and said that she will attack Iran and wouldn't be afraid to do so. And, that she would never take that off the table? Now tell me people, just what makes you think she is a liberal? Everything she has done proves she is a hawk and proves she is NOT a liberal by any means. What she is, is more of corporate and military control over OUR government.
2007-02-05 05:03:57 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Certain idealogues are confused as what to constitutes liberal and what constitutes conservative. They seem to think that it means democrat or republican, but they are wrong. For insance, a Kansas Democrat is far more conservative than a California Republican.
The Clintons are conservative democrats. But either way, it doesn't matter. Neither the democrat nor the republican parties serve the people any more.
2007-02-05 05:11:04 · answer #1 · answered by mamasquirrel 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Interesting that if this is true, it is just one speech that would give you the idea that she is not a liberal? The book she wrote about the cities shows the ideas of our Hillary! They are very Liberal! Being a Democrat does not mean you will not wage war! Ha. We have had many in the White House that did and whatever else they may have forstered it could be Liberal of Conservative! Waging war does not indicate a Liberal or a Conservative position in any way and probably never will! God bless... Earl
2007-02-05 07:50:09 · answer #2 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, she has said she would not hesitate to attack Iran, if necessary. She has also said she believes in exhausting diplomacy before taking military action, save defending ourselves from a sudden attack, in which we would have to act immediately. Hillary IS a hawk, and I find that to be a good and comforting thing. The difference between her and George Bush in this area is that she understands the value of consulting with Allies and using diplomacy before taking military action, he does not.
I would not vote for anyone in this current world atmosphere who is not "hawkish" enough to take action when it is warranted. It is part of the reason I support Hillary Clinton for President. I have no problem imagining her dealing very effectively with any enemy. A woman who is a dove will NEVER be elected in this country. People are just now overcoming their discomfort in picturing a woman President - electing one that doesn't have the **** to do what she needs to do when our country is threatened just isn't going to happen, now, or ever. I've tried often to point out this very thing to people who call her a leftist liberal. This aspect of her political views is usually ignored by those people, it just doesn't fit the profile they have of her in their minds. Do I want a tough, calculating hawk in the Oval Office? I sure do, I'm aware of the threats of terrorism and tyrants as much as anyone.
2007-02-05 05:17:35 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Rivers of Blood speech - the position EP spoke of the none Integration complications the united kingdom ought to struggle through concerning common immigration....as has occurred. EP foresaw each and every of the large complications the united kingdom is dealing with now as via the mass out of control immigration and 'compelled' multiculturalism....as others have already suggested. computing gadget change into already in trend all those years in the past so EP change into branded a racist for his speeches - his prophecy has became finished circle....and the undesirable information is....'we are all' stuck with the 'following' politicians and governments none idea-out 'undesirable coverage' complications in any respect stages on all themes that EP prophesied....continuously.!! EP should be conserving many times (everywhere he's now)....I advised you so - yet no you likely will pay interest.!!
2016-11-02 09:42:16 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are so right, Lila! No, I didn't know that about her speaking to AIPAC. Unfortunately, slavish submission to AIPAC is a requisite to becoming president here (I think it might even be in the constitution, Article 3, but I'm not sure about that!).
I agree about Hillary. I would easily vote for Hagel ( and possibly a few other R's) if he ran against Hillary. Nominating her would be so depressing for forward thinking Democrats. The only plus to Hillary is that Bill would be back in the White House for several more years!
2007-02-05 05:12:04 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
It is difficult to read too much into what Hillary is or isn't. There is only ONE thing we can be sure of. She will say anything she believes will get her elected. She hasn't shown conservative tendencies in her governance, but I wouldn't say she doesn't say conservative things. She has governed liberally, but I wouldn't say she's a liberal. She IS an opportunist. That is a certainty.
2007-02-05 05:13:44 · answer #6 · answered by james 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Many people believe democrat=liberal. Period.
2007-02-05 05:09:35 · answer #7 · answered by Pitchow! 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes, and she is full of blarney, to put it nicely. That woman is the biggest liar God ever deemed to challenge America with. For Pete's sake, she is worse than Billery!
2007-02-05 05:09:46 · answer #8 · answered by xenypoo 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Be fair and review the facts first.........She said all options will be exhausted before the idea of war comes into play. Sounds reasonable to me.
2007-02-05 05:10:40 · answer #9 · answered by davemg21 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
She is a Robot with lots of oil investments, no wonder the libs love her.
2007-02-05 05:12:38 · answer #10 · answered by mbush40 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