Trump and Bolton are assembling an Arab force to replace the US contingent in Syria..

[Drummond]

You're missing the point. He's citing what he's citing simply to back up his position, one you and I don't agree with. Nevertheless, his position is not that of a liberal, he's not arguing that the allies haven't 'a just position,' simply that in his opinion, they haven't proven it with certainty-sort of what Mattis was saying a couple days before the attack by the allies.

I don't know that you can understand the strict constitutionalist, for the simple reason you haven't lived under a written one. Doesn't mean that yours isn't a grand one, yep the founders learned more than a thing or two from the mother country, but it is different.

Rev is far from liberal, that is what I've been saying. To tell the truth, other than the policy of bombing, I didn't see him bring up Trump much at all. It's not his thing.

Contrary to what a few here insist upon, one can not be crazy about Trump, even find him pretty disdainful, yet agree with some of his positions and even his results.

Whether knowingly or not, he's playing the Russian game as THEY want it played. Russia has done all in its power to stop proof of Assad's activities being provable, to shield Assad from culpability. The argument seems to be, if Russia covers Assad's tracks well enough, then Assad must remain protected from any actions Trump takes to remedy the situation of Assad's freedom to gas his own people !!!!

This is too similar to the Left's position when it tried to stop Saddam and his regime from being harmed, back in 2003. And don't tell me it was 'constitutionalists' who acted, back THEN.

You can try to hide behind the Constitution as a means of trying to rubbish what Trump has done. But the reality is that, at almost no cost to anyone's wellbeing (there were just three injuries), three sites were comprehensively obliterated ... each dedicated to chemical weapons production.

Conservative realists will consider this a GOOD thing.

But, does Revelarts ?

I'm sure he feels about it in much the same way that the Left felt about the 2003 Iraq invasion.

[Kathianne]

I remember when folks could hold different positions and others could argue and try to change their minds without resorting to name calling. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, Rev has consistently maintained a constitutionalist outlook regarding 3 presidents and numerous candidates since I've known him.

I remember being a constant thorn in his side when he was pushing Ron Paul, even back then, maybe moreso as I really cared then, I was good at looking things up and providing links. Pretty much turned that old board anti-Paul.

I doubt though that either of us are likely to have our minds changed by name calling or that type of thing. I engaged in such before the election, that wasn't one of my best choices. I've made my amends with those that I respect, but it was a lesson learned.

[Drummond]

I remember when folks could hold different positions and others could argue and try to change their minds without resorting to name calling. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, Rev has consistently maintained a constitutionalist outlook regarding 3 presidents and numerous candidates since I've known him.

I remember being a constant thorn in his side when he was pushing Ron Paul, even back then, maybe moreso as I really cared then, I was good at looking things up and providing links. Pretty much turned that old board anti-Paul.

I doubt though that either of us are likely to have our minds changed by name calling or that type of thing. I engaged in such before the election, that wasn't one of my best choices. I've made my amends with those that I respect, but it was a lesson learned.

'Name calling' isn't involved here. Recognising truth, IS.

In 2003, the Left's argument against any invasion of Iraq was that the UN inspection team, under Hans Blix, should be given as much time as possible to complete their work. This, in realistic terms, would've meant them continuing on for many more months, possibly even years, before it would've been possible for their small team to have had any chance of being sure that Saddam's WMD's weren't around.

In other words, they were protecting Saddam to the best of their ability.

Revelarts' position regarding Syria is essentially the same. He's saying that no action should've been taken by Trump, because of zero proof that the Syrian gas attack happened as reported. We were supposed to wait for proof of it, before any possibility of action .. and, THIS to be decided, anyway, through a more bureaucratic route.

He ignores, of course, Russia's strenuous efforts to always protect Assad's actions from scrutiny.

You could JUST slide a wafer-thin sheet of paper between the two arguments .. 2003, and now. JUST. But the pro-Leftie stances involved are basically a match for each other. Each protects an aggressor ... and for as long as possible.

I'm not name calling. I'm acknowledging truth. It's that simple.

