on a WSM. 

  9. 3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

    There was a Giuliani appearance on one of the networks where he said "we didn't use it" in reference to the Trump Tower meeting. Maybe they decided they couldn't use the hacked emails themselves so told them to hold on to them and then release them through Wikileaks when they needed a political weapon. Maybe someone placed a call after the Access Hollywood "grab 'em by the pussy" tape came out. 

×
×
  • Create New...