President Hillary will end Iraq war!

Well, how about one or two pieces of evidence that she hates the military and will yank the troops? Bald assertions aren't worth much as arguments.

 

When you're talking about the unknown future all you have to go on is past behavior. That's all the argument you or I or anyone else has.

If you don't like it, I suggest you stick to arguing about the past and present only.

This thread is entirely about the future so I guess you'll bow out now. Right?

After all, ending the war if she's elected is just a bald assertion and not worth much, either.:thumbs:

 

Yes, carpro, I'm asking for evidence from her past behavior or statements that show Sen. Clinton hates the military, and all it stands for, in her heart of hearts per your claim.

I like it fine, thanks. You're arguing that the past indicates the future, that's fine, but provide evidence that might predict the future, ok?

How do you know what is in her heart of hearts? If it is not from your psychic knowledge, what is it specifically that makes you think you know?

Well no, it's not. You asserted, baldy, that Clinton hates - in the present - the military and always has - in the past. You brought Clinton's present and past to this thread.

Your assertion, back it up or take it back.

That's a statement of intention, not a bald assertion.

It's difficult to argue convincingly that someone does not intend to do what she says she does. Simply jeering at someone is not a convincing argument (except to the preconvinced or the super-immature).

 

Put it this way; I just went over 20 years serving in the AF and if she is elected president I will have to retire early. I will not have my retirement certificate signed by a Clinton...

 

But...but...but..

She loves you, Man. :thumbs:

 

Arguments from personal distaste aren't worth much either as arguments. How about something she actually did or said?

 

There isn't enough space to list them all...

 

But here is just one article that is interesting which also has many links with more on her below the article:

http://conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=3735

 

Hillary end the Iraq war? :laugh:

Do any of you democrats really think you can't be neo-conned by Hillary like conservatives were by the Bush regime?

 

I read the whole thing. It was just a smearjob without evidence. Not a single citation in the article to back up any assertion.

The first link is more of the same uncited smearing. The second link, the snopes article about her name, does cite evidence. The third, the NRO book review, requires a subscription. The fourth, aim again, is detailed but again is allegations without citations. The fifth and last is solid baloney.

One out of five, the snopes article about who she was named for, presents actual evidence. The others are third hand retelling of stories which may or may not have something to them - we can't tell as they are totally lacking citations.

I'm sure that you can find hundreds of Hillary-hating sites, but if they don't back up their allegations with original sources or credible evidence of some kind (bald assertions are not), they are pretty much worthless.

 

What is Hillary saying about Iran?

Same thing as Edwards and Obama.

Here are three democrats reassuring a foreign power that America will continue to carry out it's war plans. Americans have no say in it at all. They don't sound "anti-war" to me.

 

Too bad!

I hope you are forced to retire then!

 

Amen, brother! I pray the Lord will spare us such a disaster!

 

You guys need to perk up. Hillary isn't going to pull the troops out of Iraq. Bush and his neocons will make sure that they stay put by starting another war (under false pretenses, again, of course) with Iran. I just hope that the 150,000 American troops and the 30 to 50 thousand private mercenaries already there get better equipment to fight for the next hundred years.

The future is looking good for neocons cheer up!

 

According to retired Lt Col. Robert Patterson, who served in the Clinton White House, Hillary didn't want the military aides to wear their uniforms at the White House, and was personally offended when they did.

Patterson wrote, "Common sense and security finally prevailed, at least at official functions with the president. At all other times, however, we were expected to be in business suits or civilian clothes in order to downplay the military presence at the White House".

When General Petraeus appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen Clinton "used her time to make a speech about Iraq policy and did not ask a single question of the man who will be leading the military campaign."

link

 

Forced to retire? I guess my impression from his message was that he would, for personal reasons, retire rather than have her signature on his retirement certificate.

Your comment saying you hoped he was FORCED TO RETIRE is so sad. Let's not thank this person for his selfless service for over 20 years to our country, but rather let us force him out for not wanting the same person you want as president.

INCREDIBLE.

PS... there may be many more like him if that happens. I wonder what the retention levels will be if she is elected?

 

What is truly INCREDIBLE is your lack of understanding!

I don't care, personally, if he retires or not. But, if he is so childish as to retire because he doesn't want a Clinton to sign his discharge papers, then let the man retire. Anyone with this attitude probably should not be in the military in the first place.

 

I fail to see any way a Christian could support a Clinton for the highest office in the world.

 

Not many Christians would vote for her. Then again, you fail to see a lot of things. Two seperate issues.