What Were We Fighting For?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

How exactly to you get "DINO" -- with a D --- out of examining who the Liberals (with an L) are?

I see what you did: you start with a false premise. To wit, that RINO has something to do with who "real conservatives" are. That won't work. You're also working under the false assumption that "Democrat = Liberal". The fallacy of which was what Synth called bullshit on in the first place (as do I), and yet you go on using it.

Then please explain to me exactly what conservatives who use the term "RINO" are actually saying.

I don't think such people exist. True conservatives wouldn't do that.

As I said when it first came up, it's not "conservatives" using that term -- it's party slaves: those who believe lockstep political party action is more important than the constituents who elect those representatives.

If anything it's usually true conservatism that they're objecting to and hanging the label on -- for example Olympia Snowe got RINOed for declining to run around hair-on-fire with the so-called "social conservative" issues, which is basically a euphemism for theocrats, not conservatives.

Those who employ a term like RINO to eat their own are only participating in partisanship, the 'my way or the highway' school of politics. Everything proposed by party X must be opposed by party Y, simply because it's from Party X. It's a wish for a one-party state over democratic compromise. That kind of thinking is how we got into this morass that is our contemporary discourse.

(/offtopic)

If it were based on simple partisanship then wouldn't they be likely to support those Republicans, regardless of how they vote, rather than castigate them?

On a related note, if Hillary Clinton is not a liberal then what is she?

 

[Synthaholic]

Proving that plenty of self-identified liberals did vote for the Iraq war.

Bullshit.

Again, are we going to start talking about "DINOs" now? If so, how many "real" liberals will vote for "DINO" Hillary Clinton in 2016?

Probably as many as voted for Obama.

Probably as many as conservatives who voted for Bush.

But, your deflection aside, Liberals did not vote for the Iraq War.

 

[Synthaholic]

Again, are we going to start talking about "DINOs" now? If so, how many "real" liberals will vote for "DINO" Hillary Clinton in 2016?

"DINOs" and "RINOs" do not exist. They're a fantasy concocted by demagogues who would place the interest of party lockstep over the interests of We the People, which just demonstrates where their priorities lie.

Well since Synth is unwilling to answer this question I suppose we'll never get his side of the story.

I answered it.

And when it comes to RINOs, since wingnuts are always claiming that Republican does not = conservative, it's actually the hard-Right conservatives who are only Republican In Name Only.

If they had the numbers, they would leave the Republican Party and start the Conservative Party.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Bullshit.

Again, are we going to start talking about "DINOs" now? If so, how many "real" liberals will vote for "DINO" Hillary Clinton in 2016?

Probably as many as voted for Obama.

Probably as many as conservatives who voted for Bush.

But, your deflection aside, Liberals did not vote for the Iraq War.

What deflection? That's a natural extension of the original point. Are you going to give us something other than your word about what liberals did or didn't do?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

"DINOs" and "RINOs" do not exist. They're a fantasy concocted by demagogues who would place the interest of party lockstep over the interests of We the People, which just demonstrates where their priorities lie.

Well since Synth is unwilling to answer this question I suppose we'll never get his side of the story.

I answered it.

And when it comes to RINOs, since wingnuts are always claiming that Republican does not = conservative, it's actually the hard-Right conservatives who are only Republican In Name Only.

If they had the numbers, they would leave the Republican Party and start the Conservative Party.

You answered it by saying the exact same thing you said before. In other words, you didn't.

So wouldn't that make you a leftwing "wingnut," since you're essentially calling Hillary a DINO? Do you want to start a Liberal Party?

 

[protectionist]

Let's get realistic here.

The problem in Iraq is that Iraq was always a polite fiction. A bunch of ethnic groups thrown together for adminstrative purposes by the British empire, only held together by a series of ruthless dictators, not any national identity...

So we are supposed to be surprised that the minute we pull out, it starts breaking up? Really?

Let Al Qaeda and Iran fight it out.

And if and whenever al Qaeda wins, and gets control over Iraq's huge oil reserves$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ ? Then what ? You build a nuclear fallout shelter, and live underground for the rest of your life ? (if there IS any rest of your life)

Well, we might get off our asses and finally find alternatives to oil...

But probably unlikely Al Qaeda will win.

If they did, they wouldn't hae the resources to extract it from the ground.

If they gained possession of the oil, that oil would be the resources (and way more than enough)

 

[Kosh]

But, your deflection aside, Liberals did not vote for the Iraq War.

Actually many on the far left did as well as many liberals, but not all.

