2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumJane was instrumental in wrecking a college. Hillary was instrumental in wrecking Libya
Yeah I was going to stay off of GDP. Then I saw the petty, malicious joy with which stories about Burlington College were being flung up on the virtual walls here, and I said Fuck that.
And no, she wasn't just following the President. Educate yourself. It was her plan. She argued for it. Yeah, he's ultimately the stopped buck guy, but she sure as Hell was instrumental in the hideous failed state cluster fuck that used to be a functioning nation know as Libya. That is not fucking praise for Gaddafi.
So you want to righteously bray about how Jane ruined this college, bray on. But a couple of more things: Jane isn't running. Hillary is. However, if you want to start discussing spouses....
One drove a college to financial ruin. She isn't running for anything.
One was instrumental in driving a nation into a failed state, and all that entails. She's running for president.
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)have murdered hundreds of thousands if the US did not step in. Were you against that?
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Ash_F
(5,861 posts)What can you share?
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Ash_F
(5,861 posts)*snip*
On March 1, 2011, the Senate approved a resolution "strongly condemning the gross and systematic violations of human rights in Libya."
The resolution called for peaceful regime change, saying Gaddafi should "desist from further violence, recognize the Libyan peoples demand for democratic change, resign his position and permit a peaceful transition to democracy."
*snip*
There is a difference between what Sanders' supported and what Clinton supported, which was giving military support to hardline Arab Royalists who then went on to treat Black Libyans like this:
The people Clinton supported believe in Arab supremacy.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)has tried to argue with your point.
oasis
(49,454 posts)PufPuf23
(8,847 posts)Sounds good though.
You leave out that the US had armed and provided covert ops assistance to the Libyan rebels that were radical Islamists and assisted in the destabilization of Libya.
Our bombing went way beyond a "humanitarian no fly zone" to general bombing including destruction of civilian infrastructure.
Under that cover the Islamic rebels committed genocide on Libyan blacks and black guest workers,
There are WikiLeaks Hillary Clinton emails discussing assistance to the rebels and "business opportunities" to follow.
We left Libya, one of the most prosperous and modern nations in Africa, to a leadership vacuum filled by radical Islamists.
The wealth of Libya was low hanging fruit for the neo-liberals and Libya was on the neo-conservative list of seven nations for regime change in the Middle East.
Libya became a staging area and source of fighters and weapons for ISIS in Syria.
Just great.
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)Gomez163
(2,039 posts)Accusations of imperialism on the part of NATO and the West were voiced by many leaders of states that had traditionally aligned themselves with the Communist bloc and subsequently Russia, including: Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei (who said he supported the rebels but not Western intervention), Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez (who referred to Gaddafi as a "martyr" , and President of Zimbabwe Robert Mugabe (who referred to the Western nations as "vampires" , as well as the governments of Raúl Castro in Cuba, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, Kim Jong-il in North Korea, Hifikepunye Pohamba in Namibia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya
PufPuf23
(8,847 posts)to recognize what occurred in Libya.
The names you mention are not "my friends"; that is an easy and ignorant smear.
Do you support what happened to Iraq?
Are not NATO and the West and the USA not guilty of imperialism that replaced the pre-WWII colonialism?
At least be honest.
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)It was begged for by the UN in order to save lives. Do yourself a favor and reread the news stories from that period of time. This is not imperialism. Quadaffi was a monster.
PufPuf23
(8,847 posts)Note that I was the OP (and meant to stimulate, specifically Libya was not a socialist paradise)
My OP started with hyperbole and ended up as somewhat of a honey trap for certain types of posters.
The title was the title of a link I posted, not my words.
Lots of good links provided by others if you think I am an idiot.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027826490
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)PufPuf23
(8,847 posts)Gomez163
(2,039 posts)reread the news stories from that era.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)Here are some Facts you probably do not know about Libya under Muammar Gaddafi:
There was no electricity bills in Libya; electricity is free
for all its citizens.
There was no interest on loans, banks in Libya are state-owned and loans given to all its citizens at 0% interest by law.