[Drummond]

Here's a little something that Revelarts will want to ignore, or argue against ...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...eapons-say-us/

The Syrian regime used barrel bombs dropped by helicopter in a chemical weapon attack on its own people in the city of Douma, according to the US, France and Britain yesterday.

Justifying the decision to mount air strikes against Syria the three governments laid out evidence that the regime had used chemical weapons in the attack earlier this month, which opposition activists, rescue workers and medics say killed more than 40 civilians.

In a statement the White House said: “Multiple government helicopters were observed over Douma on April 7, with witnesses specifically reporting a Mi-8 helicopter, known to have taken off from the Syrian regime’s nearby Dumayr airfield, circling over Douma during the attack

“Numerous eyewitnesses corroborate that barrel bombs were dropped from these helicopters, a tactic used to target civilians indiscriminately throughout the war. Photos of barrel bombs dropped in Douma closely match those used previously by the regime. These barrel bombs were likely used in the chemical attack.”

Mrs May said: "Open source accounts allege that a barrel bomb was used to deliver the chemicals. Multiple open source reports claim that a Regime helicopter was observed above the city of Douma on the evening of 7th April.

"The Opposition does not operate helicopters or use barrel bombs. And reliable intelligence indicates that Syrian military officials co-ordinated what appears to be the use of chlorine in Douma on 7th April."

The Prime Minister also indicated there was other intelligence based evidence which she was unable to share with the public, saying: "I cannot tell you everything.”

France has also said it has similar proof that "chemical weapons were used in the attack - at least chlorine - and that they were used by Bashar al-Assad's regime.

[Drummond]

Here's a little something that Revelarts will want to ignore, or argue against ...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...eapons-say-us/

... no reply, I see.

Well ... I believe my case rests, then !

[revelarts]

Here's the thing, Rev said the same things when Obama was considering the same issues and drawing his 'line in the sand.' He's consistent. Which should tell you his position isn't about Trump or Obama, but is exactly what he's saying it is, the way he views the Constitution. None of which makes him a liberal or conservative, but rather a strict constitutionalist. See the Gorsuch ruling so many were upset with, until Trump gave them the OK, to badger Congress, not Gorsuch.

You're missing the point. He's citing what he's citing simply to back up his position, one you and I don't agree with. Nevertheless, his position is not that of a liberal, he's not arguing that the allies haven't 'a just position,' simply that in his opinion, they haven't proven it with certainty-sort of what Mattis was saying a couple days before the attack by the allies.

I don't know that you can understand the strict constitutionalist, for the simple reason you haven't lived under a written one. Doesn't mean that yours isn't a grand one, yep the founders learned more than a thing or two from the mother country, but it is different.

Rev is far from liberal, that is what I've been saying. To tell the truth, other than the policy of bombing, I didn't see him bring up Trump much at all. It's not his thing.

Contrary to what a few here insist upon, one can not be crazy about Trump, even find him pretty disdainful, yet agree with some of his positions and even his results.

Thanks Kath, but it's been clear for a long time that Drummond is unwilling ...or unable... to see beyond a very narrow left/right paradigm.

Part of which is an anything is permissible ...and should be applauded... if the enemy/'the left"/Islam/Russia/etc are weakened.
It seems it's all pretty black and white.
Fair and objective application of justice is not a factor because WE KNOW who the enemies are already.
Proof? They are enemies (some subhuman even) therefore no proof is needed because it only gives them opportunity to attack us and kill us... dead.
Constitution, Common Law, International Law, Signed Treaties, Morals? They don't apply because if we foolishly adhere to them then we're just playing in to the enemies hands, appearing weak to them and the enemies will gain ground on us to our ultimate destruction.
"if you're not for us, you're against us."
There are no other serious perspectives, no isolated issues, no middle ground, no mitigating facts, or even other options.
That's "Reality" for Drummond it seems to me.

I haven't seen a break in that perspective since he's been here. He's been very consistent as well.