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 1991 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Kosh]

"DINOs" and "RINOs" do not exist. They're a fantasy concocted by demagogues who would place the interest of party lockstep over the interests of We the People, which just demonstrates where their priorities lie.

Well since Synth is unwilling to answer this question I suppose we'll never get his side of the story.

I answered it.

And when it comes to RINOs, since wingnuts are always claiming that Republican does not = conservative, it's actually the hard-Right conservatives who are only Republican In Name Only.

If they had the numbers, they would leave the Republican Party and start the Conservative Party.

Far left propaganda.

 

[protectionist]

Well since Synth is unwilling to answer this question I suppose we'll never get his side of the story.

I answered it.

And when it comes to RINOs, since wingnuts are always claiming that Republican does not = conservative, it's actually the hard-Right conservatives who are only Republican In Name Only.

If they had the numbers, they would leave the Republican Party and start the Conservative Party.

Far left propaganda.

Let's get back to THE TOPIC >> "What Were We Fighting For?"

 

[JoeB131]

And if and whenever al Qaeda wins, and gets control over Iraq's huge oil reserves$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ ? Then what ? You build a nuclear fallout shelter, and live underground for the rest of your life ? (if there IS any rest of your life)

Well, we might get off our asses and finally find alternatives to oil...

But probably unlikely Al Qaeda will win.

If they did, they wouldn't hae the resources to extract it from the ground.

If they gained possession of the oil, that oil would be the resources (and way more than enough)

No, you'd need the technology to bring it up out of the ground. And then people willing to buy it from you. Al Qaeda would have neither.

 

[Desperado]

5. The only reason we are fighting is to try to keep the American nation from being destroyed, and the American people from being blown to bits. Get it ?

do you also run around your house yelling at the top of your lungs: "The Sky is falling"
Enjoy your kool aid.

Do you also never listen to the top intelligence experts in the world ? They're in the links I supplied in the previous posts. Read Baby, Read! Sounds like you've been enjoying YOUR Kool-Aid (MSNBC ?)

As a matter of fact, I have listen to the top intelligence experts in the world and Im still waiting for the military to find the WMD's they said existed in Iraq. Which was the supposedly whole reason for invading Iraq in the first place. The one thing that is painfully clear at this point is that our invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the security of the United States.

 

[Synthaholic]

Again, are we going to start talking about "DINOs" now? If so, how many "real" liberals will vote for "DINO" Hillary Clinton in 2016?

Probably as many as voted for Obama.

Probably as many as conservatives who voted for Bush.

But, your deflection aside, Liberals did not vote for the Iraq War.

What deflection? That's a natural extension of the original point. Are you going to give us something other than your word about what liberals did or didn't do?

Yes, I gave you a list of the Liberal Senators. None of them voted for the Iraq War.

 

[Synthaholic]

Well since Synth is unwilling to answer this question I suppose we'll never get his side of the story.

I answered it.

And when it comes to RINOs, since wingnuts are always claiming that Republican does not = conservative, it's actually the hard-Right conservatives who are only Republican In Name Only.

If they had the numbers, they would leave the Republican Party and start the Conservative Party.

You answered it by saying the exact same thing you said before. In other words, you didn't.

So wouldn't that make you a leftwing "wingnut," since you're essentially calling Hillary a DINO? Do you want to start a Liberal Party?

Hillary isn't a DINO, she's a Democrat. Not all Democrats are Liberals.

Just as not all Republicans are conservatives.

Why can't you grasp this?

 

[Synthaholic]

But, your deflection aside, Liberals did not vote for the Iraq War.

Actually many on the far left did as well as many liberals, but not all.

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 1991 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

False.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Probably as many as voted for Obama.

Probably as many as conservatives who voted for Bush.

But, your deflection aside, Liberals did not vote for the Iraq War.

What deflection? That's a natural extension of the original point. Are you going to give us something other than your word about what liberals did or didn't do?

Yes, I gave you a list of the Liberal Senators. None of them voted for the Iraq War.

So is it safe to assume that your position is that anybody who voted for the Iraq war is disqualified from being a liberal?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I answered it.

And when it comes to RINOs, since wingnuts are always claiming that Republican does not = conservative, it's actually the hard-Right conservatives who are only Republican In Name Only.

If they had the numbers, they would leave the Republican Party and start the Conservative Party.

You answered it by saying the exact same thing you said before. In other words, you didn't.

So wouldn't that make you a leftwing "wingnut," since you're essentially calling Hillary a DINO? Do you want to start a Liberal Party?