If a Libyan is unable to find employment after graduation, the state would pay the average salary of the profession as if he or she is employed until employment is found.
Should Libyans want to take up a farming career, they receive farm land, a house, equipment, seed and livestock to kick start their farms this was all for free.
Gaddafi carried out the worlds largest irrigation project, known as the Great Man-Made River project, to make water readily available throughout the desert country.
A home was considered a human right in Libya. (In Qaddafis Green Book it states: The house is a basic need of both the individual and the family, therefore it should not be owned by others.)
All newlyweds in Libya would receive 60,000 Dinar (US$ 50,000 ) by the government to buy their first apartment so to help start a family.
A portion of Libyan oil sales is or was credited directly to the bank accounts of all Libyan citizens.
A mother who gives birth to a child would receive US $5,000.
When a Libyan buys a car, the government would subsidizes 50% of the price.
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-884508
We get fed propaganda and lap it up like hungry dogs. Do not be naive, we wanted his oil!
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)Human101948
(3,457 posts)Gaddafi was no angel, but believing that we overthrew him as a humanitarian mission is just plain stupid. We wanted his oil. Just as we wanted Saddam Hussein's oil.
The United States has no problem with murderous dictators--
Over the last century, the United States government has often provided, and continues to provide today, financial assistance, education, arms, military training and technical support to numerous authoritarian regimes across the world. A variety of reasons have been provided to justify the apparent contradictions between support for dictators and the democratic ideals expressed in the United States Constitution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authoritarian_regimes_supported_by_the_United_States
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Life for them is always black or white when it involves people other than themselves.
Thanks for your posts. I was going to post something similar, but you beat me to it.
treestar
(82,383 posts)with no free speech and no civil rights you never knew when you'd end up in the gulag.
Also sounds impossible. Everyone who wants farmland gets it? How much land in Libya is farmland? It's not an endless supply.
How did the government have all that money to dish out? Suppose it didn't one year?
I think you're being sold a bag of hooey.
All newlyweds in Libya - certainly not gay ones.
Paying women to have children - how interesting. Was there a tax write off too?
Sounds financially impossible. No interest on loans, well how do you qualify for them? Probably almost no one qualifies.
If it was such paradise, they wouldn't have a dictator. And how do we know anything in Ghadaffi's green book was ever really done? Probably more like the Soviet Constitution.
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)9 March 2011: The head of the Libyan National Transitional Council, Mustafa Abdul Jalil, "pleaded for the international community to move quickly to impose a no-fly zone over Libya, declaring that any delay would result in more casualties."[40] Three days later, he stated that if pro-Gaddafi forces reached Benghazi, then they would kill "half a million" people. He stated, "If there is no no-fly zone imposed on Gaddafi's regime, and his ships are not checked, we will have a catastrophe in Libya."[41]
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)Clinton supported his side without human rights stipulations and this is what happened
This was the group Clinton supported
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)Destabilizing countries seems to be what she does best.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Jane...the lone wolf making false loan applications and providing made up shit to qualify.
Are you attempting to say that Hillary was a lone and sole decision maker in Libya? Cool story.
scscholar
(2,902 posts)It wasn't bad. She was trying to help the students.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)for a college with 70 students, she leaves with a $200K golden parachute? Tell me how much she cared for those students and wasn't just padding her pockets.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)And if you don't think there will be a payback, you are very naive.
Kind of makes Mrs. Sanders look like a piker.
Demsrule86
(68,768 posts)She ran that school out of business...she may have to give back the money too...sometimes it is 'clawed' back.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)There are a lot of people there who'd like to claw their lives back.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)It's just in a slightly better state of 'fucked up' at the moment...
But since Jane has never been, nor ever will be in a position to make these kinds of policy decisions, I think your comparison is off...
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)Yet all you alleged liberals are suddenly playing back the 90's!!! RIGHT here on GDP. Jane did A lot more than ruin a college. She was malicious to people who worked there. She made their life hell.
Demsrule86
(68,768 posts)good instincts on my part.
