Hilary and Fox News, what a beautiful marriage

i am not muddying the issue

zzz wants to set up a litmus test

for him (read his post), hillarys war position is a "right wing" position

that is false

rightwing =/= pro iraq war

i used a FEW examples. they Are legion tho

lets get something straight

rightwing =/= pacifist

it also =/= anti iraq war

i prefer to be precise with terms, when possible

the term is HAWKISH

hillary is not MERELY pro-iraq war. she is relatively interventionist and while she is PERSONALLY aghast at the site of military uniforms, she is very pro-using the military to further various US aims abroad. that's who she is

it does not make her "right wing":. it does not mean she loses her liberal decoder ring

and many who are antiiraq war, are not antiwar in general. they just think the iraq war was ill advised

regardless, i did not cherry pick my examples. i used people who were PROMINENT. for pete's sake, tony blair, a socialist, is one of the most influential political leaders in the WORLD

and hillary is VERY influential in the US

so, let's deal with facts. the iraq war is not a "rightwing" cause.

it's a policy (right or wrong) based upon certain beliefs about proactive stances against terrorists that many on the rightwing VEHEMENTLY disagree with as overly entangling, for instance

liberal =/= antiwar.

sorry.

and rightwing =/= proiraq war
 
jem, Mr. Substance...

LOL...

Quote from jem:

Another substantive response by zzzz. When are you going to learn that I could care less if part of troll playbook is trash the messenger when you cant beat the message. Look at your last 3 troll plays. No substance all attacks on the messenger instead of the substance.

It must suck to be a troll without without the power to aggravate.

Pure entertrollment. We have trolls and troll owners.
More...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

jem, Mr. Substance...

LOL...
More...

troll play #2.

type the last post of the conversation even it is meaningless.

2.5 - then attach LOL or LMAO.
 
jem defense, pretend he has it figured out.

LOL....

Quote from jem:

troll play #2.

type the last post of the conversation even it is meaningless.

2.5 - then attach LOL or LMAO.
More...
 
I see you have difficulty admitting you are wrong.

Fine by me....

Hawkish=right wing conservative position. Shoot first, negotiate after. Build up the military. Build lots of nukes. Guns over butter.

Peace/Dove=left wing liberal. Negotiate first, avoid war at all cost. End the nuclear proliferation, reduce military spending in favor of education, etc. Butter over guns.

Most everyone knows this to be the case, but apparently you....

In the case of the Iraq war, compared to the Afghan war, it is never so clear. The Afghan war was supported by nearly everyone except the far left wing, because it was thought to be a direct response to 9/11 and those who instigated it.

On the other hand, the Iraq war was an elective war, an unnecessary war, and a politically imperialistic war....and the liberal position was clearly against it, while the right wing position was aching for it...

Quote from whitster:

i am not muddying the issue

zzz wants to set up a litmus test

for him (read his post), hillarys war position is a "right wing" position

that is false

rightwing =/= pro iraq war

i used a FEW examples. they Are legion tho

lets get something straight

rightwing =/= pacifist

it also =/= anti iraq war

i prefer to be precise with terms, when possible

the term is HAWKISH

hillary is not MERELY pro-iraq war. she is relatively interventionist and while she is PERSONALLY aghast at the site of military uniforms, she is very pro-using the military to further various US aims abroad. that's who she is

it does not make her "right wing":. it does not mean she loses her liberal decoder ring

and many who are antiiraq war, are not antiwar in general. they just think the iraq war was ill advised

regardless, i did not cherry pick my examples. i used people who were PROMINENT. for pete's sake, tony blair, a socialist, is one of the most influential political leaders in the WORLD

and hillary is VERY influential in the US

so, let's deal with facts. the iraq war is not a "rightwing" cause.

it's a policy (right or wrong) based upon certain beliefs about proactive stances against terrorists that many on the rightwing VEHEMENTLY disagree with as overly entangling, for instance

liberal =/= antiwar.

sorry.

and rightwing =/= proiraq war
More...
 
What the hell kind of drugs are YOU on? Gore? Bawhahahahaha!!! Your 2 BEST candidates are Hillary and Gore? Bawhahahahaha!!!

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Only Gore could wrestle the nomination from her at this point.

Besides, we all know what Hillary says now in order to get elected...and what she would do as president, are two very different things....

Look at it simply, Hillary is pro-choice, pro-healthcare, pro-environment. She has been mostly right wing on Iraq, that is about the extent of her non "liberal" position. Bill has also been mostly supportive of the Iraq war....

That alone makes her a liberal....
More...
 
I am not on drugs, thanks anway.

I am saying that Hillary and Gore have the best chance of being elected, president, and of the two, I prefer Gore.

Bush is the worst president ever in my opinion, and the polls are reflecting that sentiment is not mine alone....

So, while I would prefer someone other than Hillary or Gore, I prefer both of them to Bush or another like him.

Quote from Arnie:

What the hell kind of drugs are YOU on? Gore? Bawhahahahaha!!! Your 2 BEST candidates are Hillary and Gore? Bawhahahahaha!!!
More...
 
"Hawkish=right wing conservative position"

false. and also not supported by data. if u want to start counting how many foreign conflicts have been entered/initiated/supported by

dems vs. repubs

or rights vs. lefts

go ahead

the empirically gathered evidence does not match your rhetoric. but that is so often the case, it is practically a given

as soon as Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Scoop Jackson, Tony (socialist) Blair, Stalin, Mao, Che Guevera, Ed Koch, Hillary Clinton start being "right wing" let me know

you can repeat your canards all u want, and misuse political terminology all u want as well (my favorite recent doltism was the insistence (you know you are) that tony blair was not a socialist. lol), but u fail to make cogent arguments when u can't even use political terms correctly

this comes down to motivations. 1) you are leftwing 2) you are against the iraq war

ergo, being FOR the iraq war must be a "right wing" position, since that is most comfortable for you.

but as long as there are tons of left wingers who support it, and tons of rightwingers who don't, you are wrong

now, you have extended your incorrectness to an even more indefensible position - that HAWKISHNESS = rightwing position

again, ignoring over 200 years of US history, and many more of world history. willingness to enter armed conflicts is completely tangential to whether a political leader was/is right or leftwing. many leftwing regimes have been incredibly hawkish, and many rightwing regimes have not been. again, u fail to use logic, consistency, etc. it's kind of sad
 
Quote from dddooo:

What facts? Your party elects Bush senior and when he proves to be a miserable failure you start claiming he is a liberal. Your party elects Bush Junior, gives him full 100% support for 6 years and when he ruins everything he touches and proves to be 100 times worse than his dad ......
More...


The economy is the best it has ever been. Where are all the ruins, except those that exist in your paranoid minds.

Iraq! Iraq may yet to be proven as an incredibly important war, despite all the current noise. It never made sense to me, but I didn't have a multi-billion dollar intelligence infrustructure guiding my opinion.

Win/Lose the most despicable thing is having to had witness the far-left cheering us to defeat.
 
Nice of you to admit that a mediocre candidate that didn't even carry his home state has the best chance of winning the Democrat nomination. What a party!:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top