(06-25-2014 07:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 05:54 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 05:18 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 04:58 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Interesting how this thread has attracted the socially liberal

/fiscally conservative. Should not be a surprise.

You cannot be both.

Yes, you can.

I agree with you that one cannot be what YOU define as a social liberal and also be a fiscal conservative. But I do not believe that your definition of social liberal is the commonly accepted one.

That is, of course, based upon inferring your definition from your comments elsewhere. Perhaps you could provide an explicit statement of exactly what social liberal means to you.

My definition is the correct definition. You're definition has been tailored to accommodate your confusion. What you call social liberalism is more in line with anarchy.

btw, a conservatism overlaps both fiscal and social conservatism because in many ways they are one in the same. Pretending you are a hybrid is like running on 3 cylinders.

I am a conservative. I am not a big goverment conservative, nor am I am rhino. However, I have the common sense to understand what our government should spend money on and what it should back away from. I understand that social conservatism is the glue that holds society together. It takes work to be conservative. It takes little work to be liberal. In fact, liberalism is the opposite of work. I also understand that doesn't have much to do with religion. It is an ideology that has been battle tested. It is an ideology that you cannot run with 3 cylinders.

social liberalism drives fiscal liberalism. You cannot be fiscally conservative while practicing social liberalism unless you believe in a collective society...and that goes against human nature.

(06-26-2014 10:43 AM)WPDAWG08 Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 10:19 PM)EagleX Wrote:  we're screwed either way. we will have to fight our way in if we want to prevent a genuine, overt islamic state based on exporting global terror -- which is what one of the three pieces of what used to be iraq will turn into. there will be casualties on a decent scale.

if we ignore it, then in fairly short order, the islamic state exporting terror will keep their promise, and launch attacks on americans, if not actually on american soil. there will be loss of civilian life on an alarming scale. and then, we really will have to go back in, regardless of the cost, and re-win the sh!t obama gave away out of sheer petulance in 2012.

so, basically, we're phucking phucked either way. we're either phucked in the next sevral weeks, or we're ****** (conveniently for him) sometime after President Stupidfuck leaves office*.

it's hard to phuck something up as badly as this, but the obamites managed to pull it off.


*at which point, ironically, he will start blaming his successor for his massive and numerous failures.

If you support this mindset, I big fat plump DEA, tons of laws that lock people up b/c Jesus said we should. You support big government in my mind.

I would love to hear how you wound up at "DEA" and "big govt" (we will leave jesus out of it at this point) from my lament at the state of affairs in Iraq.

(06-25-2014 03:24 PM)WPDAWG08 Wrote:  Do you feel we should re enter Iraq and if so why?

NO. Iraq is a fake country. Let the people who live their create their own countries.

We should have kept some forces in there when we pulled everyone out.

If we had, we would be able to gather the intelligence necessary to destroy the ISIS army from the air. Or at least disable them to the point of not being able to take over major cities and provenances.

Pulling everyone out was just stupid. We could have just puled 75% out and that would have flew politically here in the states. They could have sold it as a major pull back and really had the media drive that talking point for them.

Now its too late for that. And another ground invasion isn't going to happen. So the situation is now phukkked.

Those isolationist who think we should just stay out of everything completely are just fooling themselves.

You cannot unilaterally end a war, the other side has to agree to stop trying to kill people too. Giving them a nation to fight over and purge out the weak is just a horrible idea. The end results are major, more organized, more concentrated and deadlier terrorist attacks all across the globe. And right here in America.

But we've already deiced that is our policy and the world knows it.

We pretty much just have to let Iraq go and prepare for the mess it leaves and the coming wave of terrorism here and abroad.