Jul
26

See how this quote sent John H. off…

If a person believed everything he/she read* and they only read conservative to right-right-wing blogs and talk shows you’d believe that liberals were illogical, america-haters, godless, semi-treasonous, responsible for the decline in American civilization

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Furl
  • RawSugar
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
    Read More   

Comments

Southern Beale on 26 July, 2007 at 9:40 am #

And the poisoning of the American mind continues. I remember when Mr. Decider Guy was a “uniter, not a divider.” Ha. Another job he screwed up.


Glen Dean on 26 July, 2007 at 10:32 am #

Bush is a uniter. He united the liberals and conservatives against him.

Now about this post, or specifically the excerpt:
Not all liberals, or most liberals for that matter, are illogical, America haters, Godless, semi-treasonous, and responsible for the decline of American civilization.
However some liberals are illogical, as are some conservatives.
Some do seem to hate America.
Some are atheist, but so are some of my favorite conservatives.
As far as treason is concerned, obviously nobody should be charged with a crime, but if you want to get technical, are many members of Congress and the media not aiding and abetting the enemy in a time of war?

You have to be honest here. To imply that all liberals hate America may not be right, but to believe that there isn’t a fringe bunch of wackjobs (Chomsky-ites, MoveON) out there who do, requires one to be in denial.


Eric on 26 July, 2007 at 10:38 am #

Glen Dean,

Amen. You hit the nail on the head. You’re going to whackos in every camp. Overgeneralizationist comments are dangerous. I believe a qualifier is needed: Either use “Most”, “Some”, “A Few”, etc….

All-inclusive statements like these is what turns people off of a good debate.


Eric on 26 July, 2007 at 10:39 am #

Whoops…That should’ve been “You’re going to HAVE whackos in every camp.” ….I’m way too tired today, man.


Jeffraham Prestonian on 26 July, 2007 at 10:44 am #

aiding and abetting the enemy in a time of war?

Like outing a WMD counterproliferation asset?

Like cooking up alternate intel to support invading a country?

Like instead of upholding and defending the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, reinterpreting vast swaths of it to mean just the opposite of its plainly-written text?
.


Glen Dean on 26 July, 2007 at 11:15 am #

No Jeff, I was thinking of more like announcing to the world that the war is lost, while our soldiers are in the middle of a surge. That statement pretty much amounted to a motivational peptalk for the enemy. Or maybe publishing leaked classified information like the NYT and the big networks have done.


Jeffraham Prestonian on 26 July, 2007 at 11:18 am #

That statement pretty much amounted to a motivational peptalk for the enemy.

Invading and occupying Iraq amounted to a motivational pep-talk for the enemy.
.


Eric on 26 July, 2007 at 11:49 am #

Look, guys,

Both sides are wrong. Bush & Co. was wrong for waging a war - without proper tools, munitions, and men - against Islamists who hate us, no matter what they say or what “side” they claim they’re on.

The Dems and those against the war are wrong for talking down to our troops and claiming “The War is Lost” when it clearly is still going on.


Jeffraham Prestonian on 26 July, 2007 at 11:54 am #

The Dems and those against the war are wrong for talking down to our troops and claiming “The War is Lost” when it clearly is still going on.

The “war” was “won” when Bush stuffed his flightsuit, and strutted up to that podium in front of a “Mission Accomplished” banner. The occupation, and its goals, can never be won, because there was no planning for that. It’s been seat-of-the-pants from Bremer, on. and they’ve screwed it up beyond all hope of repair.
.


Jim on 26 July, 2007 at 1:27 pm #

We were misled, at best, about the implicit danger of attack lurking for the U.S. in Iraq. There were no WMDs or chemical weapons labs. Then, there were no terrorists or Al Queda in Iraq. All they really had was the same asshat despot that had been there for decades, slaughtering people pretty much at whim.

For whatever underlying reason, the Leader of the Free World (aka the bushlet) decided to invade and our armed forces destroyed the government and the infrastructure utterly. We came close to achieving what Curtis LeMay wanted to do in VietNam, we pushed Iraq almost all the way back to the stone age. Hell, Afghanistan is still in the stone age and we left it in better shape than Iraq’s in now.

Passing right by whether a country that bases their complete existance on law, as we do, should attack another country preemptively, now that we are there, do we not have some sort of moral and legal responsibililty to do more than pack up and get the hell out? Since no one seems to have really planned anything beyond “Let’s invade the sumbitches,” and it appears to the world and to most of us as well, that we’re pretty much winging it on a day-to-day basis, pissing and moaning about whether right-wingers led us into this trap or left-wingers will open us up to more attacks won’t help.

From the point of view of much of the Muslem world, we destroyed a Muslim country (and that’s all we seem to be attacking recently), started sectarian violence between extremes of their faith that threatens to turn the whole region into a bloodbath, and now we’re talking about just taking a powder.

What part of we’ve made ourselves a more hated target than ever before isn’t clear? So much for homeland security.