aquapub

Since liberals on this site (and elsewhere) cannot seem to (or are unwilling to) grasp why us conservatives (notice that WE don’t mind being called by what WE are) constantly categorize liberals together as, “the left,” or even worse, as, “liberals,” –gasp!- I will spell it out.

An example of the reasoning:

-It was a liberal who knowingly watched and made excuses to do nothing about China falling slowly into the hands of Communist butchers, despite scores of generals and advisors telling him it was a mistake.

-It was a liberal who then refused to let our military respond when Communist China poured hundreds of thousands of troops across the Korean border, slaughtering thousands of our soldiers and prolonging a nearly concluded Korean war for years to come.

-It is liberals who have opposed every step of Israel’s (a free country) existence, while repeatedly siding with the fanatical Muslim terrorist nations who rabidly slaughter innocent people continuously.

-It is liberals who called our troops baby-killers as they returned home from Vietnam, visited and aided the Viet Cong, and staged violent protests against fighting Communism in Vietnam or anywhere.

-It is liberals who incessantly screamed that Reagan was going to get us all killed when he stood up to the Soviet Union (another enemy), and eventually defeated them. (And don’t let liberals try to feed you that joke of an argument that it was Carter’s “kiss the enemy’s ass” approach that somehow brought down the Russians, as opposed to the ten years of tough Republican leadership immediately preceding Russia’s collapse.)

-It is liberals who have established this ludicrous rite of passage requiring a constant rotation of Hollywood stars and college professors making pilgrimages to worship at the feet of holy dictator, Fidel Castro, and to report back to the heathens here who actually prefer liberty what a “paradise” communist Cuba is.

It is liberals who have screamed about every single common sense step the president has taken to strengthen national security from Guantanamo Bay to the Patriot Act.

-It was a liberal Deputy Attorney General under Clinton who made the rule that the FBI and CIA were not allowed to share terrorism information.

-It was a liberal president who gave us eight years of unanswered Al Queda attacks, appeasements for North Korea, and not a stitch of progress against Saddam.

-It is liberals who compare people to Hitler when they try to deport (or do ANYTHING about) illegal immigrants.

-It is the only liberal in Bush’s cabinet (Norman Mineta) who has stood in the way of each and every airport policy that actually WOULD make us safer.


So when us conservatives hear liberals saying with a straight face that Saddam (who openly sponsored Palestinian suicide bombers, tried to have Bush senior assassinated, committed genocide with WMD, and was caught sheltering Abbu Abbas) was not connected to terrorism or a threat, we think, “Of course, they are siding with our enemies; lying for them; working against America, that’s what they do.”

But liberals don’t want people connecting all these dots and seeing liberal “accomplishments” as the huge chain of treasonous, destructive acts that they are. (I wouldn’t want to be associated with people who had sided with every single enemy this country has had in the last fifty years either.) They want the annoying fly-over state people who actually have an iota or more of patriotism and unfortunately (for liberals) sway the vote heavily to believe that this week’s excuse for doing nothing about a threat or for siding with a genocidal terror-sponsor is an isolated event; its just this once, because THIS situation calls for “restraint.”

So they peddle this phony outrage about Republicans simplifying their views by calling them all, “liberals” or, “the left.”

We aren’t simplifying anything. And we don’t do it because we are trying to demonize liberals. We call liberals, “liberals” because, for one, that’s what they are, and two there is an enormous history of this left-wing treachery that people need to be aware of before buying this week’s steaming load about why our enemies are actually the good guys and why, “just this once,” we should just bend over and take it.

Conservatives are proud of what they stand for. Liberals are the only ones who constantly run from what they are.

-If I am for free gun rights, I am pro-gun because, I am supporting a right that will put more guns on the streets. I am not pro-“the choice to have a gun.” That is just a copout PRO-ABORTIONISTS use to avoid being affiliated with the horrific partial-birth abortions they protect. (If it is so horrid that even its defenders don’t want to be associated with it, shouldn’t that tell you something about supporting it?)

-Another typical liberal “re-packaging” of something horrible to make it sound better is when liberal pseudo-historians call the left’s calculated refusal to interfere with bloodthirsty psycho-communists taking over China, “letting China find its own path.” The correct wording would be more like “voluntarily losing China to communism” or “sending lambs to the slaughter.”


