Honest Left vs. Right Discussion...

[GL97]

Laughable. Obama let Russia roll in and take the lead in Syria because he had no plan. Hillary would do nothing as well.

Clinton is more of a hawk than Obama was.

What exactly would she be tough on?

She would have been tougher on Russia (especially in light of their election meddling). She supported and called for a no-fly zone in Syria. She would continue a hard-line stance against N. Korea and would be calling for tougher UN sanctions against them (as she did during the campaign).

I know you don't like Clinton, but Clinton is a hawk. This is one reason many Democrats supported Sanders over her. And also why many neo-cons supported her.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk.html

 

[Medic007]

Clinton is more of a hawk than Obama was.



She would have been tougher on Russia (especially in light of their election meddling). She supported and called for a no-fly zone in Syria. She would continue a hard-line stance against N. Korea and would be calling for tougher UN sanctions against them (as she did during the campaign).

I know you don't like Clinton, but Clinton is a hawk. This is one reason many Democrats supported Sanders over her. And also why many neo-cons supported her.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk.html

And then real world happens. She's a hawk when it came to defenseless Libya, but she shit her pants on Russia from the start. Reset button? Can you cite anything more retarded from a SOS? Her campaign promises and rhetoric were worth what her "no classified emails" claim was. Piles of manure would be generous.

You can hindsight it all you like, but she was not someone who was going to be tough on Russia or do anything good in Iraq, Libya or Syria despite what the lefty rag wants to proclaim. She "wowed" us with her decision making as SOS. There's zero evidence to believe the woman who couldn't operate a fax machine would be any better as president.

 

[JimmyBob]

She "wowed" us with her decision making as SOS.

I've got an 8" scar where my right tit once resided (before it left and left me with....); it has more "wow" to it than anything that cankled bitch ever did as SOS, and you can (damn, couldn't wait to play this card) bet:

 

[GL97]

You can hindsight it all you like, but she was not someone who was going to be tough on Russia or do anything good in Iraq, Libya or Syria despite what the lefty rag wants to proclaim.

First of all, Hillary Clinton was not President. Obama was. Clinton served in his administration as SOS. Obama was the one calling the shots from January 20, 2009 through January 20, 2017. You seem to suggest Clinton was the President.

Secondly, you keep forgetting something very important...I am a Sanders Democrat. That should tell you something about how I feel about a hawkish or neo-con foreign policy. To think that I am wanting to proclaim Clinton a hawk to somehow help her or defend her is absurd. I am simply making a political observation.

Clinton voted for the Iraq war. In 2008, she opposed "talking" to Iran when Obama suggested it. She wanted more intervention in Syria and called for a no-fly zone. She wanted to get tougher with Russia. And on and on and on. Clinton is a hawk. And if she had been elected, she would have been more of a hawk than Obama was.

 

[Medic007]

First of all, Hillary Clinton was not President. Obama was. Clinton served in his administration as SOS. Obama was the one calling the shots from January 20, 2009 through January 20, 2017. You seem to suggest Clinton was the President.

Secondly, you keep forgetting something very important...I am a Sanders Democrat. That should tell you something about how I feel about a hawkish or neo-con foreign policy. To think that I am wanting to proclaim Clinton a hawk to somehow help her or defend her is absurd. I am simply making a political observation.

Clinton voted for the Iraq war. In 2008, she opposed "talking" to Iran when Obama suggested it. She wanted more intervention in Syria and called for a no-fly zone. She wanted to get tougher with Russia. And on and on and on. Clinton is a hawk. And if she had been elected, she would have been more of a hawk than Obama was.

Doubt it on hawk for any country with testicles, ie Russia. Reset button tells it all. That was her idea. Aaannnd it was a retarded one.

But it's fun to play the what if game. What if the Democrats hadn't annointed Hillary queen? You and I could be talking about President Sanders. Sorry I forgot you were a Bernie guy with all of the Hillary love. I voiced my displeasure by not voting for their bullshit. How about you?

 

[Medic007]

I've got an 8" scar where my right tit once resided (before it left and left me with....); it has more "wow" to it than anything that cankled bitch ever did as SOS, and you can (damn, couldn't wait to play this card) bet:

View embedded media

Holy shit. You never under deliver.

 

[GL97]

Reset button tells it all. That was her idea.

Again, Obama was President. The reset approach was his policy. Clinton and Gates (the Bush holdover) never were sold on the approach in private and expressed doubts about it at the time...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/03/world/europe/us-russian-ties-still-fall-short-of-reset-goal.html

I don't really know why you doubt Clinton to be a hawk. I thought that was common knowledge.

 

[SUPERPOKES]

We wouldn't have a literal Nazi in charge. Gays, womins, and minorities would all still have rights. That has all been taken away by the Nazis. Just like Germany except they let us keep our guns.

Exactly what rights have been taken away from gays, women, and minorities??? Please be specific.

 

[CowboyJD]

Would this apply to your past posts directed at NZ Poke?:

No.

I addressed the content of the cited post/proposition and his knowledge with regards to them and their source. In the context of the multiple posts in those threads, I was questioning his willingness or ability to critically examine those posts for validity before affirmatively reposting.

You directed your post solely at at his character and the character of the party of the poster he cited, i.e. The propositions in his cited 3rd party post were invalid because of whom they came from and who reposted them.

That is a nuanced, but important difference between my posts and yours.

