Is Hillary Clinton a War Hawk?

[lfd0311]

The ACA is not "government run healthcare" considering pharmaceutical companies and insurances companies are all PRIVATELY run and the government is not forcing anyone to see a certain doctor/medicinal practice. In fact, the ACA is pretty much antithetical to socialism considering how much power it gives to private corporations. And he has not granted amnesty to anyone (no idea where this came from at all).

Nevermind that they are taxing the crap out of those two, thus driving private insurance prices through the roof while simultaniously driving the quality of that health care into the gutter.

 

[lfd0311]

Sorry, but picking and choosing what some idiots say regarding a matter does not really proof much of anything.

Then why ask for specific examples in the forst place if you're going to argue they don't prove anything?

 

[Deleted member 457759]

The least you could do is answer my question, since you've agreed with, or at least left open the possibility of race being a valid point of discussion. How and when can it be discussed such that it isn't ''race baiting''? If you cannot provide a distinction between when something is race baiting, and when it is not other than ''race isn't mentioned or implied'' then your point is a bullshit catch-all designed to do nothing more than suppress discussion of race.

Why am I bothering with you this is hopeless.

You are looking at it from the wrong angle. You are brainwashed into thinking race is always relevant. It's not. And it's certainly inappropriate to use it against people in some kind of competition to see who is the "least racist", another thing Liberals often do.

Race is not our God. It should be ignored like it doesn't exist. That's the point. It's not about when we should be talking about race, it's about why do we have to. When there is a good reason like discrimination, REAL discrimination and not just alleged, that would be an important time to talk about it. Not when ever somebody doesn't like a black person.

 

[Jimmy Tuna**]

I agree, and she, and they, will use the left vs right paradigm to get her in. Most of all they will play on silly liberals who need landmark historical things like a first women pres, just like they did with the first black pres.

And if you disagree with it you will be a sexist, just like you were a racist if you didn't like Obama.

Yeah. And there's many more protected groups left. I guess the establishment has on the hook for at least a dozen more elections.

At this point, I'm guessing the antichrist will be a wheelchair bound Eskimo.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

Then why ask for specific examples in the forst place if you're going to argue they don't prove anything?

They asked for specific instances of it as if they didn't exist, and then once provided with them they turn around and say "that's just one specific occasion".

Leftists are like feminists, totally dishonest.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

Yeah. And there's many more protected groups left. I guess the establishment has on the hook for at least a dozen more elections.

At this point, I'm guessing the antichrist will be a wheelchair bound Eskimo.

After Hillary they will likely elect a Mexican immigrant lol.

 

[IDL]

She's an establishment servant, so her supposed ideology doesn't really matter. She'll do whatever they ask of her when the time comes.

Pretty much. She's very much part of the club.

 

[Jimmy Tuna**]

After Hillary they will likely elect a Mexican immigrant lol.

Our first non-citizen president. Just as the founders intended.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

Our first non-citizen president. Just as the founders intended.

And wait for it, if you aren't on board with it you will be "xenophobic". And Xenophobic will be likened to "racist".

 

[lfd0311]

They asked for specific instances of it as if they didn't exist, and then once provided with them they turn around and say "that's just one specific occasion".

Leftists are like feminists, totally dishonest.

I like how they both disappeared from the thread, too

 

[Prokofievian]

Race is not our God. It should be ignored like it doesn't exist. That's the point. It's not about when we should be talking about race, it's about why do we have to.

No one says that Race is a ''God,'' whatever that is supposed to mean, only that it is an issue, and an important one at that. Is it your opinion that important issues should not be discussed?

When there is a good reason like discrimination, REAL discrimination and not just alleged, that would be an important time to talk about it. Not when ever somebody doesn't like a black person.

And I suppose that you and other conservatives get to decide when the reason for bringing up race is ''good.'' How convenient. Do you know what a no true scotsman fallacy is, or is it time for you to read another book?

 

[lfd0311]

No one says that Race is a ''God,'' whatever that is supposed to mean, only that it is an issue, and an important one at that. Is it your opinion that important issues should not be discussed??

His point is that every time important issues get discussed, if yours isn't the same as Obama's, it's because you're a racist. We don't ever actually talk about important issues because race gets brought up well before it ever actually gets to that.

And I suppose that you and other conservatives get to decide when the reason for bringing up race is ''good.'' How convenient. Do you know what a no true scotsman fallacy is, or is it time for you to read another book?

And here is a prime example. Conservatives should never, ever bring up race. Liberals bring it up every two seconds, and it's just fine.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

No one says that Race is a ''God,'' whatever that is supposed to mean, only that it is an issue, and an important one at that. Is it your opinion that important issues should not be discussed?



And I suppose that you and other conservatives get to decide when the reason for bringing up race is ''good.'' How convenient. Do you know what a no true scotsman fallacy is, or is it time for you to read another book?