Conservatives aren’t calling liberals, “liberals” to insinuate that they are united in some organized conspiracy either. (ACTUAL paranoia is almost exclusively a product of the left.)

Again, it is to sort out who stands for what, and to demonstrate to people who they are siding with when they get sucked into bogus left-wing hype.

If you are ever in the dark about which party stands where on an issue, ask yourself which side is working against freedom, our troops, and/or America’s economy/interests, and you will find the left.

They have sided with every tyrant from Stalin to Castro (and almost all enemies of freedom – not coincidentally- have left-wing parties: Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Castro-communist, Nazi stands for National Socialist, even Napoleon conducted his reign of terror under a liberal label.) and the greater the genocide, the more liberals seem to defend them.

In fact, the only freedom liberals are for is the freedom to violate someone else’s rights, as with abortion, racist hiring preferences, etc. Well, Okay. They do stand up for some issues of actual freedom, but only as it applies to Muslim terrorists and child-rapists. They are the antithesis of genuine freedom.

sdsmith

Wow this one will take a while.

First, I don't mind being called a "liberal" since I am on some issues (*typically social ones) I am, while I'm much more conservative on fiscal and foreign affairs. Of course, I don't subscribe to the notion that "liberal" is a bad thing either. It's original and intended meaning was associated with reformist or progressives who wished to change the status quo, whatever that maybe at the current time. They are also more aligned with lower economic income groups as a whole.

Conservatives are people who don't want to change, are associated with hawkish foreign policy or isolationist tendencies. As well as a general focus on issues relevant to the upper 60% of the economic spectrum of the nation.

Hey, depends on the issue with me. I want churches to shut up and stay out of stem cell research and biology classes but I also believe in the basic accountability of each citizen and dislike social experiments to pull us all down to the same level. We are not all created equal but we should all have equal opportunity. Deal with it and make your own utopia, that's the point.

Now back to this mess.

I'm assuming the China comments are related to Truman who is not such a bad guy by reputation, even in conservative camps. He was dealt the cards he had is all I'll say. This was post WWII and the US was NOT, I repeat NOT in the mood to take on the largest population in the world in a land war. He could have pulled a Teddy Roosevelt and tried to rally the nation. But a nation that had already been thru years of war and rationing wasn't likely to care. Our allies even less so.

To his credit. He did do something about Korea even given the times. He even dealt with MacArthur who couldn't have been tolerated by any President. Can't have a pompous ass spouting off who is suppose to be representing you...no one would put up with that.

Yes, I agree that there were people who defended the Vietnamese/Viet Gong and the times were ugly in the late 60s/early 70s but that was pretty much the high tide of the American Socialists and Communist movements. As they were the vanguards of liberalism at the time. I was in college then. They sure as hell weren't Democrats, I was there.

Israel is not a universal "good" and our steadfast support has more to do with our need for a strategic ally in the Middle East and the heavy Jewish lobby influence than the soundness of their moral position in the overall conflict. I agree with our support of Israel in general based on those two items but it hasn't always been easy to stomach. The Arabs have some legitimate issues as well and a poor manner of expressing their position. A Mandala style opposition would have put the US in a much different situation in the ME overall but the terrorism option allows us to support Israel much more easily.

For the record, I consider Ronald Reagan a nice guy but not a great President. Basically, the Soviet Union crumbled due to its own failing rather than anything we/he did. It was a failed economic experiment and it was fortunate that it crumbled for him that's about it. It took decades and Reagan had no more clue than any former President just how bad things really were there. Also, you can trace the issues with Enron, MCI, Tyco, QWest and others directly to Reagan and his "tear down the regulations" drive. Now we're putting them back up as it appears corporate America isn't as altruistic as we'd all like to believe.

I, and many conservatives, question our policy on Cuba as it is well understood and accepted that the Soviet Union fell to our economic strength as opposed to our military strength. While we absolutely require a strong military position, a policy of openness to Cuba would better juxta-pose the failings of their system in providing a decent standard of living as well as get me a better cigar.

