Schweitzer (while in Iowa) says: Don't trust the Dems who backed the Iraq War

[Lief 🗽]

Shameless pandering to the True Leftist crowd.

[Donerail]

Well, by making the clear connection of him opposing the Iraq War which killed thousands of U.S. soldiers to him supporting the rights of gun owners and hunting to which he himself does, it adds up to that. People say that the Iraq War was morally unjust and we had no thought out reason for being in there, yet what's hunting?

I hope that clears up  a resemblance for you, hypocritical libertarian.

I don't see the resemblance between a Congresswoman and a deer, no, nor do I see how that's relevant. For that matter, your link only redirects to French Google.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Shameless pandering to the True Leftist crowd.

LOL, he's too pro-gun and bad on the environment to be a true leftist, but he's still a lot better than Hillary.

[windjammer]

Well, by making the clear connection of him opposing the Iraq War which killed thousands of U.S. soldiers to him supporting the rights of gun owners and hunting to which he himself does, it adds up to that. People say that the Iraq War was morally unjust and we had no thought out reason for being in there, yet what's hunting?

I hope that clears up  a resemblance for you, hypocritical libertarian.

I don't see the resemblance between a Congresswoman and a deer, no, nor do I see how that's relevant. For that matter, your link only redirects to French Google.

You oppose war because some people are killed. But you oppose gun control, and lack of gun control kills people. Do you understand?

[Mechaman]

Well, by making the clear connection of him opposing the Iraq War which killed thousands of U.S. soldiers to him supporting the rights of gun owners and hunting to which he himself does, it adds up to that. People say that the Iraq War was morally unjust and we had no thought out reason for being in there, yet what's hunting?

I hope that clears up  a resemblance for you, hypocritical libertarian.

I don't see the resemblance between a Congresswoman and a deer, no, nor do I see how that's relevant. For that matter, your link only redirects to French Google.

You oppose war because some people are killed. But you oppose gun control, and lack of gun control kills people. Do you understand?

What incredible logic you have.  I'm sure it's hard up there, with your fellow Rhodes Scholars to explain things to idiot libertarians from Florida.  I'm glad such thinking has gotten you this far on life on top of the Mountain of Enlightenment.  You completely and totally addressed SJoyce's actual point thoroughly about what the difference is between hunting and war.

. . . . . oh wait.

[windjammer]

Well, by making the clear connection of him opposing the Iraq War which killed thousands of U.S. soldiers to him supporting the rights of gun owners and hunting to which he himself does, it adds up to that. People say that the Iraq War was morally unjust and we had no thought out reason for being in there, yet what's hunting?

I hope that clears up  a resemblance for you, hypocritical libertarian.

I don't see the resemblance between a Congresswoman and a deer, no, nor do I see how that's relevant. For that matter, your link only redirects to French Google.

You oppose war because some people are killed. But you oppose gun control, and lack of gun control kills people. Do you understand?

What incredible logic you have.  I'm sure it's hard up there, with your fellow Rhodes Scholars to explain things to idiot libertarians from Florida.  I'm glad such thinking has gotten you this far on life on top of the Mountain of Enlightenment.  You completely and totally addressed SJoyce's actual point thoroughly about what the difference is between hunting and war.

. . . . . oh wait.

I'm sorry but I don't understand you Mechaman.
And I have said "hypocritical libertarian", not "idiot libertarian", there's a difference between the two.
I just find it hypocritical to see some libertarians like Sjoyce, who is staunchly against war because war kills people, but they are against gun control too. And it's the case of Sjoyce. That's all.

[Brewer]

Well, by making the clear connection of him opposing the Iraq War which killed thousands of U.S. soldiers to him supporting the rights of gun owners and hunting to which he himself does, it adds up to that. People say that the Iraq War was morally unjust and we had no thought out reason for being in there, yet what's hunting?

I hope that clears up  a resemblance for you, hypocritical libertarian.

I don't see the resemblance between a Congresswoman and a deer, no, nor do I see how that's relevant. For that matter, your link only redirects to French Google.

You oppose war because some people are killed. But you oppose gun control, and lack of gun control kills people. Do you understand?

What incredible logic you have.  I'm sure it's hard up there, with your fellow Rhodes Scholars to explain things to idiot libertarians from Florida.  I'm glad such thinking has gotten you this far on life on top of the Mountain of Enlightenment.  You completely and totally addressed SJoyce's actual point thoroughly about what the difference is between hunting and war.

. . . . . oh wait.

I'm sorry but I don't understand you Mechaman.
And I have said "hypocritical libertarian", not "idiot libertarian", there's a difference between the two.
I just find it hypocritical to see some libertarians like Sjoyce, who is staunchly against war because war kills people, but they are against gun control too. And it's the case of Sjoyce. That's all.

A lack of gun control does not kill people. That theory has been debunked countless times.

[windjammer]

Well, by making the clear connection of him opposing the Iraq War which killed thousands of U.S. soldiers to him supporting the rights of gun owners and hunting to which he himself does, it adds up to that. People say that the Iraq War was morally unjust and we had no thought out reason for being in there, yet what's hunting?

I hope that clears up  a resemblance for you, hypocritical libertarian.

I don't see the resemblance between a Congresswoman and a deer, no, nor do I see how that's relevant. For that matter, your link only redirects to French Google.

You oppose war because some people are killed. But you oppose gun control, and lack of gun control kills people. Do you understand?

What incredible logic you have.  I'm sure it's hard up there, with your fellow Rhodes Scholars to explain things to idiot libertarians from Florida.  I'm glad such thinking has gotten you this far on life on top of the Mountain of Enlightenment.  You completely and totally addressed SJoyce's actual point thoroughly about what the difference is between hunting and war.

