Jump to content
The Education Forum

Picture of Ted Cruz's father and Oswald having breakfast


Recommended Posts

Ron - I think most people reading what you write wish you would get over your moral equivalence argument. I sure would. Clinton is establishment, but not a crook, a xxxx, a crazy person, dangerous to our democracy. I don't like things she stands for, but hey I don't like the Democratic Party as whole either. But Trump? Please, for me you lose credibility, and considering how level headed you usually are it makes no sense that you have taken the right wing blogosphere bait.

I don't worry about my credibility here with you or anyone else. But I do resent the implication that I have to depend on "the right wing blogosphere" and can't think for myself.

If you think Clinton isn't a xxxx, if you think, for example, that she really did have to dodge sniper fire, like Brian Williams almost had his helicopter shot down, that's your business. If you think there's some big difference between "extremely careless" and "grossly negligent" with classified material (she would have to be charged for the latter, wouldn't she) that's your business too. But if you're not embarrassed by these two candidates for the U.S. presidency, out of all the possible candidates in this country, then we're simply two people very different from each other.

Yes Ron, Hillary did exaggerate the danger she was in, and indeed fibbed regarding the sniper fire. You got that one thing right. But you are wrong on most everything else you say about Hillary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 132
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yes Ron, Hillary did exaggerate the danger she was in, and indeed fibbed regarding the sniper fire. You got that one thing right. But you are wrong on most everything else you say about Hillary.

Try to bait me all you want, the subject is tiresome and sickening. You want her, you're going to get her. Be happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Ron, Hillary did exaggerate the danger she was in, and indeed fibbed regarding the sniper fire. You got that one thing right. But you are wrong on most everything else you say about Hillary.

Try to bait me all you want, the subject is tiresome and sickening. You want her, you're going to get her. Be happy.

Ron, it's like Bernie sez: on her worst day Hillary a 100 times better than Traitor Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I've been reading on the Internet, a lot of folks are wondering how much of Obama's $400 million payout to Iran has a cut (piece of the action) reserved for Obama & Hillary sitting in Iranian banks.
As for those deleted emails, folks can't help wondering how many went back and forth between terrorist sponsoring Arab countries with a subject title: 'Working on slipping the money past Congress & the American people. Will get back with you....
On the other hand, buddying up with Putin looks attractive to those who don't trust China. Better to have a nuke rich super power as a friend instead of a foe when China decides to BBQ either the Soviets, the USA (or both).

Folks on the Internet just sayin'....

Edited by Brad Milch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another good reason to trust virtually none of the chat on the internet unless its from a relative or close friend and you check that they really sent it.....the internet is fast becoming one of the best psychological warfare tools known to both political operatives and the Russian intel community - which has a rich tradition of much more sophisticated propaganda than the US ever dreamed of conducting....and by the way, if you think the Russians are not smart enough to craft entire documents or server dumpss and sneak them into wikileaks, then you underestimate them...

And anybody thinking that buddying up to Putin could ever be a good idea....wow...just wow....I suggest a little reading on the history of international relations with the Russians....we learned a good deal about how that worked early in the Cold War, seems we are on the verge of forgetting all that now....its a cultural thing, not just political.

Edited by Larry Hancock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I've been reading on the Internet, a lot of folks are wondering how much of Obama's $400 million payout to Iran has a cut (piece of the action) reserved for Obama & Hillary sitting in Iranian banks.

Right out of the Trump playbook.

"A lot of people are saying Mrs. Khan couldn't speak at the DNC because of her religion."

You know what a lot of people are saying on the internet, Brad?

The $400 mil was for paying off the Kennedy assassination -- Obama and Hillary were involved in that, as well.

Just what people are saying on the internet... :help.

As for those deleted emails, folks can't help wondering how many went back and forth between terrorist sponsoring Arab countries.

On the other hand, buddying up with Putin looks attractive to those who don't trust China. Better to have a nuke rich super power as a friend instead of a foe.

Folks on the Internet just sayin'....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Larry:

Coming from the early 1950's generation, we were excluded from establishing any kind of relationship with the Soviets. Today, besides the gorgeous women, I know Sir Paul McCartney took his new Beatles there several times & fared far better than John Lennon or George Harrison did. Sir Paul is still with us; John & George are somewhere in the cosmos, both murder victims.

I vividly remember one of my college professors telling his class about a B-29 bomber (same aircraft that dropped the two A-bombs on Japan) being forced to land somewhere on Soviet soil somewhere around the end of WWII. The B-29 contained a top secret bomb sight mechanism at the time. The Soviets copied the aircraft down to the rivets, secret bombsight & all. I was impressed.

As for Hillary: she would have been too young (depending on her age now) to be involved in the JFK assassination as an orchestrator or a JFK sexual harassment victim. As a Scorpio woman, she, like most Scorpios, must be handled with care (LOL).

It's not unreasonable to suspect either candidate's 'people' to visit the Education Forum from time to time. As for me, regardless of their politics, both are wealthy people who never helped me in any way, shape or form. Not a penny from either.

Brad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for Hillary: she would have been too young (depending on her age now) to be involved in the JFK assassination as an orchestrator or a JFK sexual harassment victim.

Old enough to have shot Ferdinand in Sarajevo and poisoned Napoleon, the witch!

And fixed the 1919 World Series!

Just what some are say'n on the 'nets...

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excerpts from the article: One source provided him with evidence that Nixon had paid taxes of only $792.81 in 1970 and $878.03 in 1971, despite having income exceeding $400,000.
........
Until Donald Trump, every major-party presidential nominee since then had released his or her tax returns (except Gerald Ford, who released a summary in 1976). The simple reason is that, on at least one subject, Nixon got it right: The American people need to know if their president is a crook.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/06/opinion/why-we-ask-to-see-candidates-tax-returns.html?_r=0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Brad, I'm from pretty much the same generation you are....just a note about the bomber reference (which I wrote about in some detail in Surprise Attack).

"I vividly remember one of my college professors telling his class about a B-29 bomber (same aircraft that dropped the two A-bombs on Japan) being forced to land somewhere on Soviet soil somewhere around the end of WWII. The B-29 contained a top secret bomb sight mechanism at the time. The Soviets copied the aircraft down to the rivets, secret bombsight & all. I was impressed."

Actually the B-29's were part of a conventional transit bombing missions over Japan with an agreed upon landing on Russian territory....the Russians then allowed the crews to leave but kept the planes and did copy them to create their first strategic bombers....well we assumed that is what they were going to do and built our entire early 50's air defense around that assumption. Instead the relatively small number of aircraft made were flown into Siberian bases and staged mainly for reconnaissance against our Navy and potential Navy attack missions. Its a very interesting story, since we were building SAC we thought they would build "SUSAC"....they actually did nothing comparable but focused on air defense. The gambit they used to make us think they were building a huge bomber force was a real classic, and drove us into the belief in a bomber gap, and the development of SAGE, an air defense system more expensive than developing the atomic bomb.

Its also very instructive to really dig into how cooperative military efforts with the Russians have worked out. During WWII they allowed us to stage bombers at bases in the West of Russia, but would not allow us to place fighters there - then they allowed the Germans to follow the bombers home to the bases and deployed no air defense, we lost lots of planes and some good crews in that operation. By that time momentum was beginning to swing and it was felt Stalin wanted no credit going to the Americans....it was an easy way to close out a project he had never been too excited about...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...