I'm probably with you on illegal immigration. What a mess. I'm not against immigration at all, I just want it to be controlled so criminals and smugglers don't use it as a highway. I think a strong Guest Worker status could be appealing. But the very first thing that has to happen is control. We simply don't control our own border for Christ sake.

Clinton is the "liberal" President I'm assuming you are critiquing but I liked his answers. Hey, he stood on TV and said it..."I saw the intelligence and I didn't believe that it was accurate based on the sources and mechanisms we had available". Hey, what do you know? A little thought and reason.....just like another President, uh George Bush who says pretty much the same thing.

I agree with you on guns. I am for freedom to bear arms and all but I like it here in Texas since you actually have to be properly trained and understand how to capably handle a weapon to get one. I'm OK with tighter controls on who gets one. No one needs to get a handgun immediately while out with buddies on Saturday night. Just asking for trouble there.

In general, I don't think it is irresponsible of anyone to question legislation which limits the rights of citizens to trial by jury and reasonable search and seizure as the Patriot Act does. I haven't decided how I feel about it but I don't think it unreasonable to question it.

Lest we forget, Saddam Hussain is and was a conservative government's failed experiement to support a "friendly" government in the ME. I'm OK with the solution but let's be real...you have to clean up your own mess.

I suppose as a student, that you have a lot more growing up to do and that's to be expected. I find myself growing more "liberal" as I grow older. My oldest son is a rabid Republican and my younger son is getting out of the Marines after two tours in Iraq. He got the whole ride, in with the Royal Marines thru Basra, Nasharif then home for a Christmas to go back to ever sunny Falujha. He's alive. That's the good part. I notice that he's much slower to criticize now. Thinks before speaking. Generally has a different outlook than his brother and I. I wouldn't call him a liberal...but he's not a conservative either. He skeptical and I see that as healthy.

Just as giving up handguns is seen as a prelude to giving up all guns...giving up rights for any group of people, even the lowest child-rapists, is also seen as a weakening of the rights of all. It establishes a trend. Think. Then engage mouth.

Simon W. Moon

Of course you're merely speaking of "pop-cons" rather than regular conservatives. Pop-cons are to conservatism what pop-music is to music. Just thought I should point that out.

Of course, if I remember correctly, you're the one is so confused about what constitutes liberal and conservative that you think Pat Buchanan is a leftist.


I'm not sure who think said these things.

However, the facts back up the American Intelligence Community's pre-war assessment, Dr. Rices' pre-war assessment, Genl Powell's pre-war assessment and Mr Cheney's pre-war assessment that Hussein was "bottled up" inside Iraq in no small part by the threat of "national obliteration," as was demonstrated by Hussein's response to Mr. Baker's comment to Mr. Aziz regarding the "resounding silence" in the Iraqi desert should Iraq use Chemical or Biological weapons against American troops- nothing. [If you're unfamiliar with the assessments that I've referenced here. I'd be happy to share them with you. But, I don't see any point in cluttering a thread w/ facts and references you may not wish to see. So, upon request...]

Even the revered Mr. Buckley said that the invasion of Iraq wasn't worth the trouble. Unfortunately for Mr. Buckley, his epiphany arrived via hindsight. Not everyone is a conservative as farsighted as myself.

If you'd like to debate whether or not Iraq presented a threat that was capable of supporting a preemptive war, then please accept my warm invitation to this thread: Team Bush and "Best Info Available @ the Time".
Though, be advised, you should be sure to bring facts with you.
The OP solidly demonstrates that Team Bush deliberately misrepresented the threat to the US from Iraq with the intent to deceive. Depending on what values you were raised with (if any) then you may be able to recognize that this behavior is aptly referred to as lying.



If these acts are treasonous, then surely you're an advocate of jailing and executing these millions of your fellow Americans.

How does bringing up Reagan's support for Saddam Hussein serve you rhetorical goal?

And we call a tautology a tautology because that's what the word tautology means.

Do you happen to be able to provide examples of Americans saying that aQ are the "good guys" or did you just make this part up?

too bad you don't support the right to bear arms for the protections it provides the electorate against the government. That's the conservative reason for supporting the 2nd.

