Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Former Navy SEAL Launches PAC To Fight Obama
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Sistrin" data-source="post: 61009449" data-attributes="member: 309500"><p>Yes, I do. But to begin note I said "traditionally", meaning I am not talking about all liberals, just the liberal mindset in general. The same is true of my follow on comments.</p><p> </p><p>In questions of foreign relations many liberals will not only voice opposition to Americas policies, but champion the foreign opinion. When the US invaded Iraq we were all supposed to be concerned with what France thought. </p><p> </p><p>The New York Times will go into excruciating detail about how the US fights the war on terror, even disclosing secretive information, and then wail about intelligence failures if terrorist successfully carry out an attack. </p><p> </p><p>Liberal professors will pontificate on the immorality of American military policy in math classes. </p><p> </p><p>Enemy combatants captured on the battlefield are given constitutional rights, even though they are not citizens and were actively engaged in combat against US troops. </p><p> </p><p>Traditionally many American liberals believe that American military power is used only in colonialist endeavors, preying upon the poor masses in third world countries in order to make people like Dick Cheney rich. We are bullies, and thus the militant Islamist are justified in hating us. Because if we were not so powerful, they wouldn't hate us. Therefore we shouldn't be so powerful. That is one reason why each and every time federal spending cuts are discussed, the first area many liberals will scream about slashing is Defense. </p><p> </p><p>After 9-11 many liberals called for non-response. Michael Moore took greater offense at President Bush's not immediately running out of an elementary classroom then he did the terrorist attack itself.</p><p> </p><p>A viewpoint often promoted by liberal pundits is that fighting terrorism is a waste of time because killing terrorist only leads to creating more terrorist. By that logic I should never cut my fingernails again, but I digress.</p><p> </p><p>During the Iraq war many liberals chanted slogans such as "war for oil" or "no blood for oil" while simultaneously blaming Bush for higher gas prices. If only gas prices were still at the levels they were during the Bush years, but again I digress.</p><p> </p><p>Many liberals bemoaned the unilateral nature of our combat operations in Iraq, ignoring the fact there were, over the time of the war, some 30 different nations supporting operations there.</p><p> </p><p>A film such as "Act of Valor" will be released, a film which portrayed US servicemen as something other than maniacal baby-killing war criminals, and liberal critics will wail about it.</p><p> </p><p>Source: <a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/christian-toto/2012/02/25/liberal-movie-critics-decry-pro-military-pro-american-act-valor" target="_blank">Liberal Movie Critics Decry Pro-Military, Pro-American âAct of Valorâ | NewsBusters.org</a></p><p> </p><p>In response to the slaughter in Syria, what do many liberals call for? I found this posted on Wordpress:</p><p> </p><p><em><strong>A Liberal Case Against Military Intervention in Syria</strong></em></p><p> </p><p>"Where does that leave me? In Jillian Yorks words, I am an observer of tragedy. I am convinced that the proper course of action for the U.S. government is to continue to encourage and engage in diplomacy aimed at stopping the killing of civilians and encouraging political change in Syria that will respond to the just demands of the resisters. I realize that might not work, and that the Assad regime may kill thousands more civilians as diplomacy founders. I realize that, but I do not see a better alternative."</p><p> </p><p>Source: <a href="http://dartthrowingchimp.wordpress.com/2012/02/08/a-liberal-case-against-military-intervention-in-syria/" target="_blank">A Liberal Case Against Military Intervention in Syria « Dart-Throwing Chimp</a></p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>My comment was not directed personally at you. I did not call anyone by name. I used the word "traditionally", which of course allows for exceptions. </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>The book was very detailed and sourced. Kerry lied, just as he did in front of the commitee in 1971.</p><p> </p><p><em>"They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."</em></p><p> </p><p>Source: <a href="http://old.nationalreview.com/document/kerry200404231047.asp" target="_blank">John Kerry's 1971 Congressional Testimony on National Review Online</a></p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>We criticize them when they lie about it. Dan Rather promoted a fabricated story about President Bush and his National Guard service, and most liberals bought into it with little opposition voiced. </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Here is one of those ads:</p><p> </p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4Zk9YmED48&feature=related" target="_blank">Swiftboat Veterans Ad on John Kerry - Any Questions (2004) - YouTube</a></p><p> </p><p>The swiftboat veterans put that ad out, not the right in general.