The Problem with Liberals


Clayton
Clayton's picture

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1223
The Problem with Liberals-->-->--> --> -->  Liberals , by definition want change. Historically Liberals have expressed that desire in a manner that was respectful of other views, and promoted a civil society. These Liberals, while they have concepts that can not be respected by the majority in this nation because it supplants individual liberty with group normalcy, could be respected for their approach and demeanor. -->--> In contrast, today’s liberals are promoting the same elimination of basic liberties, but without the respect for other opinions. Since the great experiments in Socialism failed, today’s crop of liberals, (note the respect of a capital is not granted because it is not earned) are both strident, and  extremely disrespectful of alternative ideas. If you need examples look at Hillery Clinton, or John Kerry, or the current leader of the Democratic party.  All three express violent hate of anyone who dares to disagree with them: they want change and they do not care who gets hurt in the process, and they want not just power, but uncontested power. In this way, Hillery and Kerry do resemble Hitler in the 30’s. Their violent hatred is a mental illness.-->--> The pathology of this illness goes deeper than to be fixated on perpetuation. It goes to the very foundations of human identity, so deep that most in the left are not even aware of what spirit motivates them. I said spirit and not thought because the matter of identity starts with what spirit they decided early in their lives to associate with, the spirit of truth or the spirit of un-truth. -->--> In short, the problems of the left are the decisions they make about how to process information and how to relate to the world around them. Liberals redefine right and wrong at a very early stage in order to create there own realities. In their personal realities they can justify any behavior and are completely detached from the harm they do to others. -->--> The very first thing that liberals lose when they are infected by this mental illness  are externally-defined, timeless moral principles that govern society. Note the levels of disgust you constantly here from liberals for traditional society, and even main stream values. In the liberal mindset, laws should be used only to enforce compliance from the mindless sheep they govern, not insure individual life, liberty, or happiness. This is the common arrogance most modern liberals are noted for; and this is the truth they campaign so desperately to hide.-->--> The next thing liberals lose in there artificial realities that they make for themselves is the ability to judge the motivations and the realities of others. As seen today, Liberals just can not believe that a group of Islamic fascists is intent on destroying the western world. Hitler could not understand why -->-->-->America-->--> in the thirties would defend the independence of -->-->Russia-->--> and -->-->England-->-->, not could he comprehend the horror and revulsion the world felt over the torture and death of 6 million Jews. -->--> When principles and facts are not worth respecting, the only thing that is respected is power. Liberalism today is not so much about their own perpetuation as they are about power, because they cannot call upon principles, laws or facts when attempting to impose their will or to attain a goal, that is unless a selected principle, law or fact just happens to come in handy in the battle. -->-->This is why the left is so ardent about politics and serving in government. They crave power. In their personal realities, power is the only aphrodisiac, the only possession worth having. Today’s liberals are truly ill, and are only motivated be the power force others to comply with their philosophy.
No votes yet

Clayton
Clayton's picture

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1223
Ann Coulter answered our dilemma! The basic problem with liberals is that they lie. Not little white lies, but enormous lies designed to rewrite history in their favor. Labeling McCarthyism as the Rosetta stone of Liberal lies, she notes that -->-->--> --> --> The McCarthy period is the Rosetta stone of all liberal lies. It is the textbook on how they rewrite history -- the sound chamber of liberal denunciations, their phony victim-hood as they demean and oppress their enemies, their false imputation of dishonesty to their opponents, their legalization of every policy dispute, their ability to engage in lock-step shouting campaigns, and the black motives concealed by their endless cacophony.-->--> http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23316-->--> --> --> --> --> Today’s democrats are not new liberals they are just reincarnations of the worst aspects of old liberals. -->-->  
Clayton
Clayton's picture

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1223
I think we need to thank Media white for exposing another problem with liberals. Liberalism is used as a cloak to hide racial hatred amoung liberals like Media. Check out his comments on thread 1886 where he tries to defend Iran as a civilized nation, and when faced with the truth that they breed children as bombs, his only response is name-calling. I predict his next move will be to blame Israel. The good think about liberals is that they are predictable.
Clayton
Clayton's picture

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1223
kac
kac's picture

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 76
Are you serious? Coulter, Malkin? You're kidding, right? Both are complete lunatics. If they represent your personal views, that explains a lot.
Clayton
Clayton's picture