Because China was ours somehow? I hope you get that this comment is a critique of your choice of rhetoric and not an endorsement of the Cultural Revolution. I have hope that you can.

If you didn't make this up, could I please have a citation for this interesting, yet little known factoid? I'd like to be able to use this info in future debates; however, I’ve a need to be able to back up what I say, and I don't want to bring out this whopper if I can't back it up. So, some sort of a citation would be greatly appreciated.

That's what I've been saying. The liberals who're currently in power have done all of these things. I've made 20% return on my investments betting that Team Bush would "work against" America's economy. Of course, as you've said, they don't call themselves liberals- they call themselves "big-government conservatives." That's honest-politicians for you.

This only works of one completely ignores historical accuracy, but bravo on the crescendo of your rhetoric.

Did you cut and paste this? Tell the truth.

When do you get to the "noise machine" part?

__________________
"That is the problem... [we] fell in love with the idea that politicians-- even the slickest and brightest presidential candidates-- were real heroes and truly exciting people. That is wrong on its face. They are mainly dull people with corrupt instincts and criminal children. -H.S.T"

sdsmith

Simon,

Excellent post. Good to see that the country has a few minds working in our colleges.

Simon W. Moon

I apologize to you aquapub.
It was wrong of me to pick on you like I did. I know you're just doing the best w/ the info you've got to work with.
It's not an excuse, but it is late here and I've not had my coffee.

I'll try and be more compassionate in the future.

Good luck and keep on searching, keep fighting rational igorance.

Simply,
Simon

myshkin

This whole post is a beautiful illustration of fascist manipulation.
this laundry list of events describes no one.

This is written by someone who refuses to discuss anything in terms other than these phony stereotypes that he will not or can not define.

This is not only not debate it is proactively stifling debate.

If you think that you know what you think you are wrong because he defines you as being just like Harry Truman, who was wrong.

During the early 70s there were a couple of events that really shook the wealthy elite.

The Cuyahoga River caught fire and could not be put out and there was a terrible mine accident in Kentucky in which many miners were killed and there sere signs of real negligence on the part of the mine owners.

Citizens across the country organized at a grass roots level and we had the first Earth Day which led to the Safe Drinking water Act, The Clean air Act and the EPA as the administerer.

Grass roots efforts also led to the formation of OSHA to regulate safe working standards.

The elites that control government were unable to stop the regulation though they had some success in making them uninforceable.
They were afraid that they might actually lose their control of government and that the US might become democratic.

They did retaliate. It began slowly. It is now significant.

Wealthy foundations began pouring money into think tanks study problems an organize information in a way that benefits them.

This was the beginning of the the wordsmithing that has become so successful.

If you can create a stereotype and then define your oponent then you don't have to discuss issues.

Read this whole post and ask yourself does it say anything?

How do you shift the tax burden off of wealthy elites and on to the 95% of the population who are not wealthy elites. Onw way is to call the Estate Tax a Death Tax. Repeat it enough times so that the 'liberal media' calls it a death tax.

If you want to outlaw a medical procedure don't call it by its name, dialation and extraction for example but give it a graphic propaganda term Partial Birth Aborton.

Rather than discuss or debate an issue on its merits frame it in a way that distorts the issue.

__________________
"To initiate a war of aggression ... is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Germany - 1946

myshkin

There is a very simple answer to this question and it is foer each reader to use his or her dictionary to look up liberal.
http://www.onelook.com/
is good because it has many dictionarys at one site.
Then ask yourself which of the signers of the Declaration of Independence was not liberal?

The answer will have more to do with whether you use the English Language meaning of the word or if you use the fascist propaganda usage that they seem unwilling to define.

sdsmith

myshkin,

Are you possessed? Is there an exorcism that I can get for you?

All I can imagine from such an unstructured rant is

A) You're possessed
B) You wear a pie plate on your head to keep "rays" from the gov't out of your head
C) You have a drug problem that is nearing terminal stage
D) Reverse C, you forgot critically needed meds

You said it all in the middle of your post. "Read this whole post and ask yourself does it say anything?"

I've read it four times now and it still appears to be a mess of errors and bad urban legends.