[Kathianne]

Thanks Kath, but it's been clear for a long time that Drummond is unwilling ...or unable... see beyond a very narrow left/right paradigm.

Part of which is an anything is permissible ...and should be applauded... if the enemy/'the left"/Islam/Russia/etc are weakened.
It seems it's all pretty black and white.
Fair and objective application of justice is not a factor becasue WE KNOW who the enemies are already.
Proof? They are enemies (some subhuman even) therefore no proof is needed becasue it only gives them opportunity to attack us and kill us... dead.
Constitution, Common Law, International Law, Signed Treaties, Morals? They don't apply becasue if we foolishly adhere to them then we're just playing in to the enemies hands, appearing weak to them and the enemies will gain ground on us to our ultimate destruction.
"if you're not for us, you're against us."
There are no other serious perspectives, no isolated issues, no middle ground or even other options.
That's "Reality" for Drummond it seems to me.

I haven't seen a break in that perspective since he's been here. He's been very consistent as well.

True dat. He's not alone, here or in the country writ large.

[LongTermGuy]

... no reply, I see.

Well ... I believe my case rests, then !

Dont worry...its coming....and not only from him....

[revelarts]

... no reply, I see.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...eapons-say-us/
Well ... I believe my case rests, then !

seems there's a lot of conjecture and no solid proof in that report Drummond.

...the "regime" has used those type of bombs in the past...
... reports of "regime" helicopter were seen in the area...
..."These barrel bombs were likely used in the chemical attack."
..."chemicals used ... at least chlorine"...
... U.S. U.K. France "we can't tell you everything"...
Sorry Drummond that's much better than Russia's and Assad's claim of "irrefutable proof" (without providing details) to the opposite.

To you it may seem like case closed but objectively speaking it's not really.
I can give you FAR more proof that there were bombs on the inside of "Oklahoma City Building" and that Oswald didn't kill President Kennedy.

[Drummond]

Dont worry...its coming....and not only from him....

So it seems !

I had hopes that, even if not done directly, a concession to obvious truth might follow more indirectly. Still ... seems this must go on, then.

Fair enough. In fact .. fine !! I've nothing whatever against Revelarts doing all he chooses to argue his corner. After all, doesn't this forum exist for such exchanges ?

I just would've preferred greater candour as to what was truly driving him, that's all ...

[Drummond]

Thanks Kath, but it's been clear for a long time that Drummond is unwilling ...or unable... to see beyond a very narrow left/right paradigm.

Part of which is an anything is permissible ...and should be applauded... if the enemy/'the left"/Islam/Russia/etc are weakened.
It seems it's all pretty black and white.
Fair and objective application of justice is not a factor because WE KNOW who the enemies are already.
Proof? They are enemies (some subhuman even) therefore no proof is needed because it only gives them opportunity to attack us and kill us... dead.
Constitution, Common Law, International Law, Signed Treaties, Morals? They don't apply because if we foolishly adhere to them then we're just playing in to the enemies hands, appearing weak to them and the enemies will gain ground on us to our ultimate destruction.
"if you're not for us, you're against us."
There are no other serious perspectives, no isolated issues, no middle ground, no mitigating facts, or even other options.
That's "Reality" for Drummond it seems to me.

I haven't seen a break in that perspective since he's been here. He's been very consistent as well.

The terms 'left wing' and 'right wing' exist for a reason. They exist to broadly quantify the nature of political argument and position-taking the proponent of it all IS taking.

I'd suggest this:

1. There are those who pick and choose those rules they have 'particular reverence' for, because it just so happens to fit their agenda to do so, and for no other ultimate reason. Opportunism, in other words ..

2. The truth can be discerned from - yes - the consistency of position-taking that follows, over time.

In your case, Revelarts, I'd suggest that the majority of positions you do take, just 'happen' to coincide with what the Left would want.

I do owe you thanks, though, for recognising my own consistency. I fail to see why that shouldn't be something I take pride in.

It means that I stand for what I SAY I stand for.

[Drummond]

seems there's a lot of conjecture and no solid proof in that report Drummond.