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1223
So you think everyone not a flaky liberal is a "complete lunatic"? That would cover most of America, because fortunately liberals like you are a minority. So why do you say in a nation the majority of whom you consider complete lunatics?
kac
kac's picture

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 76
A lunatic is a lunatic, whether liberal or right-wing...Get it? Didn't think so. BTW, why don't you check out Coulters recent comments on Jews. Just another example that she's a nutcase. You think Ann Coulter represents most of America? I don't think so.
madcali4nian
madcali4nian's picture

Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 358
I guess its may be safe to say that you are a middle of the road lunatic.  
kac
kac's picture

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 76
I'm a "lunatic" because I don't like right-wing nuts like Coulter or Malkin? Right, whatever...
madcali4nian
madcali4nian's picture

Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 358
Ok, so your a Moderate lunatic that sometimes or all the time identifies with Left lunatic hatred of Right lunatics? LOL!  
Clayton
Clayton's picture

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1223
Who has a bigger audience, Ann Coulter, or all of Air America? The answer to this question suggests that Ann is more representative of America then any host on that dismal failure of a radio station.
kac
kac's picture

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 76
"Air America"? Who cares? I've never even listened to it...Let me guess, you sit around all day and listen to Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. Did you check out Coulter's comments about Jews? You don't like people who are anti-Semitic, right?  Check it out and let me know what you think. Real easy, just goggle Ann Coulter+ Jews.
Clayton
Clayton's picture

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1223
Air America was the Liberal answer for Lefties like you, and it failed because you Lefties did not support or listen to it. I do not agree with everything Ann Coulter says, but I do agree with her on many things, and she is very funny. Sadly, most liberals do not have a sense of humor either. Another, (on a growing list), problem with Liberals is that they do not inform themselves on the issues; they allow others to inform them. They do not listen to both sides of an argument, (you apparently do not listen to any side), and believe any lies their heros tell them. Liberals are more "persuaded" by personal aura then by facts,(witness the Gore Phenomena). I did listen to Air America and to Sean Hannity; I read both conservative and liberal print media and develop my own opinions. You apparently do not understand the concept of learning by listening, do you? Here is a challenge for you. I firmly believe in lifelong education, and the last class I took was this summer at University of San Francisco. It was a short course in Middle Ages literature. Currently, I am reading The Prince of Darkeness  by Robert Novak. When was the last time you took a class in anything? What was the last full book you read?   My guess is that you have no response  because your process of learning has stopped.  In this, I suspect you typify most liberals; and that is very sad. Edited 11/21/2007 12:04 pm ET by Clayton
kac
kac's picture

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 76
Robert Novak, too funny, figures you would read a book written by a traitor who has no problem exposing CIA agents for political purposes. I guess you think what he did was ok, right? Ever wonder why you rarely see Novak on TV anymore? Last book I read was "Personal Memoirs" by Ulysses S. Grant. Remember him? Stop assuming things about people. You don't know whether I'm a liberal or not. It depends on the issue, i.e. some things I'm liberal, other things I'm not. What I do hate is people who are ALWAYS on one side or the other. And you appear to be one of these people. Did you check on Coulter's comments about Jews? Why don't you answer this question? Never mind, I think I already know.
Clayton
Clayton's picture

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1223
Interesting that you think Mr. Novak is a traitor, and again it defines who you are. I generally define Traitors as disloyal to a nation, like the anti war protesters, not to just a single administration, like Mr. Novak.-->-->--> You support the crimes of the -->-->-->Clinton-->-->'s, that make s you a liberal. You support change of traditional American values, like capitalism, and you support increasing the role of world government over national government, so you are a liberal. -->--> Isn't also interesting how many people in -->-->Clinton-->-->'s administration are expressing hatred of the -->-->Clintons-->-->.-->--> I am rather surprised that you are reading anything tedious, Liberals are usually too lazy to do that, so good for you.-->--> I have answered your inquiry about Ann Coulter. I do not agree with everything she says, but I do agree with a great deal. She can be very funny; far funnier then any liberal in entertainment, and you have to give her credit for not being PC.-->-->  
kac
kac's picture

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 76
Clinton lied about sex... who cares? Not me, and not most people except right-wing Clinton haters like yourself. Novak knowingly exposed a covert CIA agent. He potentially put many people's lives at risk, which makes him a traitor. Too bad he wasn't put on trial. But I suppose Bush would have pardoned him anyway. I wonder what you would say if a "liberal" journalist did the same thing? Why do you accept Coulters comments about Jews w/out criticizing her, yet you're so quick to call others "anti-Semitic"? Perhaps because you're a hypocrite? Or maybe you think her comments were "funny"?
Clayton
Clayton's picture