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)come out and say how miserable she was to them. Even retaliating and firing them wen they do not agree with her.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)fun n serious
(4,451 posts)AzDar
(14,023 posts)Man, you need to get your meter fixed...
Response to AzDar (Reply #36)
Post removed
AzDar
(14,023 posts)That's the THING about LIARS... they aren't to be BELIEVED.
QC
(26,371 posts)The troll amnesty has really elevated the level of discourse here, don't you think?
.99center
(1,237 posts)dchill
(38,594 posts)That is WAY disingenuous, and obviously untrue.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)That you meant LYDIA, perhaps another one of Bill's romantic conquests.
And I was gonna say, oh who cares!
But you mean Libya, a nation wherein until recently people had food, water, shelter and education.
Then our geo engineered weather war caused a most unusual drought in the Middle East leading to the "Egyptian Spring." (As the author of a 2003 article on Weapons of the Future, here is an important link: http://www.coastalpost.com/03/03/12.htm )
And countless places wherein Secretary of State HRC could then use her influence and power to start wars.
Pity for the people of Libya and all the other smaller nations that have had their lives ripped apart.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)College and the VT economy surrounding it
her malfeasance resulted in one law suit with more on the way.
pacalo
(24,721 posts)& harping on this does nothing to bolster Hillary. Stick with the candidates -- the public figures who have chosen to be in the spotlight.
Attacking a spouse for supporting her husband is below the belt & tacky.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,947 posts)Because Bill Clinton, who is also not running for president, has more skeletons in his closet than a medical school. If Jane is fair game, so is Bill, and he's got a hell of a lot more baggage than Jane.
sheshe2
(84,005 posts)Bill Clinton is indeed being attacked here on DU. Viciously.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Island of a certain under age child predator!
pacalo
(24,721 posts)to the fat cats who have made cheating the 98% an art form. I want to know what she says behind closed doors -- where are the transcripts?
As for Bernie's tax returns, he has proven that he's not for sale. He walks the walk. And he's not known for lying but for his integrity. People trust him. I'm sorry that the same cannot be said about Hillary, but that's no reason to go after Bernie's wife.
Prism
(5,815 posts)Because I can send you pictures of a college closing, and then pictures of Hillary's foreign policy.
Somehow, I feel like you've never bothered to look.
We should fix that.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)And in his history as a career politician. She is fair game. As you mention, she was in a powerful position at Burlington and really failed them. Not the biggest deal outside of Vermont. It is one more piece of the Sanders story and their past issues. It helps one to understand why they are doing what they are now.
Gadaffi fucked up "Libya".
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)sooooo LET"S GO who can dig more dirt but are you sure you really want this contest remember you pu spouses into play
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I put the spouses in play? What an absolutely foolish statement. They all put each other in play. Amazing how much power you believe I posses. Your telling me you haven't commented on the Big Dogg Blowhorn Bill in this campaign cycle but will start now because of my post.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)I have never called Bill Big Dogg Blowhorn Bill but I have commented on Hillary's actions re:Bill
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)You just said that I put them in play.
I didn't say you ever called him that. At all.
I have called him that. I recently added the additional g in honor of Snoop Dogg throwing his support in.
riversedge
(70,413 posts)Demsrule86
(68,768 posts)She decided what to do ...and Hillary worked for the boss Obama ...his policy. If you lie on a mortgage, you can get in serious trouble and do time in Camp Fed.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)B Calm
(28,762 posts)of time for her predecessor to fix the problem. Hillary on the other hand still pats herself on the back for her fuck up in Libya.
YouDig
(2,280 posts)Did the entire international community warn that if something wasn't done quickly that hundreds of thousands of people were about to be slaughtered while the world sat around and watched?
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Sure, Bernie's current wife, Jane, isn't running for office, but she's running to be the First Lady, and she's putting herself "out there" so she becomes a fair target (not just an innocent "bystander" who's uninvolved). Also, this appears to be an explanation, or a contributing factor to the lack of transparency (and quantity) when it comes to the Sanders' tax return/s.
So, does this mean your "back-back" for good or you're just back temporarily "this one time" and that you'll be leaving again (or "leaving" until the next time)?