. . . . . oh wait.

I'm sorry but I don't understand you Mechaman.
And I have said "hypocritical libertarian", not "idiot libertarian", there's a difference between the two.
I just find it hypocritical to see some libertarians like Sjoyce, who is staunchly against war because war kills people, but they are against gun control too. And it's the case of Sjoyce. That's all.

A lack of gun control does not kill people. That theory has been debunked countless times.

That theory has never been debunked.

[Brewer]

Well, by making the clear connection of him opposing the Iraq War which killed thousands of U.S. soldiers to him supporting the rights of gun owners and hunting to which he himself does, it adds up to that. People say that the Iraq War was morally unjust and we had no thought out reason for being in there, yet what's hunting?

I hope that clears up  a resemblance for you, hypocritical libertarian.

I don't see the resemblance between a Congresswoman and a deer, no, nor do I see how that's relevant. For that matter, your link only redirects to French Google.

You oppose war because some people are killed. But you oppose gun control, and lack of gun control kills people. Do you understand?

What incredible logic you have.  I'm sure it's hard up there, with your fellow Rhodes Scholars to explain things to idiot libertarians from Florida.  I'm glad such thinking has gotten you this far on life on top of the Mountain of Enlightenment.  You completely and totally addressed SJoyce's actual point thoroughly about what the difference is between hunting and war.

. . . . . oh wait.

I'm sorry but I don't understand you Mechaman.
And I have said "hypocritical libertarian", not "idiot libertarian", there's a difference between the two.
I just find it hypocritical to see some libertarians like Sjoyce, who is staunchly against war because war kills people, but they are against gun control too. And it's the case of Sjoyce. That's all.

A lack of gun control does not kill people. That theory has been debunked countless times.

That theory has never been debunked.

Yes, actually, it has.

Think about Russia or Luxembourg (strict gun control) as opposed to Germany, France, or Norway (lack of strict gun control, high gun ownership rates). The former have skyrocketing murder rates, while the latter have much lower rates. I have seen no significant correlation between gun control and saving lives, but if you could provide me with some, that'd be great.

[Mechaman]

Well, by making the clear connection of him opposing the Iraq War which killed thousands of U.S. soldiers to him supporting the rights of gun owners and hunting to which he himself does, it adds up to that. People say that the Iraq War was morally unjust and we had no thought out reason for being in there, yet what's hunting?

I hope that clears up  a resemblance for you, hypocritical libertarian.

I don't see the resemblance between a Congresswoman and a deer, no, nor do I see how that's relevant. For that matter, your link only redirects to French Google.

You oppose war because some people are killed. But you oppose gun control, and lack of gun control kills people. Do you understand?

What incredible logic you have.  I'm sure it's hard up there, with your fellow Rhodes Scholars to explain things to idiot libertarians from Florida.  I'm glad such thinking has gotten you this far on life on top of the Mountain of Enlightenment.  You completely and totally addressed SJoyce's actual point thoroughly about what the difference is between hunting and war.

. . . . . oh wait.

I'm sorry but I don't understand you Mechaman.
And I have said "hypocritical libertarian", not "idiot libertarian", there's a difference between the two.
I just find it hypocritical to see some libertarians like Sjoyce, who is staunchly against war because war kills people, but they are against gun control too. And it's the case of Sjoyce. That's all.

My point is that Fitzgerald equated hunting with war.  Unless most people are now on the cannibal diet, I don't exactly see the moral parallel he was trying to make with that part of the post.  He basically equated hunters in the woods hunting deer with guys with glocks who kill McDonald's cashier workers and third world dictators.

Yes, I find that to be ridiculous.

[RogueBeaver]

Iraq's still a BFD in a '16 primary, red avatars?

[Nichlemn]

Is there any record of what Schweitzer said in the run-up to the Iraq War? It's easy to take a position which looks good in hindsight, and also not having had to worry about political consequences. If Schweitzer had been an incumbent Senator in 2002, I suspect he'd have been more likely than not to have voted for the resolution.

[Likely Voter]

Schweitzer is just throwing everything he has against Hillary against the wall and seeing what sticks. Calling out her Iraq War vote, calling her a "corpratist", etc. And he is making it clear he is willing to fight Hillary for the nomination. He may not be the best fit for  those pining for Elizabeth Warren, but if he is all they got then those urban white liberal elites will flock to this bolo tie wearing rancher as long as he slams wall street and Hillary, but he is going to have to throw them a bone on gun control.

As for his environmental record, he can always fall back on this (rather clownish) stunt: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qur80XKiW9E

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Iraq's still a BFD in a '16 primary, red avatars?

Not Iraq per se, no.  But if Schweitzer was right on one foreign policy issue, he's likely to be right on others.

[Ogre Mage]

Schweitzer is in a position where he can legitimately criticize Clinton on her ties to Wall Street, but he's on shakier ground here.  Schweitzer wasn't even in office in 2002 and has no background in foreign policy.  It would have been interesting to see how Schweitzer actually would have voted on Iraq had he beaten Conrad Burns when he ran against him in 2000.  

It would be a good thing if Schweitzer ran and it pushed Clinton to the left on economic policy.  But this particular line of criticism smells of Monday morning quarterbacking.  If Schweitzer runs, I would suggest that he primarily focus on economic policy as pocketbook anxieties are a huge issue and likely will continue to be in the near future.  Iraq is old news and he isn't a very good vessel for challenging Hillary on foreign policy.