Hillary Wants War

a reply to: Iconic

She doesn't want war. She is following orders. The media is making her elected, follow the strings. After that, the video you posted will be irrelevant, don't give the credit to her. War is unavoidable now.

a reply to: Trueman

Being the figurehead, the fault will still lay with her, for she is spineless in the face of "donators"

sorry for the slowish replies, I sent my kitchen help home because it was slow this morning...Not so much anymore.

Gettin' slammed!

As I said previously, in that instance I'm betting on mass pregnancy.

originally posted by: collietta

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: CulturalResilience

In the pot that is brewing, we simply won't have the luxury of deciding to fight or not.


Not when its your neighbors fighting you for your resources, and then enemies of the state invading afterwards.

originally posted by: Iconic
the video is about 30 minutes. He posted within 2 minutes of the OP.

This shows to me he's just trying to post something that people will laugh at, see the first comment and give him the obligatory star. This is the kind of BS* that is ruining ATS, IMHO.

Now back on topic-

Really? Because I think the BS that's ruining ATS is people who post someone elses opinion (usually in the form of long videos) rather than taking the facts and forming their own. Content repeaters rather than creators.

a reply to: Aazadan

Spreading information created by people is what built this website...not trolls looking for attention via stars.

The video i linked is my source material for the discussion at hand. This is a discussion board, no?

originally posted by: CulturalResilience
If so stand by for an outbreak of mass pregnancy.

A year or two back (maybe less than that), they changed the law so that women can be drafted.

It's actually pretty easy to prevent the pregnancy issue, you just segregate the troops by gender (easier for the navy, harder for the army as you would need male/female bases). Note that this also fixes the issue of physical standards for women when they need to be muscular enough to drag a big guy in full gear. Women are much lighter, so they don't need as much muscle mass to support each other in combat.

originally posted by: Iconic
a reply to: CulturalResilience

In the pot that is brewing, we simply won't have the luxury of deciding to fight or not.


Not when its your neighbors fighting you for your resources, and then enemies of the state invading afterwards.

We have seen this happen elsewhere. They have even supposedly, sent us warnings of what to expect if we don't stop our rogue government. Another YouTube, which I know many around here don't like, but it touches on some areas that concern many of us.

Trump may not be able to "make America great again", but Hillary will continue the corruption that has already infested our government.

We have already seen her wanton disregard for rules, laws, and American security. We have seen her sell out to the highest bidder. It saddens me to say, but I fear the Whore of Babylon will soon pour out her cup of abominations and filthiness upon our country.


I will admit that I am bias. I hate Trump, but I despise Hillary. Our country deserves so much better.

originally posted by: Iconic
a reply to: Aazadan

Spreading information created by people is what built this website...not trolls looking for attention via stars.

The video i linked is my source material for the discussion at hand. This is a discussion board, no?

I wasn't really directing my comment at you, it was more a general comment I have about the state of media in general that your post happens to fit. Repeating content from others is one of my pet peeves, it's the sign that the person I'm conversing with doesn't have any actual thoughts of their own.

Using a persons thoughts is a great way to frame a jumping off point, but I think it leads to poor content. Then again, I'm not a mod, it's up to them what they will/won't allow, but from what they've said in the past they would greatly prefer original content rather than the retweeting style of "communication" that's so prevalent today.

Anyways, this website wasn't really built by linking youtube videos, it was built through people researching conspiracies and connecting their own dots, presenting their own theories. Sometimes that involved linking another authors works as a jumping off point, but rarely did it mean blindly agreeing with that author and letting them speak for them.

What are your own thoughts on the issue? What do you think of the geopolitical situation on the globe at the time, that caused us to let a cease fire we negotiated fail? Russia wants Turkey as a border state, but Turkey is part of NATO. How would arming the Kurds alter the US/Turkey relationship and consequently the balance of power in that part of the world? Would the ability to recruit Turkey cause Russia to pull out of Syria?

Provide some original thoughts rather than a summary of some other random persons thoughts. Like you said, it's a discussion board. So rather than discuss some video creator that isn't even a member here, it's discuss some ideas about the Middle East.

Oh, and no... I don't troll, nor do I look for stars. If you look at my post/star ratio you'll see I average just over 1 star per post. Stars aren't my objective.

I've heard her say that she wants to teach Russia a lesson. She seems to be a war monger. Her and Putin don't get along at all and she is the kind of person who will get back at those who she does not like. Russia has a very good military, if there was war between the US and Russia, both countries would be in poor shape.

We have been pushing our luck with Putin since he took over the country, he is probably one of the best leaders that Russia has had and the west took advantage of it. No other leader would have put up with our crap so long.

I predict that if Hillary wins the tension between us an Russia will increase substantially.

If Hillary manages to get in the White House, war is the only way to keep her there.

With all the leaks, videos and FBI docs coming out, I think there is a 50/50 chance she would end up being impeached so they need a MASSIVE distraction. They've already set the narrative with Russia.

originally posted by: blackrabbit1
a reply to: Iconic

If its on youtube it must be true!

if it's about Hillary, it has to be a lie.

right?

The narrative is definitely set, konduit.

originally posted by: CharlesT
It's obvious the sight of blood doesn't bother her.

Now that's the temperament of a true potus!

Now we're talkin'!

Your opening statement is incorrect. As for your second comment I would only say that servicemen are not exclusively responsible for servicewomen becoming pregnant.

Kind regards.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: CulturalResilience
If so stand by for an outbreak of mass pregnancy.

A year or two back (maybe less than that), they changed the law so that women can be drafted.

It's actually pretty easy to prevent the pregnancy issue, you just segregate the troops by gender (easier for the navy, harder for the army as you would need male/female bases). Note that this also fixes the issue of physical standards for women when they need to be muscular enough to drag a big guy in full gear. Women are much lighter, so they don't need as much muscle mass to support each other in combat.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

In a nation of non-crit thinkers, you can speak like this, and no one will bat an eye. You may even get elected to our highest position.

originally posted by: CulturalResilience
Your opening statement is incorrect. As for your second comment I would only say that servicemen are not exclusively responsible for servicewomen becoming pregnant.

On reading the thread further I see the law got through one house of Congress, it never actually became law. Oh well, it's only a matter of time before it does.

For my second point, how does what I said place pregnancies on one person? Neither men or women can be trusted, if you segregate them you massively cut down on the problem. The Navy has even experimented with this already and it was successful. It's a little more tricky for the army, but it could be done.

Or was it your point that women will get pregnant in order to be unable to be drafted? I would think such a tactic would only defer their entry to basic for 9-10 months at the most so it wouldn't be all that successful in a real war.

My point is that women/service women will get pregnant by civilians as well as servicemen to avoid a draft or serving in combat. Segregation will reduce it as you rightly point out but it will never stop it completely. a reply to: Aazadan

a reply to: CulturalResilience

I think a drug addiction or the "falling off a roof" as it were is a more popular alternative than a pregnancy..