Hilary and Fox News, what a beautiful marriage

The United States has had a tradition of economically or socially liberal Democrat President's starting wars. The Bush's have single handily reversed that trend.

WWl: Woodrow Wilson (D)

WWll: FDR (D) He did everything possible to egg Japan on and he declared war on Germany before Germany could decide whether the tri-Axis treaty bound them to war with America.

Korea: Harry Truman (D) He saved many by nuking the Nips but five years later sentenced 50,000 American GI's to death in an unwinnable war.

Viet Nam: Kennedy/LBJ: JFK apologists like to speculate that Kennedy would never have sent 600,000 troops to Nam like Johnson. Perhaps not. But the CIA's assassination of President Diem was a huge blunder.

Wilson, FDR and LBJ were SUPER libs. In fact I'd say FDR was a RED. Yet all were war mongers.
 
Quote from whitster:

"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
More...

Dude, he knows he's all wrong...

Read Reardon Metal's post on trolls and you'll get it. He's just here to antagonize ANYONE...

You might think he's a lefty.... but he's really just nothingness....
 
I am right, you are wrong.

Your serve.

Quote from whitster:

"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
More...
 
Starting wars, is not a liberal position.

Does that mean a generally liberal politician won't occasionally take a right wing position now and then?

Modern day liberals take issue with Truman's bombing of Japan, the right wingers support it.

Current liberals take issue with the Vietnam war.

Liberals obviously take issue with the Iraq war.

It is simply an axiom today that the right wing is hawkish, and the left wing is dovish....

This doesn't preclude deviation from the essential position of liberals who seek peace not war by a president.

What we see today is that the right wingers are war mongers, mainly chickenhawks these days, and the liberals are opposed to the war.

You can try to make an argument that today's liberals are different than liberals of the past, but past is past....

Today, liberals favor peace over war. The change may have taken place in the 60's.

Right wingers favor war over peace and diplomacy, and scoff at use of the UN to solve problems.

We can see the same type of thing in the current republican party, beginning with Reagan, where deficit spending went against the trend of past republicans. Today it is seen in Bush, the right wing conservative who spends money like water and has increased the size of federal govenment.

We can say all we want that modern day repubs like Bush and Bush and Reagan are not conservatives like Goldwater, or that liberals are not like Kennedy or others.

However, in the times we live, today, hawks are right wing, and doves are left wing here in America.

Quote from Pabst:

The United States has had a tradition of economically or socially liberal Democrat President's starting wars. The Bush's have single handily reversed that trend.

WWl: Woodrow Wilson (D)

WWll: FDR (D) He did everything possible to egg Japan on and the declared war on Germany before Germany could decide whether the tri-Axis treaty bound them to war with America.

Korea: Harry Truman (D) He saved many by nuking the Nips but five years later sentenced 50,000 American GI's to death in an unwinnable war.

Viet Nam: Kennedy/LBJ: JFK apologists like to speculate that Kennedy would never have sent 600,000 troops to Nam like Johnson. Perhaps not. But the CIA's assassination of President Diem was a huge blunder.

Wilson, FDR and LBJ were SUPER libs. In fact I'd say FDR was a RED. Yet all were war mongers.
More...
 
Pabst, it's so clear when he does it to somebody else (vs. myself)

zzzz... is trolling

you are of course correct in yer analysis

note also that zzz's original claim was that

1) hillary being pro-iraq war was a "rightwing position". he morphs the argument
 
The original claim stands.

Hillary is a liberal who embraces a right wing conservative position, i.e. the Iraq War....

There is no morphing...except perhaps in your perceptions...

The liberal position as expressed by Pelosi, Feingold and Dean has been consistently against the war.

Quote from whitster:

Pabst, it's so clear when he does it to somebody else (vs. myself)

zzzz... is trolling

you are of course correct in yer analysis

note also that zzz's original claim was that

1) hillary being pro-iraq war was a "rightwing position". he morphs the argument
More...
 
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/blog-detail.php?id=14727

Murdoch Defends Plan to Host Hillary Fundraiser; Calls Her 'Effective, Good Senator'
By: Robert B. Bluey

News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox News and the New York Post, said today that he his standing by his decision to host a political fundraiser for Sen. Hillary Clinton later this year.

During a conference call about his company’s robust earnings report, I asked Murdoch what conservatives are to make of his willingness to support the liberal New York senator. (Listen to Murdoch's response in Windows Media and MP3 formats.)

“It will be pretty modest support,” Murdoch said. “It’s giving the opportunity to people in our office who want to join us at a breakfast.

“We think that she’s been effective on state issues and local issues here in a New York. She’s been an effective and good senator. And if people want to come to breakfast for $1,000, they’re welcome. It’s no big deal. It’s not a million-dollar raising. It’s got nothing to do with anything other than her Senate re-election.”

A News Corp. press officer invited HUMAN EVENTS to participate in the call—and ask about Hillary—following my report last night about a speech Murdoch gave to conservatives without mentioning the topic.

Last night’s speech at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., came a day after the Drudge Report broke the story about Murdoch’s decision to raise money for Clinton. The news was the talk of the town, leading some pundits to speculate that Murdoch was making a strategic move similar to his embrace of Tony Blair over conservatives in the United Kingdom.

Murdoch chose not to broach the subject during his speech to conservatives. He was in Washington to receive the Phillips Foundation Lifetime Achievement Award and honor recipients of the foundation’s journalism fellowship awards. He kept his remarks focused on Fox News and his other journalistic enterprises.

During a pre-dinner reception before Murdoch was honored, he entertained and chatted with some of the conservative movement’s VIPs. But everyone I talked to said they were either too nervous or simply too afraid to bring up the Hillary question.

When I told one attendee I planned to corner Murdoch and ask him about it, he suggested I avoid interacting with the News Corp. chairman for fear of angering the honored guest.

Following his speech, I made my way to the front of the room to ask the question no one else would dare pose to Murdoch: What are conservatives to make of his raising money for Hillary? Alas, I was too late. Murdoch made a dash for the door, and I missed him.

Today, however, after seeing my story, a News Corp. press officer called to apologize. He said Murdoch would have been happy to answer my questions about Hillary. He then offered me the opportunity to take part in this afternoon’s call.


Mr. Bluey is editor of Human Events Online.
 
That is your opinion.

Liberals favor a peaceful resolution, not war.

Bush has claimed he had not choice but to wage war on Iraq, which is simply not true. He had a choice, he chose war over peaceful solutions, and the right wing defended his moves then, and they continue to do so now....



Quote from hapaboy:

Wrong.

Today, liberals favor appeasement over war.
More...
 
Quote from hapaboy:

Today, liberals favor appeasement over war.
More...
I am sure you have a good explanation why then liberals overwhelmingly supported our invasion of Afghanistan and many (but not all) of them supported the US/NATO bombing campaign in Bosnia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top