Second time in 24hrs you didn't read it well or took out of context. Why are you skewing my words?

The guy wrote:

To which I replied

What is partisan? Did I say republican or democrat? I didn't like either there, nor did I claim one thing had to do with the other. His assertion is demonstrably false, just like your assertions about what I said.

Hey remember when the GOP elected a child molester as Speaker of the House?

Seem to recall that guy was convicted too, whereas in the case of Clinton he wasn't even charged with anything.


Regardless, I might have given Bush a few rapes if it meant half a million people didn't get blown away.

Nothing I posted is false. The war happened, it was based on lies, and it was Bush's responsibility. Further you supported it at the time.

btc,

I'm reading the words you wrote. That's the best I can do. If you mean something else, you're going to have to figure out how to express it.

You made a blanket statement that is patently untrue. Did I connect those two events? Nope. War in Afghanistan and war in Iraq, more holes in history here.

And this Cool beans!

Who said the "war" was ok? I put quotes on it to denote that the "war" was some bs. Anything else you want to know about what really happened?

What?

Fair enough... However, where do you get this:

in this statement:

about this post:

Talking about a democrat - partisan snake!
Talking about a republican - atta boy!

If you didn't mean what I thought you meant, I have no idea what you are trying to imply with "Guess you never heard of Osama Bin Laden".

That post you're responding to was extremely straightforward. Why would you respond with "What?"? Just say what you mean if you hope to be understood.

You think the war was BS but you're a rabid anti-Clinton conservative. Sure makes sense I guess. I suppose you voted for Obama too, right?

Fun though that you post the fact that HRC relied on the summary of the WMD report as a criticism of her and not of Bush for presenting that summary in the first place. I guess if you'd been in the Senate at the time (as a D from NY no doubt) you'd have done it way different.

Like I know you guys now like to pretend that Hillary was right there in the Situation Room with Bush and Cheney at the time the war came down and not a junior senator in the minority party, but that's not how it all happened. Some of us can read and stuff, you know.

The point was Clinton had his own messes, and dinopoker doesn't seem to realize that.

Does anyone in this forum think bill or hillary clinton are good people? BTC if your only conclusion is that the clintons suck then duh no ****, you want a medal for figuring that out? Obviously there are a million valid criticisms of clintonism but they are leftist critiques. The right are far worse. Yeah, we'd much rather have bernie than clinton and much rather a truly left wing politician than either. But that doesn't mean that hilary wasn't >>>> Trump and would have been >> any replacement level GOP person.

Also burn epstien and anyone that knew him to the ground imo. Haven't check vox yet so I could change my mind.

He said I supported Bush's war, ... what? Are you dino's press secretary now How am I supposed to react to the crazy that is there?

What makes you think you know who I voted for? Because I relay history I'm a conservative? I like Warren, so do conservatives also like Warren because she used to be one?

Again, I didn't dismiss Bush, merely demonstrated that your previous blanket statement dismissing the Clintons was total nonsense. You just pushed aside her own negligence though, more good stuff.

You sure does read good!

I don't get what you mean by "what?" in this post either. Yes, he said you supported the war. That's what he said.

Nah. You can attack Clinton from either the left or the right, as long as at least some part of the right can still claim things like anti-interventionism/anti-"free"-trade foriegn policy.

This is just beyond, like arguing over who was more decent, freddy krueger or jason voorhees. Have fun with that!

That was never the right. It (is/was) like 12 people. The GOP is 100% pro "free" trade and has been for many decades. You can attack them from the "right" as some kind of weird libertarian but even then your arguments are leftist in essence. The idea that the American right is anti interventionist is legit insane.

It's an improvement over alternatives. At least people no longer think Democratic presidents are "good".
They are just the good cop in a good cop/bad cop routine run on us. And some can still be quite bad.

Come on man, are you messing with me, I can't tell . He can proclaim that and I'm supposed to dignify it?

"what?" = "nonsense"

A large amount of Trump support came from Ron Paul people and you can argue Ron Paul laid the groundwork for Trump if you want. Had Rand not run such a lackluster campaign perhaps he'd be president today even. Why do you think people on the right are praising Tulsi Gabbard?

(Also horseshoe theory itt)

I guess I'm messing with you a bit. I have no idea if you supported the war though.

What did you mean about Bill Clinton and OBL?

Did you support the war?

Who did you vote for in 2004?

The anti-interventionist right is very small and since they are so easily whipped up into a patriotic and xenophobic fever they are not really anti-interventionist when it matters.

well on the other page kelhus made a compelling argument that hillary and the obama and the dems are the ones who let epstein run wild and hell they proly approved and enjoyed it.

How can you square this with the huge impact/presence of Ron Paul and the amount of support that he had? The fact that anti-war views aren't amplied in the media doesn't mean that they don't exist. Tom's statement was that the Clinton's can only be validly attacked from the left and that just isn't true unless you want to subscribe to some really narrow media driven view of what the right is.
I'd have to see evidence that Ron Paul people in 2012 are now rabidly xenophobic and/or now whipped up by Trump now. Those people weren't watching Fox News then so there is little reason to think they are so easily swayed now--although I recognize that the propaganda is a lot more complicated than that.