Kasich vs. Sanders would have been such a great campaign

anatta said:
Clinton is a neo-con. deal with it. She is an innate interventionist, and believes in spreading democracy by the barrel of a gun if necessary..

Syria/Libya and Iraq..manifest
Click to expand...

No.
Words have actual meanings.
You don't get to make them up to suit your specific hatred.
Cheney was a neo-con
Wolfowitz was neo-con
Rummy was a neo-con
Hillary is a lot of things but not a neo-con.
Fucking broken record idiot.
 
cawacko said:
I'll admit, there were times I got annoyed with you during the '00's as you kept harping against the Iraq War. Hard to admit now but you were correct. That being said it's basically Trump level hubris from Desh to 1) say you supported the war and 2) demand that you prove you didn't
Click to expand...

At least you admit it, many won't even do that.
 
Thing1 said:
I thought you said lying was evil?

There is no more committed anti-war poster on this board than me. I was against the war from the second someone said "Iraq." I'm also against the next war.

Find something to back up this claim you made - or you are a liar, and evil.
Click to expand...

Yeah I don't doubt you are antiwar
But most commited on this board?
Sorry, no, that would be me.
 
Rune said:
No.
Words have actual meanings.
You don't get to make them up to suit your specific hatred.
Cheney was a neo-con
Wolfowitz was neo-con
Rummy was a neo-con
Hillary is a lot of things but not a neo-con.
Fucking broken record idiot.
Click to expand...

I know you don't like anatta but he's not wrong
 
Thing1 said:
I thought you said lying was evil?

There is no more committed anti-war poster on this board than me. I was against the war from the second someone said "Iraq." I'm also against the next war.

Find something to back up this claim you made - or you are a liar, and evil.
Click to expand...

I was right there with you, as were several other poster still posting here. Never was for the war, ever.
 
Rune said:
Yeah I don't doubt you are antiwar
But most commited on this board?
Sorry, no, that would be me.
Click to expand...

Not really knowing everyone personally, I shouldn't have said most. I know that there were plenty out there who were 100% against it.

Though it's kind of what we hear about Woodstock - how millions of people now claim to have been there.
 
Thing1 said:
Not really knowing everyone personally, I shouldn't have said most. I know that there were plenty out there who were 100% against it.

Though it's kind of what we hear about Woodstock - how millions of people now claim to have been there.
Click to expand...
Not I, lol, although I wanted to be!
 
Rana said:
lol, I remember all of us being labeled anti American because we didn't support the war.
Click to expand...

I'll really never forget that stuff - being called traitors & terrorist-sympathizers, and being ridiculed. Now, everyone is on board, and it was just 'bad intel.'

There are a lot of lessons to be learned from that period of our history, and how almost an entire country can fall into that trap on something so monumental - but I feel like we haven't really learned them, and that they'll mostly be forgotten.
 
Thing1 said:
And worthy of a country as great as America.

Two principled candidates, offering two completely different approaches and viewpoints, running positive, message-oriented campaigns.

It's such a shame that this option was presented to primary voters, and we are going to get Trump/Clinton instead. This is going to be the ugliest campaign we've ever seen, from two very unprincipled candidates, who will spend very little time on message and most on hurling negatives toward the other side.
Click to expand...

Kasich is garden variety GOP.
Sorry nothing special there.
 
Rune said:
No.
Words have actual meanings.
You don't get to make them up to suit your specific hatred.
Cheney was a neo-con
Wolfowitz was neo-con
Rummy was a neo-con
Hillary is a lot of things but not a neo-con.
Fucking broken record idiot.
Click to expand...
she is both an innate interventionist, and uses "spreading democracy" to excuse her "smart power" on Libya.
What is the definition otherwise of a neocon??
She keeps going back to "free elections" post Qaddafi -which isn't important at ALL to modern Libya.
Libya is a failed terrorist state -and Clinton hold the bloody hand of tens of thousands dead because of her efforts.

Look at the damn "tic toc on Libya" -published by her own State dept, or read the NYTimes article published just last weekend.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/libya-isis-hillary-clinton.html
^ part 2. read thru part one, or look thru my Libyan blog. ALL sources say the same about her

She did the same in Syria -she organized "Friends of Syria?" (shuttle diplomacy) along what lines but a DEMOCRATIC opposition to Assad?
It's how we got in there backing Free Syrian Army types ( to simplify it).
She bought into the Arab Spring in Syria as a democratic movement -for sure there was some of that ,
but basic political reform and food shortages/drought
is what caused it. Did Clinton make ANY reference of these in her meetings? No..it was all about "democracy" from her mouth.

Now add in Iraq. connect the damn dots. There isn't any doubt Clinton is a neocon.

You might not want to hear your hero is much the same as the above you mention ; and you certainly have good company in the Democratic party.
But those facts speak for themselves. Wake up. she's a dangerous neocon interventionists who refuses to learn even now from her failures.
 
leaningright said:
Here we go... We haven't even go to the point where Hillary is the nominee and not wanting her is equivalent to "hating on the first female president." Not wanting Hillary as president has little to nothing to do with the fact that she is a woman. But you guys like to make it all about race and misogyny when it suits you.
Click to expand...

Thats all they got, racism and sexism and a number of other isms.....in other words, they got nothin'.....
 
Last edited:
anatta said:
she is both an innate interventionist, and uses "spreading democracy" to excuse her "smart power"
on Libya. What is the definition otherwise of a neocon??


She did the same in Syria -she organized "Friends of Syria?" (shuttle diplomacy) along what lines but a DEMOCRATIC opposition to Assad?
It's how we got in there backing Free Syrian Army types ( to simplify it).
She bought into the Arab Spring in Syria as a democratic movement -for sure there was some of that ,
but basic political reform and food shortages/drought
is what caused it. Did Clinton make ANY reference of these in her meetings? No..it was all about "democracy" from her mouth.

You might not want to hear your hero is much the same as the above you mention ; and you certainly have good company in the Democratic party.
But those facts speak for themselves. Wake up. she's a dangerous neocon interventionists who refuses to learn even now from her failures.
Click to expand...

Buy a fucking dictionary.
 
Thing1 said:
I'll really never forget that stuff - being called traitors & terrorist-sympathizers, and being ridiculed. Now, everyone is on board, and it was just 'bad intel.'

There are a lot of lessons to be learned from that period of our history, and how almost an entire country can fall into that trap on something so monumental - but I feel like we haven't really learned them, and that they'll mostly be forgotten.
Click to expand...

Intell from Germany, France, the UK, the US, Italy, and just about everywhere else said the same thing.....and it was the same thing Clinton ranted about from 1996 on until 2001....
ie....Saddam and his WMD posed a threat......so how do you reconcile your belief.....??? Did everyone lied?
 
Onceler I ask this for the sake of discussion. When you say you are anti-war are you referring specifically to the Iraq War or any/all war in general?

(The caveat in that question being I don't think too many people are 'pro-war' but if polls are to be believed 90% of our country supported going into Afghanistan post 9/11 for instance)
 
NOVA said:
Intell from Germany, France, the UK, the US, Italy, and just about everywhere else said the same thing.....and it was the same thing Clinton ranted about from 1996 on until 2001....
ie....Saddam and his WMD posed a threat......so how do you reconcile your belief.....??? Did everyone lied?
Click to expand...

A 2002 NIE wrote that Saddam wasn't even a threat to his immediate neighbors in the Middle East.

Saddam was never a threat to our country. This was not "war as a last resort." Stop buying into the fiction that everyone sold you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top