But hey, for the sake of argument, let's presume that yes, it applies to my prior posts you quoted. That necessarily means you are admitting to engaging in ad hominem attacks as well....and just dodging and deflecting the focus elsewhere rather than discussing and admitting your own logical fallacies.

 

[Medic007]

No.

I addressed the content of the cited post/proposition and his knowledge with regards to them and their source. In the context of the multiple posts in those threads, I was questioning his willingness or ability to critically examine those posts for validity before affirmatively reposting.

You directed your post solely at at his character and the character of the party of the poster he cited, i.e. The propositions in his cited 3rd party post were invalid because of whom they came from and who reposted him.

That is a nuanced, but important difference between my posts and yours.

But hey, for the sake of argument, let's presume that yes, it applies to my prior posts you quoted. That necessarily means you are admitting to engaging in ad hominem attacks as well....and just dodging and deflecting the focus elsewhere rather than discussing and admitting your own logical fallacies.

Somebody just got lawyered.

 

[Medic007]

Exactly what rights have been taken away from gays, women, and minorities??? Please be specific.

I should have used blue font my brother. Really blue font. Sarcasm blue with shades of sarcasm highlights. Highlighted with sarcastic blue.

 

[BIGOSUFAN]

The Left would be writing "hate speech" legislation right now.

 

[GL97]

No.

I addressed the content of the cited post/proposition and his knowledge with regards to them and their source.

And I too addressed the content of his earlier posts as well as the sources he consistently cites after a post in which he once again, cited a source (a source that is known to be pro-Russia and conspiratorial among other things). I didn't call him a name or give him any type of label. I never attacked him personally.

But hey, for the sake of argument, let's presume that yes, it applies to my prior posts you quoted. That necessarily means you are admitting to engaging in ad hominem attacks as well

No, because I don't believe your prior posts were ad homineum attacks. I had no problem with your prior posts. I was just exposing your willingness to question that which you had already engaged in.

 

[GL97]

Somebody just got lawyered.

lol, you clearly don't know much about lawyering

 

[CBradSmith]

lol, you clearly don't know much about lawyering

Does this signal the beginning of the unraveling?

Stay tooned....

 

[CowboyJD]

Does this signal the beginning of the unraveling?

Stay tooned....

We do appear to be reaching maximum mania phase.

 

[CBradSmith]

We do appear to be reaching maximum mania phase.

There's an acceleration...

 

[CowboyJD]

There's an acceleration...

...and an inevitable, unavoidable crash.

We've both seen this movie before.

 

[ThorOdinson13]

...and an inevitable, unavoidable crash.

We've both seen this movie before.

 

[BIGOSUFAN]

The Left would also start calling loudly for the legalization of the murder of third-trimester babies in the womb.

 

[SUPERPOKES]

I should have used blue font my brother. Really blue font. Sarcasm blue with shades of sarcasm highlights. Highlighted with sarcastic blue.

 

[CBradSmith]

Haha never seen that gif

 

[Medic007]

lol, you clearly don't know much about lawyering

You are correct. I'm not one, have never claimed to be one, and have never tried to insinuate that I have the legal expertise of one. Those are all factual. I'm not the type to exaggerate or misrepresent myself. In fact, I've been known to seek plenty of information from the couple on here. They usually charge out the ass for it.

However, I do know enough to see when someone has been lawyered, by a very skilled lawyer at that. You literally ran the wrong way on the track. They put that shit on America's Funniest.

 

[GL97]

However, I do know enough to see when someone has been lawyered, by a very skilled lawyer at that.

No offense, but clearly you don't if you think what you saw on this thread was "lawyering".

 

[Medic007]

No offense, but clearly you don't if you think what you saw on this thread was "lawyering".

Uh, yeah, I actually do know you aren't a lawyer. It's fairly obvious.

Anyone who calls the 13 seats Republicans gained in 2014 "mediocre" based on past "trends" doesn't have the usual analytical ability seen in someone in the profession of law. That's very simple shit dude. Here's why it was quite a success, and why this is so simple. Republicans gained their largest House majority since 1928. That's huge by any measure. Of course you'd have to realize that both parties have a literal base of seats that won't be won by the other party to get that. And you'd probably have to realize that historical perspective is often greater than an "average" as well. Strangely enough, the 2014 midterms also marked the highest number of House seats lost by the political party of a two term president since Harry Truman. So yeah, quite successful. And no, you aren't a lawyer.

 

[CowboyJD]

Uh, yeah, I actually do know you aren't a lawyer. It's fairly obvious.

Anyone who calls the 13 seats Republicans gained in 2014 "mediocre" based on past "trends" doesn't have the usual analytical ability seen in someone in the profession of law. That's very simple shit dude. Here's why it was quite a success, and why this is so simple. Republicans gained their largest House majority since 1928. That's huge by any measure. Of course you'd have to realize that both parties have a literal base of seats that won't be won by the other party to get that. And you'd probably have to realize that historical perspective is often greater than an "average" as well. Strangely enough, the 2014 midterms also marked the highest number of House seats lost by the political party of a two term president since Harry Truman. So yeah, quite successful. And no, you aren't a lawyer.

...but pretty effective.

 

[PDT816]

Hillary is whatever she thinks most benefits her politically depending on public opinion. She's neither a hawk or a dove.

Trying to make points about Hillary "supported this" or was "opposed to this" is sheer lunacy. Any subject you can think of, you can list speeches or comments she has made that take every side on the subject.