That Cunt Hillary

Earth2murf

HATES EVERYONE!!!
Apr 2, 2005
6,605
1,293
423
Rotten County NY
#1
She is a real law and order freak.......
Scandal-marred Sandy Berger Advising Hillary

Monday, October 8, 2007 10:28 AM

Former Bill Clinton adviser Sandy Berger is now serving as an adviser to candidate Hillary – even though he was caught removing and destroying classified documents from the National Archives and lost his security clearance until September 2008.

Berger – National Security Adviser from 1997 to 2001 – admitted stealing documents from the Archives before the 9/11 Commission hearings in 2003.

The documents were written by counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, who said they were a harsh review of the Clinton administration’s efforts in dealing with terrorism.

On several occasions, Berger stuffed classified documents into his pants and socks to remove them from the Archives building in Washington, D.C.

Berger first told reporters he had “inadvertently” removed the documents. But in April 2005 he pleaded guilty to a charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material from the National Archives. In September 2005 he was fined $50,000, placed on probation for two years, and stripped of his security clearance for three years.

Hillary’s enlistment of Berger as a campaign adviser “shows poor judgment and a lack of regard for Berger’s serious misdeeds,” law professor Jonathan Adler of Case Western Reserve University told examiner.com.

“If Senator Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee, at some point she will begin to receive national security briefings that will include sensitive information. At such a point, continuing to keep Berger on board as a key adviser, where he might have access to sensitive material, would be beyond incomprehensible.”
 

Your_Moms_Box

Free Shit / Socialism 2016
Dec 20, 2004
5,755
468
628
Dover, Delaware
#3
She doesn't stansd a chance anyway, Obama or Edwards will be the next president.

Hillary is this years Howard Dean
 

LiddyRules

I'm Gonna Be The Bestest Pilot In The Whole Galaxy
Jun 1, 2005
144,474
51,094
644
#4
She doesn't stansd a chance anyway, Obama or Edwards will be the next president.
Nope, they won't either. Edwards more of a chance than Obama but still don't think any of them have a chance.

Mitt Romney all the way- he hires people from Blackwater and seems like a good company man.
 

d0uche_n0zzle

**Negative_Creep**
Sep 15, 2004
46,940
6,975
763
F.U.B.A.R
#5
Hillary knows a secret or two, which makes her the most likely to "win."
 

UCFGavin

Registered User
Feb 25, 2006
2,061
0
0
#6
Hillary knows a secret or two, which makes her the most likely to "win."
i love the quote in your sig. here is one of my favorites:

The gun control debate generally ignores the historical and philosophical underpinnings of the Second amendment. The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny. The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of that time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms.
-Dr Ron Paul
 

THE FEZ MAN

as a matter of fact i dont have 5$
Aug 23, 2002
43,683
10,140
848
#7
i love the quote in your sig. here is one of my favorites:

The gun control debate generally ignores the historical and philosophical underpinnings of the Second amendment. The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny. The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of that time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms.
-Dr Ron Paul

:haha7::haha7::haha7:
i say that all the time, my guns are to remind those in power that there power can be taken away. if i want to eat i will go to the super market, but when the "masters" come to take me away for voicing my opinion they are going to be taking me away dead, along with a few of there own.
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,623
5,081
568
Wyoming
#8
But he didn't STEAL those documents, he was just "sloppy"

Fuck Hillary.
 

stillbornstew

blogging loser
Jul 26, 2005
8,834
1
273
NOLA
#9
it looks like, yet again, i won't be voting. i don't like ANY of them.
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,623
5,081
568
Wyoming
#10
i love the quote in your sig. here is one of my favorites:

The gun control debate generally ignores the historical and philosophical underpinnings of the Second amendment. The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny. The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of that time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms.
-Dr Ron Paul
Ron Paul says some really good shit....

then he up and blames us for 9/11 and fucks it all up.

