Hilary and Fox News, what a beautiful marriage

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Maverick74, May 8, 2006.

  1. 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
     
    #31     May 9, 2006
  2. jem, Mr. Substance...

    LOL...

     
    #32     May 9, 2006
  3. jem

    jem

    troll play #2.

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

    2.5 - then attach LOL or LMAO.
     
    #33     May 10, 2006
  4. jem defense, pretend he has it figured out.

    LOL....

     
    #34     May 10, 2006
  5. 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...

     
    #35     May 10, 2006
  6. Arnie

    Arnie

    What the hell kind of drugs are YOU on? Gore? Bawhahahahaha!!! Your 2 BEST candidates are Hillary and Gore? Bawhahahahaha!!!

     
    #36     May 10, 2006
  7. 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.

     
    #37     May 10, 2006
  8. "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
     
    #38     May 10, 2006
  9. neophyte321

    neophyte321 Guest


    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.
     
    #39     May 10, 2006
  10. Arnie

    Arnie

    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
     
    #40     May 10, 2006