Get out of school and get a job at McDonald's.....it'll be a career move for someone of your talents. You're wasting good educational resources that someone else could better put to use.

aquapub

Wow! this topic provoked a fury of adolescent liberal fuming. That is the best way to tell when you are right, and also when you have hit a nerve. It is comical to see Simon posting feeble comebacks for two pages, scrambling to defend the indefensible liberal record...

Here are a couple examples of the stinging wit and wrath we should all fear receiving from Simon..



aquapub:
So when us conservatives hear liberals saying with a straight face that Saddam ... was not connected to terrorism or a threat...


Simon: I'm not sure who think said these things.

Um..Not only does this devastating counter point illustrate the need for No Child Left Behind/school vouchers/anything, apparently, but it also forgets the months of liberal screaming that adults had to endure about Saddam being unrelated to terror. How the millions of soundbytes from protesters escapes Simon and no one else is a mystery.


aquapub:
...this week’s steaming load about why our enemies are actually the good guys and why, “just this once,” we should just bend over and take it.

Simon:
Do you happen to be able to provide examples of Americans saying that aQ are the "good guys" or did you just make this part up?


Do you really mean to tell me you don't remember all the left-wingers like Ward Churchill blaming 9/11 victims for being a part of a villainous empirial country like America? Or even that Al Queda is only attacking us because we won't stop interfering with the Middle East? You either need to turn on the news sometime, or try to grasp that these things mean that Al Queda/fanatical Islam are the good guys, and that we bring this on ourselves.

Your selective memory loss is yawn-worthy.



Aquapub:
...this week’s excuse for ... for siding with a genocidal terror-sponsor...

Simon:
How does bringing up Reagan's support for Saddam Hussein serve you rhetorical goal?

Hmm. Reagan supported Saddam to destabilize a far worse threat at the time, BEFORE the genocide even happened. Liberals waited until there was no way to mistake Saddam for anything but a total psycho-butcher to side with him. Your arguments are sheer genius. Thank you for apologizing for "picking on me." I have been hit harder by little girls.

sdsmith

Wow aquapub, you are the Fox News spin master. Apply now!

aquapub:
So when us conservatives hear liberals saying with a straight face that Saddam ... was not connected to terrorism or a threat...

You know damned well this is taken out of context. That bit on Saddam was noted specifically in relation to any connection to the 9/11 bombing which our beloved Administration aptly aluded to well beyond the point that it was proven to be false.

Do you really mean to tell me you don't remember all the left-wingers like Ward Churchill blaming 9/11 victims for being a part of a villainous empirial country like America? Or even that Al Queda is only attacking us because we won't stop interfering with the Middle East? You either need to turn on the news sometime, or try to grasp that these things mean that Al Queda/fanatical Islam are the good guys, and that we bring this on ourselves.

Your selective memory loss is yawn-worthy.

Yawn-worthy indeed. Ward Churchill is no more part of main stream democratic/liberal thought than Timothy McVeigh is an example of main stream republican/conservative thought. All sides have their extremists, I'm sure the liberals will own theirs if you'll own yours. Its like saying that all African Americans believe that Jesse Jackson is there spokesman...universally..yeah right.

That's a conservative media spin tactic. Pick a nut case fanatic who takes a liberal point to a lunatic extreme and put him on TV as a spokesman for all. Get over it.

Simon:
How does bringing up Reagan's support for Saddam Hussein serve you rhetorical goal?

Hmm. Reagan supported Saddam to destabilize a far worse threat at the time, BEFORE the genocide even happened. Liberals waited until there was no way to mistake Saddam for anything but a total psycho-butcher to side with him. Your arguments are sheer genius. Thank you for apologizing for "picking on me." I have been hit harder by little girls.

Agree that the CURRENT genocide issues weren't there but our buddy Saddam was showing his stripes early on and we had had to suspend relations before we "unfroze" them. See http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm for more information on our amazing decision process there.

To be candid, I really see the decision by Reagan as more of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" sort of thing. He hoped that by supporting him he could contain him better and that wasn't a bad play. Given the times, he didn't have a lot of cards to play in the ME at the time. It absolutely came back to bite us in the ass though.