Hillary isn't a DINO, she's a Democrat. Not all Democrats are Liberals.

Just as not all Republicans are conservatives.

Why can't you grasp this?

I can grasp it, and have no problem with that assertion. If Hillary isn't a liberal, however, what is she?

 

[KNB]

Hillary Clinton is a self-serving corporate tool. The correct term for her is "Neo-Liberal" which means, "Do whatever you can to make more money for yourself."

Hillary Clinton is not Progressive. Progressive does not mean liberal, and liberal does not mean Democrat. Hillary Clinton is a neo-liberal Democrat just like neo-liberal Republicans, and they work for their corporate financiers, not the People of the United States.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Hillary Clinton is a self-serving corporate tool. The correct term for her is "Neo-Liberal" which means, "Do whatever you can to make more money for yourself."

Hillary Clinton is not Progressive. Progressive does not mean liberal, and liberal does not mean Democrat. Hillary Clinton is a neo-liberal Democrat just like neo-liberal Republicans, and they work for their corporate financiers, not the People of the United States.

Now this is the type of explanation I've been trying to get out of Synth and Pogo regarding their position.

 

[protectionist]

do you also run around your house yelling at the top of your lungs: "The Sky is falling"
Enjoy your kool aid.

Do you also never listen to the top intelligence experts in the world ? They're in the links I supplied in the previous posts. Read Baby, Read! Sounds like you've been enjoying YOUR Kool-Aid (MSNBC ?)

As a matter of fact, I have listen to the top intelligence experts in the world and Im still waiting for the military to find the WMD's they said existed in Iraq. Which was the supposedly whole reason for invading Iraq in the first place. The one thing that is painfully clear at this point is that our invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the security of the United States.

The one thing that is painfully clear is that you don't have the foggiest idea of what you're talking about. Since whenever I say read post # 14, nobody ever does, so I have to repeat it every time. Currently, it doesn't matter what our invasion of Iraq 10 years ago had to do with. What matters NOW is that we better get back in there fast, and insure that the Islamists don't take over that country. We also better stay put in Afghanistan for the following reasons >>

1. In Afghanistan, it is essential for US troops to be in close proximity to Pakistan and it's arsenal of 100+ nuclear warheads. Pakistan is a country loaded with Islamic jihadists who have repeatedly attacked storage centers of these weapons. The situation is so bad that Pakistan now moves these warheads around in ordinary cargo vans (like UPS), through ordinary streets, making them dangerously susceptible to attack. On top of that, the Pakistani govt. is quite fragile, and if toppled by the Muslim loonies, the nukes would quickly be in the hands of the same people who attacked us on 9/11 and Fort Hood.
With the troops in Afghanistan, they can be close enough to the Paki nukes to quickly get to them and secure them from the jihadists.
Note: If I had my way, the troops would enter Pakistan now and secure those nukes, and bring them back to the US, or to another safe location far away from al Qaeda's central operations.

2. In Iraq, for years, we heard an endless chorus of "It's about OIL!" Well, maybe it's more about oil than any of those people ever thought.

If Al Qaeda were to topple the Malaki govt (with the help of Sunni militants), then a much worse situation presents itself than the al Qaeda in Afghanistan and training camp issue. With Iraq, not only would al Qaeda have everything they were denied in Afghanistan (at the cost of thousands of US troops' lives), but they would also have in their pockets the world's largest unproven oil reserves, and fortunes$$$$ to go with it, putting them in position to acquire nuclear weapons, and making them far more capable to attack the US, Israel, and any non-Muslim country., and doing it with authority.

As for WMD, they exist in every residential community, in every city in the world, but I'm not interested in posting a manual for terrorists, so you'll have to figure that one out on your own.

 

[protectionist]

Well, we might get off our asses and finally find alternatives to oil...

But probably unlikely Al Qaeda will win.

If they did, they wouldn't hae the resources to extract it from the ground.

If they gained possession of the oil, that oil would be the resources (and way more than enough)

No, you'd need the technology to bring it up out of the ground. And then people willing to buy it from you. Al Qaeda would have neither.

Sure they would. They'd have both. The oil is sure enough there to provide the $$$ to pay for the technology, and where there is a seller, there's a buyer. Lots of people (individuals) and lots of countries want to buy oil. Lots of them don't care who they buy it from, and al Qaeda doesn't have to broadcast who they are as they go about it. In fact, they could be very discreet. They didn't broadcast who they are when they boarded the planes on 9/11, did they ? Al Qaedas might be lunatics, but they're not stupid.