...the "regime" has used those type of bombs in the past...
... reports of "regime" helicopter were seen in the area...
..."These barrel bombs were likely used in the chemical attack."
..."chemicals used ... at least chlorine"...
... U.S. U.K. France "we can't tell you everything"...
Sorry Drummond that's much better than Russia's and Assad's claim of "irrefutable proof" (without providing details) to the opposite.

To you it may seem like case closed but objectively speaking it's not really.
I can give you FAR more proof that there were bombs on the inside of "Oklahoma City Building" and that Oswald didn't kill President Kennedy.

And ... it seems to me, Revelarts, that you're clinging as a matter of tenacious will to the position that such reports MUST be questioned, and even doubted. Why such a determination to do so ? H'mm ?

I see nothing wrong with the gathering of evidence to determine truth. I see nothing wrong with observations which show a consistent pattern, and drawing conclusions from them. However .. because it doesn't suit your agenda, you refute all (to the extent you possibly can) that you ARE doing.

I still ask: WHY ?

I come back to the example of 2003, Iraq. Hans Blix's people hadn't positively come to any conclusions about Saddam's WMD's ... and so feeble was their presence in Iraq that it might well have taken them years to complete their task. So, the US, who decided along with allies that Saddam had mucked the UN around enough, thought it was high time to finally conclude the matter, which they did, through invasion, regime change, occupation for a time. It was a bold, decisive move, one which brought matters to a head.

And, oh, how the Left hated the prospect ! They quite literally mobilised their activists on a worldwide scale to march in their MILLIONS to oppose any change to Saddam's status quo.

Need I ask ... dare I ask ? What, Revelarts, was YOUR 'take' on the 2003 invasion ? You opposed it, didn't you ?

Tell me I'm wrong. Go on ...

My case is this, Revelarts ... your position-taking on issues may ostensibly appear to be for one reason, but instead, it is taken as a matter of loyalty to something else. And ... CONSISTENTLY so.

Show me I'm wrong. Go on. I invite you to.

[revelarts]

The terms 'left wing' and 'right wing' exist for a reason. They exist to broadly quantify the nature of political argument and position-taking the proponent of it all IS taking.

but they don't quantify all political positions. (at least not by normal definitions)
And some people have specific issues where they may be considered on one side or the other or niether.

I'd suggest this:
1. There are those who pick and choose those rules they have 'particular reverence' for, because it just so happens to fit their agenda to do so, and for no other ultimate reason. Opportunism, in other words ..

And other people are sincere to the core of their belief systems and simple left and right political views do not fit their beliefs.
In other words, To some people their are ideals MORE important than POLITICS. And don't fit the labels.

Do you understand that?

Some people on the Left and Right cannot becasue their politics (or "nation" or "people") basically IS their religion.
And they can't see past it. I think you fall into that category.

[Drummond]

but they don't quantify all political positions. (at least not by normal definitions)
And some people have specific issues where they may be considered on one side or the other or niether.

That's only rarely true.

And other people are sincere to the core of their belief systems and simple left and right political views do not fit their beliefs.
In other words, To some people their are ideals MORE important than POLITICS. And don't fit the labels.

Do you understand that?

Not really. Political thought defines one's political ideals ! It IS political, and quantifiable ...

Some people are to the Right of 'Left' Some people are to the Left of 'Right'. The majority are loyal to specific beliefs, and are readily defined by what these are standardised as being.

It's a sliding scale. Or, a spectrum, if you prefer. But you'll undoubtedly be SOMEWHERE on that spectrum.

Some people on the Left and Right cannot becasue their politics (or "nation" or "people") basically IS their religion.
And they can't see past it. I think you fall into that category.

Truth be told, you're trying to fudge things.

How many times do your arguments agree with Left wing thinking, and can be said to further that cause ? How many agree with Right wing thinking ?

I think the real truth about you is discernible from the answer to that question [I note that you've sidestepped my Iraq War question, by the way. You DID take a pro-Left stance on that one, didn't you ?].