Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
295,928
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 406:
Line 406: + + Line 411:
Line 413: + + + + + +
→'''Foreign Policy''': Time for you guys to make a real effort......
:: The floor was open for discussion all the time. It was just you who didn't want to discuss.
:: The floor was open for discussion all the time. It was just you who didn't want to discuss.
: Anyway, at the time of the tienamen massacre, we had a Bush administration. Furthermore, you make the same mistake all over again. Just because a few vocal anti-war protesters claim to speak for all liberals, doens't mean it is true. [[User:Order]] 26 March 14:30 (AEST)
: Anyway, at the time of the tienamen massacre, we had a Bush administration. Furthermore, you make the same mistake all over again. Just because a few vocal anti-war protesters claim to speak for all liberals, doens't mean it is true. [[User:Order]] 26 March 14:30 (AEST)
::This makes no sense. Sr. Bush was reponsible for Tiananmen? Lame excuse and irrelevent for '''the fact''' that the heart and soul of this "liberal" anti-war movement today (a) was anti-democratic in the Tainanmen massacre and other occasions; (b) accepted human rights abuses as part of its program. And a further point, the founders and leaders of the current anti-war movement ''also'' are known for thier anti-Semitic views--a fact which reared its head again last election season among ''other'' liberals not associated with ANSWER. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
[[User:Order]] stated, ''interventionist foreign policies that involves nation building''; can we say then Liberals oppose intervention and nation building in Durfur, and President Clinton had nothing to appologize for regarding Rwanda? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:58, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
[[User:Order]] stated, ''interventionist foreign policies that involves nation building''; can we say then Liberals oppose intervention and nation building in Durfur, and President Clinton had nothing to appologize for regarding Rwanda? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:58, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Republicans opposed nation building by Clinton, and Liberals nation building by Bush. [[User:Order]] 26 March 14:30 (AEST)
Republicans opposed nation building by Clinton, and Liberals nation building by Bush. [[User:Order]] 26 March 14:30 (AEST)
:To wit: [http://www.kronykronicle.com/Articles/ThankClinton.html]
:To wit: [http://www.kronykronicle.com/Articles/ThankClinton.html]
:That does not answer the specific question above. Try it again, please. For internal logic to your arguement, you must be consistent. Four years ago it was fashionable to be pro-Ba'athist, now the real aims of the "liberal" program are obvious, i.e. subverting the liberal democracy in Iraq that has granted universal sufferage and is making efforts to advance human rights. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
*We again have too beasts here. It isn't fair to Clinton, per se, to say that. Clinton, if not distracted with his perjury before a Federal Circuit Judge, which is what he was really scared of, not Impeachment, for it was a true Felony, would undoubtedly followed State's advisory and entered the fray in Africa. We have been working hard, for years, to remove the domestic idealogy from our Foreign Policy...as it costs us billions every year. The Congress was surprisingly open to aid packages when requested, by Clinton.
*We again have too beasts here. It isn't fair to Clinton, per se, to say that. Clinton, if not distracted with his perjury before a Federal Circuit Judge, which is what he was really scared of, not Impeachment, for it was a true Felony, would undoubtedly followed State's advisory and entered the fray in Africa. We have been working hard, for years, to remove the domestic idealogy from our Foreign Policy...as it costs us billions every year. The Congress was surprisingly open to aid packages when requested, by Clinton.
::(a) did Republicans threaten to withhold funding for Kosovo? (b) did Repubs cutoff aid for Kosovo? (c) did Repubas march int he street to protest Kosovo? etc. etc. etc. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:'''Comment''': One big charge on an ideological plane conservatives make against liberals is changing the meanings of words to suit whatever the purpose of the moment is. We see this on the mainspace in the discussion about a "living constitution", that liberal judges, at a particular moment, can invent meanings in the text of the Consitution out of thin air that just aren't there in the words of the original. Or the old example whetever the meaning of is is, etc. For this discussion, unless you guys can nail it down, and refute the mountain of sources available at ourt fingertips, this passage will go back in. Because the meanings of the words are factual. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)