Trump was 110% right about the Clinton"s founding ISIS!

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Focusing on one person is for fools.

If that person wasn't running for the highest position in the World perhaps. Voting for her is to continue this sick agenda. You have to quit drinking the fluoride cool aid and start knowing the difference between right and wrong.

Well that sure is a dramatic and simplistic perspective Doc. First, I find it naive to think that the potus is the maybe the highest position in the world. Once maybe, though maybe not. I used to think it was but have not now for a couple of decades.
Secondly, where did I say I was voting for her. Where did I say I thought she was the best for the job. I didn't. But yet you assume that just because I made an attempt to suggest that your absolute villains are not as absolute as your post make them out to be, you jump to the conclusion that I am drinking the cold aid and do not know the difference between right and wrong. That's some mighty strong condemnation for someone who was trying to add some possibly larger context to a post I thought was rather narrow minded in it's focus.

So once again, even though I do not like the Clintons and never have, I was only attempting to point out that the problems we face go much deeper than your OP relates. Indeed, that focusing on the problem as a problem with the Clintons only serves to miss-direct our focus from the larger problems.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Think Tanks? As a part of the problem? I think so. Originally I liked the idea of think tanks. Back when guys like Einstein and other geniuses put themselves together to hash out many things, TTs now are nothing more than partisan propaganda pundits, pumping out talking points to suit previously established postitions.

originally posted by: khnum
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

The most recent program in the middle east was hatched back in the early 80's- General Wesley Clark told us about the 7 nation invasion plan to systematically destroy then loot national resources under puppet governments to support the petrodollar in 2007.Since the end of the gold standard the US flag may well of been the Jolly Roger.After Libya and Syria in this plan are Lebanon then the grand finale Iran to be bombed and subjugated.The plan is bi-partisan and no-one is going to be President unless they go along with it.

Exact-a-mundo. And even though a candidate may give lip service to changing these decades old plans, they have to just go along with it all. Clinton or Trump matters not in this regard.

You get a loony egomaniac with a warped perspective, and some of what they say is actually true. It reminds me a lot of Alex Jones.

The problem is that for every bit of truth you have at least 9 lies, and usually the delivery of the fact makes the truth a lie lol. It's just not worth it to bother with people like this.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I never understood how cash could supplant intell BUT THEY'VE done it in THESE..
All our policies ARE FROM these damn Tanks.
Middle east: Break them up ,pick up the pieces.
Europe: Let Nato confront ,weaken if it goes hot,go in next
China: Confront and contain
THE SAME policies, BOTH parties.


NOT AMERICA'S IDEAS!

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire

originally posted by: khnum
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

The most recent program in the middle east was hatched back in the early 80's- General Wesley Clark told us about the 7 nation invasion plan to systematically destroy then loot national resources under puppet governments to support the petrodollar in 2007.Since the end of the gold standard the US flag may well of been the Jolly Roger.After Libya and Syria in this plan are Lebanon then the grand finale Iran to be bombed and subjugated.The plan is bi-partisan and no-one is going to be President unless they go along with it.

Exact-a-mundo. And even though a candidate may give lip service to changing these decades old plans, they have to just go along with it all. Clinton or Trump matters not in this regard.

If you haven't noticed. Neither party likes Donald Trump. Probably because he isn't a bought off mole. Big difference between himself and Hillary.

As much as I despise the Clintons, they did not found ISIS.

They have however played a good part in ISIS flourishing, as well as radical Islam flourishing. So has Obama.

Nasrallah says Trump was right, Hillary founded ISIS. Nasrallah is usually correct about most things.

dailycaller.com...

this thread shoulde be in the lol section of ats

a reply to: Doctor Smith

There may be truth in what you say mate, and frankly nothing US politicians (or any politicians anywhere come to that) do would surprise me in the slightest, being the self serving, needy egotists that they mostly are...but really, you lost me at '110%'.

If you start out a thread with an impossibility like 110%...it doesn't give the rest of what you're saying much credibility mate.

I'd change the title if i were you...100% is all there is baby.

and bush had significant ties to the bin ladens, one of whom was blamed for the attack on 9/11.. ya know, bin laden, the saudis, the taliban, al quada, iraq, torture, please get out of our country if you can't respect our laws and legal system, ISIS, toyota trucks, oh goodie the loons filled the vacuum in that country, what's the next country on our list??

the republicans have managed to take themselves out of the blame game entirely in this election, it will either be hillary or trump, neither of whom anyone can really claim to be replublican. or if we are lucky, real lucky, maybe a third party will get it, but when the finale of this failed policy finally comes, they will have distanced themselves so effectively that very few will think to look that far in history to see that they played the greatest role in the mess!

Sigh...

These talking points, from Trump, Clinton and every other asshat in Washington - along with their surrogates and pundits in the mainstream media - are just that... Talking points.

We actually live in a world where a man who is allegedly a billionaire, though at least a multi-millionaire if not actually a billionaire, can claim to be a populist man of the people... and be believed.

We actually live in a world where almost all media is owned by very small group of actual billionaires ( six families if memory serves ) - and we either trust them to tell us the truth, even though they are no longer legally obligated to do so - and when it is not in their best financial interests to do so... Or we distrust them for all of the wrong reasons ( cuz teh librul meedeya ).

The lies and narratives never cease in the endless dog pile of misinformation we have to fight from under if we want to understand even the most basic of things.

One example... The constant and endless statements that Obama is somehow sympathetic to or soft on Jihadists... A claim made so loudly and so often that we are all numb to it... But meanwhile the freaking Air Force is afraid of running out of bombs because we're dropping so many... UNDER OBAMA.

Truth, but one that is inconvenient to those who wish to control the narrative and our futures.

If we don't wise up, as a nation, we are so screwed.

Trump is not factually accurate here at all. But what he has done, and most masterfully, is validated the anger and hatred of many among us by saying what those people want to believe.

Trumpiness: it's the new Truthiness.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

You have to quit drinking the fluoride cool aid and start knowing the difference between right and wrong.

If you haven't noticed.

Doc. In both your replies you insinuate either a lack of awareness on my part, that I have been brainwashed, or that I do not know the difference between right and wrong. Do you really think these things or are you just tossing out simple little cliches that help you not have to consider different thoughts that are presented to you.

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: Doctor Smith

There may be truth in what you say mate, and frankly nothing US politicians (or any politicians anywhere come to that) do would surprise me in the slightest, being the self serving, needy egotists that they mostly are...but really, you lost me at '110%'.

If you start out a thread with an impossibility like 110%...it doesn't give the rest of what you're saying much credibility mate.

I'd change the title if i were you...100% is all there is baby.

Actually. Not really. 100% = 1 50% = .5 200% = 2

So 110% means 1.1