He's obviously a very intelligent guy, possibly the most intelligent and educated one in the race (on either side). Why does he have to hang around with the Art Bell conspiracy freak crowd?
 

Xyn

3 letters, 0 meaning
Mar 3, 2005
3,753
2
0
California
#11
How did he blame us for 9/11? The 9/11 report supports what he says.

We didn't deserve to be attacked, but we have had extensive involvement in the middle east and it has garnered us a lot of enemies.

We weren't attacked becuase we are free. It isn't some kind of wacko conspiracy to admit that we aren't helping our national security by dealing with those idiots. Bombing them probably isn't helping our cuase and selling them weapons certainly isn't.
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,623
5,081
568
Wyoming
#12
How did he blame us for 9/11? The 9/11 report supports what he says.

We didn't deserve to be attacked, but we have had extensive involvement in the middle east and it has garnered us a lot of enemies.

We weren't attacked becuase we are free. It isn't some kind of wacko conspiracy to admit that we aren't helping our national security by dealing with those idiots. Bombing them probably isn't helping our cuase and selling them weapons certainly isn't.
Maybe the phrase "blaming us" is a bit simplistic, but thats the jist of what he was saying. His assertion that we got attacked because of our involvement in the Middle East is a only true on the surface.

We got attacked because the folks who want us dead (or praying to the east 5 times a day) think that scaring us is the easiest way to get a goal. They have no idea of civilized warfare or how to conduct themselves as gentlemen on a battlefield. They use the scare tactics to scare or demoralize the average Joe at home into hating this war, and ultimately, Israel.

So what he says is technically correct, but it's only a partial truth. If we pulled out of Iraq tomorrow, we'd have the same problems we're having now. Iraq, despite what some lesser informed war supporters may think, was not about 9/11. Iraq is part of a scheme to Westernize the Middle East. Sure it's imperialistic, but if those guys had the means to do it, they'd do the same to us.

I still like Ron Paul, but I think he's wrong on the war. It's ugly, it's been handled horribly, and the reasons publicly given to the American people were not researched properly, nor communicated well enough. But it has to be done, especially now that we're there. If we leave now it will be Somalia x1000.
 

Xyn

3 letters, 0 meaning
Mar 3, 2005
3,753
2
0
California
#13
Sure it's imperialistic, but if those guys had the means to do it, they'd do the same to us.
Don't you see anything wrong with that statement?

That pretty much condones what they want to do to us. What's good for the goose and all that bullshit.

We will never be able to change the region by force. Iraq is a big example of that. Something has to be done, but invading countries is obviously not the answer.

I think what Ron Paul was trying to point out was that we weren't attacked out of the fucking blue. We weren't responsible for the attacks, but we had more to do with them than just "being free, maaaaaaaan."

What is conspiratorial about our history of involvement in the middle east? Again, everything he was saying was backed up by the 9/11 commissions report. Are they all a bunch of conspiracy theorists?
 
Dec 25, 2005
10,005
173
513
NJ
#14
Everyone loves Americans. We're like right & stuff, & we have money... and we elect our steers to office.
 

mendozathejew

Registered User
Mar 12, 2005
6,749
0
0
jersey
#15
the arabs are an emasculated, humiliated, low self esteem people. our involvement in the middle east due to oil was always an inevitability, and its easier to blame us for their lack of influence rather than try to change their own communities. thats all it is.

in the long run the specifics didnt matter. we couldnt possibly have a 100% correct foreign policy. the common arab would still suffer from this emasculated state of mind, under governments that easily transfer the blame to the west.

the reason for that is not our responsibility. its the arabs world, for their utter disfunction and refusal to own up to it. this Iraq War was really a disaster. but this is what is was about, changing this awful reality within the part of the world that attacked us. it was a really risky roll of the dice, and so far it appears we lost miserably. even if it works (an iraqi government that has a positive influence on the region), it still wasnt worth the American loss in life. its a failure. but almost no one takes it for what its was, because the underlying problem is so hopeless to tackle without calling like it is. these people are savages and wont work to make their own life less savage like. how do you change that?

you beat the germans in war, they accept that, and move on with life and pick up the pieces. the arabs wont.
 

d0uche_n0zzle

**Negative_Creep**
Sep 15, 2004
46,940
6,975
763
F.U.B.A.R
#19
They have no idea of civilized warfare or how to conduct themselves as gentlemen on a battlefield.
In war there are no "gentlemen" on the battlefield, it's kill or be killed.

