Hillary Wants War

a reply to: peck420

Anyone see that video of the guy walking around Womens' campuses asking feminists if they would be in support of ALL women needing to sign up for Selective service? Responses ranged from "Sure" to "I believe some women would be willing and able, but not all, so I dont support-"

Sounds equal.

BUT I digress. This post wasnt really about feminism and the likes,

moreso about how Electing hillary will plunge us into a furthering state of war, either in the world stage or in a plethora of smaller proxy wars.

what else is new :/

She is part of the old establishment, that is their idea of helping the economy. If you have a BIG war, well cha ching, look at all those dollars flowing.

It's obvious the sight of blood doesn't bother her.

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Well, in my personal opinion,

Western "Third wave" feminism isn't truly about the liberation of women, and the upheaval of women's rights,

but it is about, sadly, the decimation of man in the western world.

It is not about equality of the sexes, it is not about women's rights in countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, China, Libya, Ethiopia, etc.

It is simply a bandwagon built on the perpetuation of lies such as the "Gender wage gap" and others.

back to topic....

a reply to: CulturalResilience

You are right of course, but you only have to look at the picture in the post above yours to see in those eyes that she is sufficiently evil and deranged to get millions of people killed if that is what she is ordered to do.

Can you name a recent president that hasn't taken millions of lives ("justified" or not)?

originally posted by: Watcher777
She is part of the old establishment, that is their idea of helping the economy. If you have a BIG war, well cha ching, look at all those dollars flowing.

WW2 made the Bush dynasty rich beyond belief. Someone had to fund the Nazi party to be able to carry out their atrocities and end up having a giant pay off to the people signing the checks to the national socialists. Someone. had. to. pay.

And it was Preston Bush and his business partner George Herbert Walker. (GHW Bush was given his name as a tip of the hat so to speak, a thank you for your help)

Hillary is poising herself, with her funders, to become the next political dynasty to gain monetarily from conflict and atrocities.

a reply to: Iconic

Thank you for that Insightful Response . Sorry for going a Bit Off Topic there.

I very much doubt it.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: CulturalResilience

You are right of course, but you only have to look at the picture in the post above yours to see in those eyes that she is sufficiently evil and deranged to get millions of people killed if that is what she is ordered to do.

Can you name a recent president that hasn't taken millions of lives ("justified" or not)?

Third wave is not a sufficiently strong term for what feminism has become. I favour the term "Toxic Ugly Feminism"

originally posted by: Iconic
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Well, in my personal opinion,

Western "Third wave" feminism isn't truly about the liberation of women, and the upheaval of women's rights,

but it is about, sadly, the decimation of man in the western world.

It is not about equality of the sexes, it is not about women's rights in countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, China, Libya, Ethiopia, etc.

It is simply a bandwagon built on the perpetuation of lies such as the "Gender wage gap" and others.

back to topic....

originally posted by: CulturalResilience
I have just done some checking on this and it seems It was originally approved in The Senate and subsequently blocked by Congress.

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: CulturalResilience
Perhaps she wants a war to help her establish her feminist idiocracy.

Consider this scenario:

Take the US into a high casualty conflict

Draft men, not women. (feminism doesn't believe in that kind of equality)

Women take all the jobs that men left to go and fight in Granny Psycho's war

Her banker backers have another war in which they finance both sides and shamelessly profit human misery.

Mama Fruitloop's feminist lunacy plan takes a massive step forward.

Everyone's a winner except those who get bombed and military age males

Congress I believe already instituted a draft to include females if my memory serves me right?

It wouldn't surprise me if they pass a woman draft bill shortly after a war breaks out.
Their are a lot of Americans not fit to fight. Some prescriptions, obesity and other health problems automatically disqualify a person and there are a lot more young men with health problems today than in the past.

a reply to: collietta

Methinks, if Hillary is elected, we will all be fighting. It won't be on foreign soil, however.

We will all be fighting for our literal homes.