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Those guys were there. I would take their combined word over Kerry's.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>And why is that?</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>I did not see where anyone degraded the honor of every purple heart recipient from the Vietnam era.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Sistrin, post: 61009449, member: 309500"] Yes, I do. But to begin note I said "traditionally", meaning I am not talking about all liberals, just the liberal mindset in general. The same is true of my follow on comments. In questions of foreign relations many liberals will not only voice opposition to Americas policies, but champion the foreign opinion. When the US invaded Iraq we were all supposed to be concerned with what France thought. The New York Times will go into excruciating detail about how the US fights the war on terror, even disclosing secretive information, and then wail about intelligence failures if terrorist successfully carry out an attack. Liberal professors will pontificate on the immorality of American military policy in math classes. Enemy combatants captured on the battlefield are given constitutional rights, even though they are not citizens and were actively engaged in combat against US troops. Traditionally many American liberals believe that American military power is used only in colonialist endeavors, preying upon the poor masses in third world countries in order to make people like Dick Cheney rich. We are bullies, and thus the militant Islamist are justified in hating us. Because if we were not so powerful, they wouldn't hate us. Therefore we shouldn't be so powerful. That is one reason why each and every time federal spending cuts are discussed, the first area many liberals will scream about slashing is Defense. After 9-11 many liberals called for non-response. Michael Moore took greater offense at President Bush's not immediately running out of an elementary classroom then he did the terrorist attack itself. A viewpoint often promoted by liberal pundits is that fighting terrorism is a waste of time because killing terrorist only leads to creating more terrorist. By that logic I should never cut my fingernails again, but I digress. During the Iraq war many liberals chanted slogans such as "war for oil" or "no blood for oil" while simultaneously blaming Bush for higher gas prices. If only gas prices were still at the levels they were during the Bush years, but again I digress. Many liberals bemoaned the unilateral nature of our combat operations in Iraq, ignoring the fact there were, over the time of the war, some 30 different nations supporting operations there. A film such as "Act of Valor" will be released, a film which portrayed US servicemen as something other than maniacal baby-killing war criminals, and liberal critics will wail about it. Source: [URL="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/christian-toto/2012/02/25/liberal-movie-critics-decry-pro-military-pro-american-act-valor"]Liberal Movie Critics Decry Pro-Military, Pro-American âAct of Valorâ | NewsBusters.org[/URL] In response to the slaughter in Syria, what do many liberals call for? I found this posted on Wordpress: [I][B]A Liberal Case Against Military Intervention in Syria[/B][/I] [B][/B] "Where does that leave me? In Jillian Yorks words, I am an observer of tragedy. I am convinced that the proper course of action for the U.S. government is to continue to encourage and engage in diplomacy aimed at stopping the killing of civilians and encouraging political change in Syria that will respond to the just demands of the resisters. I realize that might not work, and that the Assad regime may kill thousands more civilians as diplomacy founders. I realize that, but I do not see a better alternative." Source: [URL="http://dartthrowingchimp.wordpress.com/2012/02/08/a-liberal-case-against-military-intervention-in-syria/"]A Liberal Case Against Military Intervention in Syria « Dart-Throwing Chimp[/URL] My comment was not directed personally at you. I did not call anyone by name. I used the word "traditionally", which of course allows for exceptions. The book was very detailed and sourced. Kerry lied, just as he did in front of the commitee in 1971. [I]"They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."[/I] Source: [URL="http://old.nationalreview.com/document/kerry200404231047.asp"]John Kerry's 1971 Congressional Testimony on National Review Online[/URL] We criticize them when they lie about it. Dan Rather promoted a fabricated story about President Bush and his National Guard service, and most liberals bought into it with little opposition voiced. Here is one of those ads: [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4Zk9YmED48&feature=related"]Swiftboat Veterans Ad on John Kerry - Any Questions (2004) - YouTube[/URL] The swiftboat veterans put that ad out, not the right in general. Those guys were there. I would take their combined word over Kerry's. And why is that? I did not see where anyone degraded the honor of every purple heart recipient from the Vietnam era. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Former Navy SEAL Launches PAC To Fight Obama
Top
Bottom