We'll have to agree to disagree. :icon_mrgr
 

UCFGavin

Registered User
Feb 25, 2006
2,061
0
0
#20
Ron Paul says some really good shit....

then he up and blames us for 9/11 and fucks it all up.

He's obviously a very intelligent guy, possibly the most intelligent and educated one in the race (on either side). Why does he have to hang around with the Art Bell conspiracy freak crowd?
radical muslims at the core do hate us. the question is whether or not they would hate us enough to fly airplanes into our buildings if we left them alone. he never blamed the people of the US for 9/11, but the governments short sighted foreign policy.

and he hangs around where people invite him. as an anti-collectivist, he treats people as individuals and not members of a group. hes said he doesn't believe in the 9/11 truth movement, and that it wasn't a conspiracy of anything more than incompetent leaders hiding their stupidity.
 

UCFGavin

Registered User
Feb 25, 2006
2,061
0
0
#21
So what he says is technically correct, but it's only a partial truth. If we pulled out of Iraq tomorrow, we'd have the same problems we're having now. Iraq, despite what some lesser informed war supporters may think, was not about 9/11. Iraq is part of a scheme to Westernize the Middle East. Sure it's imperialistic, but if those guys had the means to do it, they'd do the same to us.

I still like Ron Paul, but I think he's wrong on the war. It's ugly, it's been handled horribly, and the reasons publicly given to the American people were not researched properly, nor communicated well enough. But it has to be done, especially now that we're there. If we leave now it will be Somalia x1000.
this is the thing though....we cannot afford this current situation in the middle east. the people that are capitalizing on it are the oil companies, the federal government, the banks, and the arms dealers. our currency is worth less, our debt is skyrocketing, our men and women are dying. we can only sustain this idea of perpetual war for so long before our country comes crashing down.

if you believe in the moral justification of the war, then that is your prerogative. but from a logical and/or economic standpoint, it cannot be sustained. we live in a society of debt, and its only a matter of time before the debt is called in. with bush in office we've added $3 trillion to our already $6 trillion debt. the only thing keeping this country afloat is hard working americans like yourself that continue to pay into the system so they can continue to waste our money.
 

UCFGavin

Registered User
Feb 25, 2006
2,061
0
0
#22
also, if any of you guys actually dispise hillary as much as it seems, then you'll see that ron paul is the only republican candidate that can beat her. if you think a pro-war candidate will be able to win (especially giuliani), then unfortunately you're gravely mistaken.
 

TheDrip

I'm bi-winning.
Jan 9, 2006
5,051
3
228
#24
My whole problem with the "It wasn't our policy, they just hate us, plain and simple. They want to kill us or make us pray to Allah" argument is.

Well, then why don't they want to do the same to Jamaica, Peru, or the Ukraine?



Simple, because those countries never got involved in Middle Eastern dealings. Furthermore, they never got involved on the side opposing the Muslims.
 

LiddyRules

I'm Gonna Be The Bestest Pilot In The Whole Galaxy
Jun 1, 2005
144,474
51,094
644
#25
My whole problem with the "It wasn't our policy, they just hate us, plain and simple. They want to kill us or make us pray to Allah" argument is.

Well, then why don't they want to do the same to Jamaica, Peru, or the Ukraine?



Simple, because those countries never got involved in Middle Eastern dealings. Furthermore, they never got involved on the side opposing the Muslims.
It's anti-American to turn the mirror on ourselves, even if it's not particularly negative. They hate us because we kick ass and they're jealous. Doesn't that make everything a lot easier?