Ramsay Gimp Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 . I, too, dislike the pro-business and pro-military stances of Clinton. But at the same time, if that's what it takes to get elected, then I will live with that. Can I save this for whenever someone accuses libertarians of being phonies for cautiously supporting Rand Paul? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 Can I save this for whenever someone accuses libertarians of being phonies for cautiously supporting Rand Paul? You could, but it still wouldn't make any sense since there's no indication he actually believes in or would push any of the rhetoric libertarians like him for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 I agree, it's the only coherent defense of our contrasting relationships with the Saudis and Iranians. But it leaves out the significant support the Saudi STATE, not just private citizens or clerics, gives to Jihadist organizations. Ding ding ding. Saudis are state sponsors of terrorism. But they have oil and are great pals with the House of Bush, so we'll just ignore that and give them credit for the very obvious window-dressing of appointing a few women to some sham council whose meetings they can't even drive themselves to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 Can I save this for whenever someone accuses libertarians of being phonies for cautiously supporting Rand Paul? Thing is, I'm fairly confident that isn't Clinton being hypocritical, I think she really is very pro-business and hawkish (at least for a Democrat) and has never stated or pretended to be otherwise. Rand Paul either wasn't a libertarian to begin with, is lying about what he stands for now, or was libertarian and has actually changed his mind on a whole lot of stuff. Its a whole different ballgame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Can I save this for whenever someone accuses libertarians of being phonies for cautiously supporting Rand Paul? Sure. I myself don't think libertarians are phonies for supporting Rand Paul. I think they're wrong for doing so, or for being libertarians for that matter. However, I am quite convinced that most libertarians truly believe in their very internally consistent philosophy. I have never questioned that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 You could, but it still wouldn't make any sense since there's no indication he actually believes in or would push any of the rhetoric libertarians like him for. who is more libertarian of the viable choices available? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 who is more libertarian of the viable choices available? Probably Democrats. Neither party will shrink the government or privacy or not starting wars. Only one cares about keeping religion out of government or basically any libertarian-leaning social issues. More simply, neither party is economically liberal (in the classical sense). Only one is socially liberal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Probably Democrats. Neither party will shrink the government or privacy or not starting wars. Only one cares about keeping religion out of government or basically any libertarian-leaning social issues. More simply, neither party is economically liberal (in the classical sense). Only one is socially liberal.What makes you think Paul isn't serious about privacy, the NSA, etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 What makes you think Paul isn't serious about privacy, the NSA, etc? His voting record and his consistent habit of walking back every "libertarian" position he holds . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 I just saw on Facebook the altered drawing of Hilary's campaign logo conservatives are passing around, turning the 'H' into smoking twin towers, complete with an airplane crashing into the left side.Can someone explain the logic of reminding people of 9/11, which happened with a Republican as president?I get that the goal is to make people think there will be more terrorist acts happening if she becomes president, but doesn't it just shove a tragedy from George Bush's presidency into the face of people, while making people ask why, when Clinton wasn't the president? And being absolutely extraordinarily crass, insensitive and offensive at the same time? Surely it's a stupid idea to try to use the concept of burning twin towers against an election opponent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuzzydaBear Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 I just saw on Facebook the altered drawing of Hilary's campaign logo conservatives are passing around, turning the 'H' into smoking twin towers, complete with an airplane crashing into the left side.Can someone explain the logic of reminding people of 9/11, which happened with a Republican as president?I get that the goal is to make people think there will be more terrorist acts happening if she becomes president, but doesn't it just shove a tragedy from George Bush's presidency into the face of people, while making people ask why, when Clinton wasn't the president? And being absolutely extraordinarily crass, insensitive and offensive at the same time? Surely it's a stupid idea to try to use the concept of burning twin towers against an election opponent?Ok. Altering Hillary's campaign logo to look like the smoking twin towers is dumb and childish but claiming by extension that the tragedy of 9/11 was the fault of a Republican president who was president at the time of the attack is just as dumb and childish. No one could have predicted what those nut jobs did on 9/11 were planning. One could easily blame President Bill Clinton for 9/11 for not doing enough to stop Bin Laden from planning and carrying out the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Remember the 1st Twin Tower attack happened when Bill Clinton was president but I'm not claiming that he was at fault for that 1st attack nor am I blaming Clinton for the 9/11 attack either. As I stated above no one could have predicted what those nut jobs were planning. Conservatives do not need to play the 9/11 card to attack Hillary. She has said and done a ton of silly things that the conservatives can use against her. For example, stating that she used only one phone during her time as SOS when two weeks earlier she claimed that she used a Blackberry and an I-Phone while serving as SOS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Who blamed George Bush for 9/11? I certainly didn't. But it did happen while he was president, and so he is forever linked with the event. It just seems stupid to alter the logo and remind people of such a painful tragedy for incredibly crass reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuzzydaBear Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 You implied that it was his fault by stating the attack happened under a Republican president. You didn't need to include that statement but you did and the reason was again to imply that it was his fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 You are paranoid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Once and Future King Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 How about we agree 9/11 was bad and freedom well thats just a little bit better* and move on. http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/14/middleeast/yazidi-sex-slaves-isis-damon/index.htmlWhy the hell are we not helping fight these animals?? And how do you do that and call yourself holy to any God?GO JORDAN GO *Jeff winger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Once and Future King Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 I haven't said go Jordan go since the 90s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuzzydaBear Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 You are paranoid. You didn't state that I was wrong in your attempt that GWB was at fault for 9/11. You see I have read many of the older US Politic treads in order to educate myself about political views the people who post in this ongoing thread have. Based upon what I have read the only reason you included that the president was a Republican part was to take a jab at Republicans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Ok. Altering Hillary's campaign logo to look like the smoking twin towers is dumb and childish but claiming by extension that the tragedy of 9/11 was the fault of a Republican president who was president at the time of the attack is just as dumb and childish. No one could have predicted what those nut jobs did on 9/11 were planning. One could easily blame President Bill Clinton for 9/11 for not doing enough to stop Bin Laden from planning and carrying out the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Remember the 1st Twin Tower attack happened when Bill Clinton was president but I'm not claiming that he was at fault for that 1st attack nor am I blaming Clinton for the 9/11 attack either. As I stated above no one could have predicted what those nut jobs were planning. Conservatives do not need to play the 9/11 card to attack Hillary. She has said and done a ton of silly things that the conservatives can use against her. For example, stating that she used only one phone during her time as SOS when two weeks earlier she claimed that she used a Blackberry and an I-Phone while serving as SOS. No. We had intelligence that this was not only planned, but we had the specific date as well. There's a difference between not predicting that something could happen, and not acting on that prediction. The intelligence was there, we just chose not to act on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/14/middleeast/yazidi-sex-slaves-isis-damon/index.htmlWhy the hell are we not helping fight these animals?? And how do you do that and call yourself holy to any God? Maybe because we kind of had a hand in creating them, or at least our good pals the House of Saud did. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/iraq-crisis-how-saudi-arabia-helped-isis-take-over-the-north-of-the-country-9602312.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Once and Future King Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 No. We had intelligence that this was not only planned, but we had the specific date as well. There's a difference between not predicting that something could happen, and not acting on that prediction. The intelligence was there, we just chose not to act on it.So you are blaming Bush? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.