It is becoming more and more apparent with each of your posts that you are one of the Liberal race hustlers I'm talking about. You're whole paradigm of thought is based around why we should be talking about race, constantly, and you are mandating that we need proof or some great reason to not talk about it.

I don't believe race is an important issue, no. I believe that discriminating against people for their race is though. That's as far as it goes with me.

 

[Prokofievian]

It is becoming more and more apparent with each of your posts that you are one of the Liberal race hustlers I'm talking about. You're whole paradigm of thought is based around why we should be talking about race, constantly, and you are mandating that we need proof or some great reason to not talk about it.

People who believe that race is an important issue in a country that had slavery, followed by jim crowe, followed by racist housing, insurance, and schooling laws, are ''race hustlers''?

What I've said here is not that race is everything: but it is most certainly something.

I don't believe race is an important issue, no. I believe that discriminating against people for their race is though. That's as far as it goes with me.

So, you think that racial discrimination is an issue, an important one at that, but you can't make the logical connection that people who might racially discriminate, might also make other decisions based on race? Was that meant to be a coherent thought?

 

[lfd0311]

People who believe that race is an important issue in a country that had slavery, followed by jim crowe, followed by racist housing, insurance, and schooling laws, are ''race hustlers''??

And the bloodiest war in our nation's history, fought over slavery. You left that part out. It's convenient that people like you always seem to.

So, you think that racial discrimination is an issue, an important one at that, but you can't make the logical connection that people who might racially discriminate, might also make other decisions based on race? Was that meant to be a coherent thought?

I think the point here is that it's never white conservatives that are talking about race. Yet it's always white conservatives that get branned as racists for voting agianst obama.

 

[Prokofievian]

His point is that every time important issues get discussed, if yours isn't the same as Obama's, it's because you're a racist. We don't ever actually talk about important issues because race gets brought up well before it ever actually gets to that.

Which is, of course, not the case. I mean, if it were every time then I shouldn't be able to provide a single counter example of people discussing important issues, right? Or was this you making a gross overstatement as usual? Clumsy wording might get you out of hot water the odd time, but when it becomes a habit, or even a defining trait of your posting it points to the reality that you don't have much of anything to say.

And here is a prime example. Conservatives should never, ever bring up race. Liberals bring it up every two seconds, and it's just fine.

That is the most fundamentally absurd reading of what I wrote that I can bring myself to imagine.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

People who believe that race is an important issue in a country that had slavery, followed by jim crowe, followed by racist housing, insurance, and schooling laws, are ''race hustlers''?

What I've said here is not that race is everything: but it is most certainly something.



So, you think that racial discrimination is an issue, an important one at that, but you can't make the logical connection that people who might racially discriminate, might also make other decisions based on race? Was that meant to be a coherent thought?

What are you talking about? You believe that all conversations should be married to a racial discussion, I don't. End of story. Why try to manipulate it any other way?

I think you are wrong, you're whole ideology is wrong and responsible for the ongoing racial climate in America. People need to take responsibility for themselves and not blame everything on race. Liberals do this. Obama capitalized on it his whole career, and even did with the Treyvon Martin case as well. Constantly stirring up race relations.

You should stop doing it.

 

[lfd0311]

Which is, of course, not the case. I mean, if it were every time then I shouldn't be able to provide a single counter example of people discussing important issues, right? Or was this you making a gross overstatement as usual? Clumsy wording might get you out of hot water the odd time, but when it becomes a habit, or even a defining trait of your posting it points to the reality that you don't have much of anything to say.

Dude, race is brought up literally ever night on the nightly news in this country. Trying to pretend that it isn't by accusing me of "overstating" is quite frankly stupid.

That is the most fundamentally absurd reading of what I wrote that I can bring myself to imagine.

Of course it is, can't be caught red handed furthering the narrative...

 

[Prokofievian]

And the bloodiest war in our nation's history, fought over slavery. You left that part out. It's convenient that people like you always seem to.

You know that the other side of that war was american too, right? Roughly speaking, the part of America to whom the ''southern strategy'' was marketed to, right?

I think the point here is that it's never white conservatives that are talking about race. Yet it's always white conservatives that get branned as racists for voting agianst obama.

White conservatives want specifically to never talk about race. Can you put on your thinking cap and come up with a few reasons why that might be?

Let me think of one for you: ''IT'S BECAUSE WE LIVE IN A POST RACIAL SOCIETY!'' (we don't)

There, now you have to think of another one.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

And as ifd0311 mentioned, the point is is that yes race is constantly used by the left against conservatives if they don't like Obama. It's glaring. It's impossible to miss. It was a large part of the campaign strategy of the left.

Guys like Bill Maher were asserting that one term wasn't enough and that if Obama didn't get a second term it would be looked at as a "black failure", so we needed to vote him in for the historical landmark thingy alone.

Lets not go thinking about if he's a good president or anything lol.