The situation in Iraq now could not have been much worse. Contrary to the wishful thinking of neocons, the Coalition Forces are regarded not as the liberators but as the occupiers whose only interest is in Iraq's oil. I am calling out you and any War supporters to cite me examples where the "liberators" sacrificed their lives to save innocent Iraqis when facing perceived threats. There were no islamofascists in Iraq before the War. George Bush and his war supporters help created them by invading a country that had nothing to do 9/11. You mistakenly typed "Iraqis" in the statement above. Don't make me laugh. Not wrong on principle. So you are suggesting he is biased? Could be true, I don't know until I see the facts. But what's clear is he didn't take advantage of any of loopholes.
Deckard's right. I never said I was voting for Hillary; I said she could win. She could. You seem to have some sort of weird idea I'm a DLC guy or something, going back I guess to the time that I took issue with you characterizing Hackett as a murderer (LOL). So you know, I'm a left of liberal Democrat who has voted Democrat in the general election for president twice (Dukakis and Kerry) and has voted Green or write-in otherwise. If I could have chosen the president among the 04 candidates, I would have chosen Kucinich. As he didn't have a chance in hell, I supported Dean. And I also ran the Houston campaign for Jerry Brown's 92 bid. I never voted for Clinton. In fact, I worked hard in 92 to defeat him and he never, ever had my support. But none of that's good enough for you because I wouldn't join your insane, stupid, scorched earth, death to Hackett campaign. You're the nearest thing we have to the worst the right has to offer on this board and if we continue to lose in the coming years, it'll be because of "progressives" like you.
Beej, come on, let's cut out the name calling. You're better than that - let's keep the D&D civil. Your knowledge of financial matters is lacking. Lower taxes and a balanced budget, lower debt and national security are not mutually exclusive by any means. Please educate yourself on how taxes relate to these things and get back to me. Thx in advance. 1. I'd vote for a woman or minority, no problem. In fact I have voted for both in local and state elections. I'd have a problem voting for a homosexual candidate due to ethical reasons and what message that would send. I share this view with most Americans. 2. I'm not a bigot, but it seems that you're looking for any opportunity to call me one. Swing and a miss, brah 3. Feingold wants to raise taxes and cut the defense budget. I'd vehemently opposed to both of those positions.
That's BS. No need for exaggeration. All I said was I couldn't make up my mind about voting for Hackett or Schmidt based on their stances on the Iraq War only after reading an article from the counterpunch site. I made no vile statement about Hackett when I became more informed and I acknowledged the irony I was unware of the race in my own district until only days before the special election.
Sigh. I was actually waiting for your post since Batman called you out so well. As par the norm though, your post is uselessly uninformative with no backup and juvenile antics. Hmm.
http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=99905 Just went back and re-read it. You're right that I exaggerated some. My main point was that you accused me of only posting anymore to defend the Dem establishment (as stupid an accusation as the counterpunch piece was a stupid article) for the crime of calling you out on the article. And here you are again asking what happened to my (made up) support for Hillary with a roll-eyes. What's your damage?
??? I answered all of Beej's questions. Beej was the one who called me names, I'd have to say that he was the one guilty of juvenile antics.
While it certainly wasn't Utopia, Iraq under Saddam was one of the most educated and progressive states in the region. It's secular Baathist government was in direct opposition to the very "Islamofascism" you so righteously decry. Are you now admitting that entering was a mistake? If this was an issue of ethics, morality, or liberation, the Suadis, Egyptians, countless other states of the former Soviet Union and South America would be next in line in the "democratic domino-effect." It's not and instead the former 2 continue on our bankroll. It's only convenient now to speak of fascism and freedom when the other numerous arguments have been debunked.
Did you not in the past cite articles and post your own opinions about Hillary running as a Democratic presidential candidate in '08? I didn't read all your posts on politics before I started to visit D&D in this Rockets offseason, however, I did skim through this particular thread. Now tell me you were not in favor of her, and I'll edit out the roll-eyes in my earlier post. For the life of me I didn't know why a lifelong Democrat would be so offended by the "accusation" of defending the Democratic establishment. Yes I saw you explained yourself in the thread you referred to, but did you need to bring this again to prove something? Moreover, you only said you didn't and wouldn't vote for Bill Clinton, but how does it equate to your position on Hillary?
Thanks for the trip down memory lane. That was a good thread. There are some relevant quotes from my posts in it pasted below. Nowhere in that thread did I endorse Hillary. The closest I came was to say I thought she'd be among the strongest candidates while not chief among my picks for president. In fact, a few things have changed in my thinking since then. For one, Biden's way off my list of prospects. If there's a candidate in the race that opposed the war and is generally in line with my feelings on other issues (Feingold, Gore, Dean), that candidate will certainly get my primary vote and support. But even back in the thread you cited, I stated a preference for Feingold over Hillary. As for why I'd take issue with the characterization that I defend the Dem establishment as a rule, I take issue with it because it's stupid and it isn't true. In fact, the converse is true and you can find countless instances where I've bashed the Dem establishment on this board. I'm a Democrat because I generally support the platform and because I don't think America will look seriously now at a third party. That doesn't mean I'm a yes man for the establishment. Among self-identified Democrats, you'd have a hard time proving I was anything but a blood enemy of the party establishment. In fact, I spent time in the trenches fighting that fight back in 92. Ask Ken Bentsen. He'll tell you.
As I've said in the past, I'm crazy about Feingold. But my money and my endosement at this early date belongs to Al Gore.
serious black did you hear Gore's speech last week in New York? Pretty dang good. Here is the text of Gore's remarks at the We Media conference on Wednesday in New York: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20051006/ap_on_re_us/gore_text_1
I am still unhappy about Gore choosing Lieberman as running mate. Also for strategic concern, the fact that a candidate who had been a U.S. senator could not win his own home state should bring some serious doubts about his viability.
Yeah, I read the speech. All of his speech's lately have been great. Especially the one he gave right after Katrina. I also hated the Lieberman pick. I believe he's a changed man tho.
Albert Gore? Are you kidding me? Any other retreads that you want to bring up? Maybe Mike Dukakis? Howie Dean? YEARRRRGHHHHHHH!!!
Just finished reading it. This is one of the most intelligent things I've heard in a long time. I'd never really put much thought into it. Wow, if THIS version of Gore had show up in 2000...
