If you agree with the current foreign policy, then you are a NEO-CONSERVATIVE WAR HAWK. Thats what kind of Republican you are. Stop telling me what I am and am not. How dumb are you to assume that all Republicans must support the war. You think only liberals are against the war. You are obviously a NEO-CON. Reagan was certainly not a neo-con. Scums like Bush and McCain are unfortunately. And please tell me how conservative McCain is? How is he a traditional Republican? According to his voting record, he can be a Democrat (a RINO - republican in name only). He does have the neo-conservative foreign policy though that relates to what the current Bush adminstration has adhered too.
Like I said - you aren't too smart. I have never said you aren't a Republican. You are a liberal and you spout Democrat talking points. And I have never said I was a Republican. I am a contemporary conservative which includes support for a strong security policy. And I have never claimed that you are a liberal because you oppose the war. I have made my case that you are a liberal based on your assertions and attitude. You espouse Democrat talking points - that makes you a liberal. You think that America overthrows democracies to impose despots - that makes you a liberal. You think terrorists deserve more rights than legitimate prisoners of war - that makes you a liberal. You claim congress never signed off on war with Iraq when in fact congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 with 71% support - that makes you a liberal. You think that you can get balanced and thorough points of view from watching television - that makes you a liberal. You think that the Iraq war is like Viet Nam - that makes you a liberal. You think that communism was never a serious threat to America - that makes you a liberal. And you have not addressed any of my counterarguments, you simply make more and more stupid Democrat talking point assertions with no substantive evidence to support them - that makes you a liberal. Conclusion: No matter what you call yourself, you are a liberal.
Your strong security policy = Occupy Iraq, a country that never threathened us, had no relation to terrorism and did not have any weapons of mass destruction. North Korea, Pakistan, and China (possess nukes for one thing) are much more dangerous than Iraq, but we don't do anything there. That makes sense. Stop living your life in fear. You can't ever stop terrorism and you will surely not reduce it by invading countries that had nothing to do with earlier terrorist attacks. The only thing we accomplish by staying in the middle east is stiring up more hate. Now we can expect radical islam and terrorism to rise because of our unjust involvement in the region. What causes terrorism? TERRORISTS DONT ATTACK US BECAUSE WE ARE RICH AND FREE stupid! They attack us because we impose our western norms and tell them how to live their lives. Our CIA overthrows governments to install puppets for the U.S. government and exploit their markets. We need to stop telling other countries and parts of the world how to live their lives. You are a war hawk Neo-Con...
Your strong security policy = Occupy Iraq, a country that never threathened us, had no relation to terrorism and did not have any weapons of mass destruction. Answer this: What do you think causes terrorism? Why did 9/11 happen?
Why should I? Your history in this thread is that you will just ignore what I say and then make some other asinine, Democrat talking point assertions. You have become boring little Republican liberal - bye bye...
According to that response, your answer to what causes terrorism is a "I DONT KNOW". Obviously the precise causes of terrorism involve a set of complicated factors, but you could of at least said something. Well, thank you for at least not saying something ridiculous such as "They attack us because we are free and prosperous!" Only Bush can say that.
Townhall.com: The Place to Discuss Our Fundamental Principles Posted by: Fred Thompson "Spending some time on the campaign trail has confirmed a couple of thoughts Iâve had before I entered the Republican primary race. First, conservatism is alive and well in America; donât let anyone tell you differently. And by conservatism, I donât mean the warmed-over âraise your hand if you believe â¦â kind of conservatism we see blooming every election cycle. No, Iâm speaking of the conservatism grounded in principles based upon enduring truths: an understanding of the importance of human nature in the affairs of individuals and nations. Respect for the lessons of history, the importance of faith and tradition. The understanding that while man is prone to err, he is capable of great things when not subjugated by a too-powerful government. These are the principles that inspired our Founding Fathers, and resulted in a Constitution that delineated the powers of the central government, established checks and balances among the branches of government and further diffused governmental power by a system of Federalism. Second, change â whether it âreal change,â âbold changeâ or the âchange we can believe inâ variety others are selling â isnât itself an innovative policy or a particularly strong leadership stance. In fact, from Burke to Buckley, there has been an acknowledgement that change in the political arena is inevitable and necessary, and we in the U.S. tend to experience it in regular, 2, 4 and 6 year intervals, so 2008 is hardly our first rodeo. The challenge for conservatives is calibrating whether the change being proposed is consistent with our principles and our philosophy, and whether that change is appropriate. Our nation has some serious issues to work through for today ⦠and for the next generation. Now isnât the time for conservatives to be looking for a tailored message or a politically expedient route to victory if the end result is going to be the inevitable slide toward the liberalization and secularization of America, and the growth of government and loss of freedom that inevitably ensues. For us conservatives it must be about principles and policies that are grounded in freedom, free markets and the rule of law. Thatâs what Iâve been talking and writing about for the past few years, and thatâs what I want to talk write about here on Townhall and in the new Townhall Magazine. I joined Townhall and am writing exclusive commentaries for Townhall Magazine because I see them elevating the discourse on issues based on these principles -- smaller government, individual liberty, standing for common values that have become all too uncommon, a strong national defense and, most of all, an optimism and belief in America. Iâm glad to be back here in familiar territory, and weâll be talking to you soon."