Originally posted by: Dashel
Originally posted by: Corbett
Next time Craig tries to pass himself off as a moderate democrat, lets all remember this gem of a post!
Anyone who believes Craig is a moderate is either as left as he is or clueless Craig is the stereotypical hardcore liberal poster, quoting sites like Common Dreams, still hung up on the Gore loss, upset with himself that he wasnt more vocal about the Iraq war back when he thought it was a good idea (i.e. it was popular) so is now foaming about how much he hates it. Nothing wrong with that, we all have our political leanings, but to pretend to be moderate is kind of funny.
Posting that Hillary has "less baggage" than Reagan is a new one to me though, that's spectacular I mean dont we all remember Reagan trying to impose Socialized Healthcare on the US when he wasn't even elected to anything at all?
Dashel is a typical liar of the right - let's answer him point by point:
"Anyone who believes Craig is a moderate is either as left as he is or clueless "
As I explained before, 'moderate' is a meaningless, relative term to the society it's in, a shorthand for those who lack any real info to try to name-call others.
'The truth' can be right, middle, left, moderate, up, down, whatever. You inject a term without any substance; if my points are wrong, you would rebut them directly.
I'm "moderate" in the way most understand the term, insofar as I don't start out with the conclusions, but reach them through analysis - wherever they lead.
You don't, as an ideologue who is too ignorant to actually form views, and instead practices 'identity politics' where you are carefully spoon fed by those with an agenda.
"Craig is the stereotypical hardcore liberal poster"
More nonsensical name-calling - a I noted before, our founding fathers were 'radicals' before the revolution, and 'moderates' after.
Am I someone whose views are strongly 'liberal' as defined in our culture today? In more cases than not, yes; on others, the middle or right; in ways conservative and liberal.
You need labels to replace the accurate info you lack.
"quoting sites like Common Dreams"
Which is actually simply a site that publishes articles from hundreds of people, but you are unable or unwilling to stick to the merits of the articles, so you lump them together.
If you can rebut something, you would; you can't, so you just insult something without any actual facts or logic, as if you had anything useful to say.
"still hung up on the Gore loss"
Another bit of rhetorical garbage - "hung up" as if it's a problem as opposed to "dealing with the truth". Am I "hung up" that cancer isn't yet cured and I donate to cure it?
If you had any American values, you would be concerned with whether the 2000 election was run fairly or not. You don't, and you don't.
Yes, I care about democracy in the US, and so yes, I still talk about the important history of that election while some in the nation are not yet informed about it.
That's a good thing, not your spreading of lies because of your ideology and lack of concern for democracy.
"upset with himself that he wasnt more vocal about the Iraq war back when he thought it was a good idea (i.e. it was popular) so is now foaming about how much he hates it."
This one is especially repugnant - so, when someone has an honest discussion and says they are questioning and not accepting any conclusions at face value, including the 'side' they're usually on, instead of recognizing that's the right thing, you try to insult about it, and toss in several lies at the same time?
First, I never 'thought the Iraq war was a good idea'. I always supported allowing Hans Blix to complete the inspections, which he would have completed in a few months and reported no WMD destroying the case for invasion. I also never trusted this administration with going to war - they're too corrupt to do anything but use it as a cover for their own agend, and too incompetent as a result to do it right. So, I never was 'upset with myself' for having 'supported' the war, as you say in one of your lies.
Had I supported the war, I still wouldn't 'be upset with myself'; I'd simply regret an error, and admit the error, if I thought it was an error. It's happened before.
Another lie from you is the idea that the war's 'popularity' had any bearing on my opinion; another lie as an insult, since you lack any message with any substance.
Now, I *did* and do say that the liberals need to better figure out what to do about Saddam type situations - the balance of 'realpolitick' and morality, and so on.
One start is not to make evil partnerships as Reagan did with Saddam that get us into those messes. You can talk all day about the benefits of having Iraq and Iran pound each other, in terms of the US interests, as they did for a decade with a million casualties, but at the end of the day, the moral issues are important, the tangled web you create from the arms sales to Iran to the secret partnership with Israel involved in laundering weapons forcing you to take their side in wrongs against the Palastenians and so on...
But I'll stop, because you are not interested in the issues, but simply in trying to find a cute insult to someone who doens't play on your ideological team.
"Nothing wrong with that, we all have our political leanings, but to pretend to be moderate is kind of funny."
There is virtually nothing in common between the way I reach an opinion and the way you do. Speak for yourself.
"Posting that Hillary has "less baggage" than Reagan is a new one to me though, that's spectacular I mean dont we all remember Reagan trying to impose Socialized Healthcare on the US when he wasn't even elected to anything at all?"
Once again, you only embarrass yourself with the misuse of attempted sarcasm, as it actually is 'spectacular' insofar as you are unaware of the accuracy of the comment.
The example I cited is that Reagan, trying to run as the candidate of the right in the days of the religious right with Jerry Falwell, brought a divorce as baggage - if I recall, the nation had never elected someone who had divorced, and it was a touchier issue then, especially for his base; while Hillary, for all her husband's controversy, was largely seen as the victim, and someone who preserved her marriage and carried it off well.
Other Reagan baggage was his being seen by many as a right-wing lunatic who didn't mind the idea of nuclear war too much; he overcame his baggage.
As for Hillary and health care, she did the health care project not as 'someone unelected', but as someone working for the elected president - or do you condemn every cabinet secretary, every military leader, as 'unelected' too? No, it's just your idiocy on overdrive looking for insults to replace any substantive criticisms since you don't have any. And in case you are out of touch with the nation, universal - not "socialized" - health care is a pretty popular idea nowadays with the American people.
Hillary actually can get some credit for being ahead of the issue.
I'm not planning to waste much time on you with more responses like this. Those who actually try to post something reasonable deserve it more.