Six: Don't get too excited by news like this. The hard-core leftists (Ramsey Clark, Tom, Nadir, Cindy & Martin Sheen, etc.) only regard Clinton as "not as bad as Bush." They despise Clinton right along with Bush. They want full socialization, with no profits and all people having equal amounts of property. This socialist dream, of course, always results in far lower average levels of wealth, and greater fractions of abject poverty, than does heartless capitalism. In their eyes, Clinton falls far short; yet he's not quite as evil as Bush.
Their dream manifests in brilliant microcosm as "anti-price gouging" laws during times of sudden, drastic, and unexpected shortages. They would rather have empty gas stations posting $1.50 prices and that filled-up the first 400 that got in line, than have replenished gas stations selling $5 gallons to 2,400 customers who "self-ration". In other words, they would rather have the nightmare that comes with demanding a dream, than to have the best-possible scenario.
Agreed. I know many liberals/leftists who, if I were to bring up the fact that Clinton's NSA did the same thing, would play the "Well, I was never a fan of Clinton either" card. They pull that stunt all the time. They're the same ones who every time you try and have legitimate discussion and debate about the war, 9-11, Katrina, whatever, they evoke the various conspiracy theory related to whatever the particular topic is; Bush lied about WMD, Bush knew about 9-11 and did nothing, or it was an inside job, levees blown up to flood poor parts of NO, stolen elections, etc. It's impossible to have serious debate with someone who lives in "Conspiracy Land".
Like Hugh Hewitt said on his radio show last night in regards to the wire-tapping issue; If you don't think we're in a real war (war on terror/radical Islam), then there's really nothing to discuss. It's all very disconcerting to me that there are Americans all around us who are that clueless.
It's even more maddening to have a debate with people who follow the Republican party line while ignoring the facts in front of them.
Bush did lie. There were no WMDs. There are unanswered questions about 911. Clinton did take the Democratic Party further to the right than it had been in a generation putting more people in jail, signing NAFTA, bombing pharmaceutical factories and allowing the NSA to spy on U.S. citizens.
These are facts, gentlemen. Why would something be considered a "conspiracy theory" if it is a fact?
I have never advocated full socializaion. I believe in universal health care for sure (when you get sick, go to a doctor, even if you are poor). I believe humans should have access to clean water. I believe in a level economic playing field and equal rights for all people.
I don't call that socialism. I call that human rights.
You guys would deny human rights based on who could afford to pay for them.
===Nadir=== Bush did lie. There were no WMDs. ===========
Nadir: The first statement is not a consequence of the second statement. Everybody thought that Hussein had banned weapons. This includes the Clintons, and all the opponents of invasion, who were willing to concede this presumed violation of the 1991 cease-fire. In order to "lie", Bush whould need to have known that Hussein lacked the weopons that the Clintons believed that he had. Failure to find these weopons does not demonstrate that Bush "lied"; to the contrary, the confirm that he put his reelection at risk to act on what everyone else believed, but was willing to accept.
Do you believe it is possible that in the year or so lead-off that Hussein had that he could have snuck such weapons over to Syria?
If the invasion would have uncovered such weapons, would you support the war? If not, why do you even bother latching hold of this point?
If the existance of such weapons in the hands of Hussein is important to you, is it not of some value to finally know for certain that he lacks them?
5 comments:
Six: Don't get too excited by news like this. The hard-core leftists (Ramsey Clark, Tom, Nadir, Cindy & Martin Sheen, etc.) only regard Clinton as "not as bad as Bush." They despise Clinton right along with Bush. They want full socialization, with no profits and all people having equal amounts of property. This socialist dream, of course, always results in far lower average levels of wealth, and greater fractions of abject poverty, than does heartless capitalism. In their eyes, Clinton falls far short; yet he's not quite as evil as Bush.
Their dream manifests in brilliant microcosm as "anti-price gouging" laws during times of sudden, drastic, and unexpected shortages. They would rather have empty gas stations posting $1.50 prices and that filled-up the first 400 that got in line, than have replenished gas stations selling $5 gallons to 2,400 customers who "self-ration". In other words, they would rather have the nightmare that comes with demanding a dream, than to have the best-possible scenario.
Agreed. I know many liberals/leftists who, if I were to bring up the fact that Clinton's NSA did the same thing, would play the "Well, I was never a fan of Clinton either" card. They pull that stunt all the time. They're the same ones who every time you try and have legitimate discussion and debate about the war, 9-11, Katrina, whatever, they evoke the various conspiracy theory related to whatever the particular topic is; Bush lied about WMD, Bush knew about 9-11 and did nothing, or it was an inside job, levees blown up to flood poor parts of NO, stolen elections, etc. It's impossible to have serious debate with someone who lives in "Conspiracy Land".
Like Hugh Hewitt said on his radio show last night in regards to the wire-tapping issue; If you don't think we're in a real war (war on terror/radical Islam), then there's really nothing to discuss. It's all very disconcerting to me that there are Americans all around us who are that clueless.
It's even more maddening to have a debate with people who follow the Republican party line while ignoring the facts in front of them.
Bush did lie. There were no WMDs. There are unanswered questions about 911. Clinton did take the Democratic Party further to the right than it had been in a generation putting more people in jail, signing NAFTA, bombing pharmaceutical factories and allowing the NSA to spy on U.S. citizens.
These are facts, gentlemen. Why would something be considered a "conspiracy theory" if it is a fact?
I have never advocated full socializaion. I believe in universal health care for sure (when you get sick, go to a doctor, even if you are poor). I believe humans should have access to clean water. I believe in a level economic playing field and equal rights for all people.
I don't call that socialism. I call that human rights.
You guys would deny human rights based on who could afford to pay for them.
===Nadir===
Bush did lie. There were no WMDs.
===========
Nadir: The first statement is not a consequence of the second statement. Everybody thought that Hussein had banned weapons. This includes the Clintons, and all the opponents of invasion, who were willing to concede this presumed violation of the 1991 cease-fire. In order to "lie", Bush whould need to have known that Hussein lacked the weopons that the Clintons believed that he had. Failure to find these weopons does not demonstrate that Bush "lied"; to the contrary, the confirm that he put his reelection at risk to act on what everyone else believed, but was willing to accept.
Do you believe it is possible that in the year or so lead-off that Hussein had that he could have snuck such weapons over to Syria?
If the invasion would have uncovered such weapons, would you support the war? If not, why do you even bother latching hold of this point?
If the existance of such weapons in the hands of Hussein is important to you, is it not of some value to finally know for certain that he lacks them?
Post a Comment