The only way a groundwar between two big powers like Russia and the US can take place in the information age, is by EMP.

If hit with an EMP, the attackers simply have to wait until civil unrest spikes, roll in, and declare themselves "Civil Defense" or that they are there to Help us.

Then we'll all be writing in crylic in no time.

The maker of those videos is a big fan of trump, the right, hates sjw with a vengeance, but keeps on giving them more air time, he is a perfect tool for fox news and friends.

He should stick to his history videos, now those are good videos, with real facts.

And yes if its on youtube it must be right.

I dont get trump fans anymore, there usually happy when # gets bombed, but now its oh noes hillary will start ww3.

a reply to: dukeofjive696969

He's not really a "fan" of trump, as much as he thinks he is a much better alternative to Hillary. He shares the belief with me, that some of his plans are exactly what we need to avoid utter destruction from both the outside and the in.

He compares Hillary's advocacy of foreign workforce to that which destroyed Rome from the inside, in a video comparison between the two great republics. Using historical evidence, he points to the in-fighting that was systemic to their own destruction, being bred by the impoverishment of the middle class due to the mass influx of cheap labor, and free labor, as the Roman Republic grew.

Hillary wants to bring in millions of refugees, and continue the use of foreign labor. This will destroy the middle class, and leave a gaping wound in our socio-economic status. Hellllloooooo class warfare.

a reply to: Iconic

I think both Clinton and Trump are war hawks. One is no better than the other in this department. When trump is captured on video saying he likes war, to me it sure doesn't yell out saying he's a peace maker!

I think Ron Paul was the closest candidate to a peace maker and someone who didn't want to involve the U.S. in any foreign conflicts. Unfortunately the voters continue to choose candidates who think war and protecting foreign interests is good foreign policy and a viable direction for peace in the world.

originally posted by: Iconicshe
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

He's not really a "fan" of trump, as much as he thinks he is a much better alternative to Hillary. He shares the belief with me, that some of his plans are exactly what we need to avoid utter destruction from both the outside and the in.

He compares Hillary's advocacy of foreign workforce to that which destroyed Rome from the inside, in a video comparison between the two great republics. Using historical evidence, he points to the in-fighting that was systemic to their own destruction, being bred by the impoverishment of the middle class due to the mass influx of cheap labor, and free labor, as the Roman Republic grew.

Hillary wants to bring in millions of refugees, and continue the use of foreign labor. This will destroy the middle class, and leave a gaping wound in our socio-economic status. Hellllloooooo class warfare.

She follows the neo con mantra, same as obama,bush jr , they all play for the same team fyi.

I do love is history videos do, too bad he stoped posting them.

a reply to: WeRpeons

I definitely agree that they both look for conflict where conflict will allow,

but it is simply abominable how Clinton is looking toward Russia for war; where trump wants to "work with" them.

IMHO, war with Russia will see the end of the West as we know it.

a reply to: dukeofjive696969

I think he moved his historical videos to another one of his channels. I know Vae Victis is one, but I think its a gaming channel.

But alas,

Neo Cons are very scary. We saw what they were capable of with PFAC (Proj. New American Century), Bush's Wars, 9/11, etc.

The truly "back room" dark and scary government officials are all Neo Cons; ready to hand any and all power to the Mil Comp

a reply to: Iconic

Hillary Wants War

Hillary makes war and gloats over dead presidents. We caught her, you know that video that never seems to come up during the debates or email garbage dumps? Heres a screen shot...

a reply to: Iconic

Agreed. Neo Cons are scary indeed; and Hillary's hawkish tendancies are a veritable wet dream for them.
That said, I don't believe Trump has mentioned any desire to pull us out of Syria either. Some have suggested he doesn't want to go toe-to-toe with Russia, but if he kept us in Syria that's what would happen.

WeRpeons makes a great point about Ron Paul. He's the only candidate I've heard to date that seemed to be serious about pulling us out of these ridiculous foreign entanglements.