No judgement, just asking.
TSIAS
(14,689 posts)"Bernie's current wife, Jane".
He's been married for over 25 years and you want to make it sound like he's some sort of creep.
This is the sort of disgusting post I've come to expect from you and your ilk.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,947 posts)While the real estate purchase ultimately turned out not to be a good deal for the college, I doubt very much that Jane Sanders made the deal on her own without the input or the approval of its board of trustees. She and the trustees obviously wanted to do something positive for the college but unfortunately it didn't turn out the way they hoped. OMG!!! How terrible and evil!!!
Now, if we are going to be talking about the missteps of candidates' spouses, which some in this thread have announced are fair game because they are speaking for the campaign, does anybody really want to talk about the missteps of Bill Clinton? Because that's a very, very long list of missteps, most of which have to do with what Bill wanted personally and are not at all like real estate deals that didn't turn out well. Do we want to go there? Because we can. And if Jane is "fair game," so are Bill and Chelsea and son-in-law Mark Mezvitsky.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,947 posts)I can start, though, if you'd like. It wouldn't take a lot of effort - there's a lot of low-hanging fruit there.
pampango
(24,692 posts)it would not have happened. Once the UN acted, France and the UK, with the support of the US, conducted the bombing in Libya. The UN did not authorize intervention in any other 'Arab Spring' country and none happened.
On 17 March 2011 the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1973, with a 100 vote and five abstentions including Russia, China, India, Brazil and Germany. The resolution sanctioned the establishment of a no-fly zone and the use of "all means necessary" to protect civilians within Libya.[79] On 19 March, the first act of NATO allies to secure the no-fly zone by destroying Libyan air defences began when French military jets entered Libyan airspace on a reconnaissance mission heralding attacks on enemy targets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya#2011_Civil_War
joshcryer
(62,287 posts)And Sanders voted for it.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)but tell us agian how its all Jane's fault because of 6 years ago? Seems a lot of sluggish water under that bridge
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Iraq and Afghanistan as examples.
The one responsible for Libya apparently learned nothing from history, even recent history. What does this indicate for future decisions?
Aerows
(39,961 posts)...Hillary can do better, Hillary messes up better than you!"
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)on top of the lives. We had Libya citizens demanding we intervene. We yell when we don't. We yell when we do. I see a thread yelling about Clinton's not intervening in Apartheid. None of it is a good answer. Isolationism, or involvement. I think it is hypocritical people going at this.
joshcryer
(62,287 posts)It's unsurprising his fake supporters don't realize that.
Number23
(24,544 posts)There aren't enough smileys in the world for this OP.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)and she's licking her chops over Syria and probably a few others
grasswire
(50,130 posts)tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)shall we start listing all of Bill's disasters
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)lovemydog
(11,833 posts)More is at play than one person being instrumental in either.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)It's beautiful and a fixture on North Ave.
And it has a killer view.
CanadaexPat
(496 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Ghadaffi was and apparently without the help of the people. So they revolted.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Pretty fucking pathetic, isn't it?
KoKo
(84,711 posts)with their endowments dwindling. The 2008 Financial Disaster that wiped out Foundation Support and Low Interest Rates since means that many of the smaller Foundations that funded the small niche colleges just didn't survive.
What I've read about the Burlington College is that Jane Sanders was trying to save it and that she did have funders but one who promised the largest donation funding dropped out at the last minute and then there was the 2008 Crash. When Jane proposed the deal it seemed like a good thing but, the timing wasn't with her.
Anyway...whatever it was, all of the very small colleges are having problems with students who are are choosing to go into debt to go to more prestigious colleges and universities so they can have a better chance of employment. Many of the traditional women's colleges are even in danger of closing because they just don't have the money in endowments or alumni funding to continue because of the economy along with demographic changes. Burlington College was small college with a specific emphasis and the only option was to expand (at that time) or go out of business.
But, then, you live in Vermont, and probably know more about it than what I've read...but, I can see that all is not as black and white as the articles from the Vermont press that are Repub based are implying.