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1223
Clinton lied under oath, to a Judge and to America--that, in case you forgot, is a felony. Novak did not lie, and the information was, apparently not a recognized or official secret; what would you charge him with in court? Telling the truth is not a crime; the criminals in our dicussion are the Clintons, but committing a crime is not something you think is a problem. As for Ann Coulter, I do not like everything she says, but I like most of her opinions. Should I discount what she says because she is anti-semetic? I would have to discount everything said by any Christian, including you. The cold ugly reality is that this is a Christian nation and the Christian faith has always blamed Jewish people for the death of Christ. It is a religion founded on hate, and has expressed hatred for Jews for most of it's existance, so why expect anything different now. As the victimized minority, I have the ability to pick and choose who of the majority I hold to account for their racism. I do not choose to hold Ann Coulter responsible, but I do choose to hold liberals like you and media white accountable. If you do not like it, tough. That is the cost of being part of a racist majority.
kac
kac's picture

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 76
More delusional nonsense...You're so screwed up in your thinking, I'm actually starting to feel sorry for you.
Clayton
Clayton's picture

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1223
Reality is a bummer for you Liberals isn't it? When you get hit by the facts that -->-->-->Clinton-->--> broke the law, (a felony no less), but your enemy Novak did not; your reaction is to crawl back into your little safety shell of stupidity. -->-->--> If you want to address all anti-semitism, then criticize -->Jim-->my Carter Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson—all prominent democrats who have expressed hatred of Jews and the Jewish state. Until liberals purge  anti-semites from their ranks,  do not exact a similar purge of  Conservatives.-->--> But, as was discussed before, hypocrisy is a prominent problem of liberals, not conservatives; as you have just demonstrated.-->-->  
kac
kac's picture

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 76
Criticizing the policy of Israel is not the same as "hatred of Jews"...Do you really not get that? You don't like people who are anti-Semitic, yet you call Christianity a religion based on hatred. Is that consistent? Is it rational?  By the way, I don't recall ever discussing my religious beliefs on this board. Why do you think you know what religion I am?
Clayton
Clayton's picture

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1223
All of this has been discussed before, but lets do it again. Criticizing the policy of -->-->-->Israel-->--> is not the same as "hatred of Jews"...Do you really not get that?  Not true, If Israel is the only homeland of the Jewish people then criticizing the policy of -->-->Israel-->--> is the same as criticizing all Jewish people. If I criticize the policy of Pope is that criticizing all Catholics? Your answer depends on whether you are Catholic, but in the recent child molestation cases, criticism of the Pope’s policies is interpreted as criticism of the Catholic faith.  An example closer to home is your reaction to the criticism of Christianity.-->-->--> You don't like people who are anti-Semitic, yet you call Christianity a religion based on hatred. Is that consistent? Is it rational?  When you observe the history of Christianity is  both consistent and rational to label Christianity a religion that preaches love but practices hate. Are you unaware of the violent history of Christians? Secondly, (not secondarily) anti-Semitism is racism, Christianity is a faith not a race; are you really unaware of the difference? -->--> By the way, I don't recall ever discussing my religious beliefs on this board. Why do you think you know what religion I am?  I am assuming, quite reasonably, that you are among the majority who are Christians. I acknowledge I may be wrong, but it does not seem likely, given your defense of Christianity.-->--> One positive thing you have done is illustrate another problem of Liberals—the problem being the ability to ignore or the desire to re-write the history you do not want to face, or which you feel guilty of.  Again reality is a bummer for you isn’t it?  The reality which you and your friend Media have to face is that I am not going to let racist comments pass, I am not going to forgive or forget. So, are you, like Media a racist too?-->-->
kac
kac's picture

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 76
"Not true, If Israel is the only homeland of the Jewish people then criticizing the policy of -->-->Israel-->--> is the same as criticizing all Jewish people." What a ridiculous statement... Isn't Israel a Democracy? What about people who live in Israel? Do they have a right to criticize their own government and it's policies, or would they be considered "anti-Semitic"? Note that some people who live in Israel aren't even Jewish.  Your thinking is no better than the Islamic extremists who want to execute people for naming a teddy bear " Muhammad"...
Clayton
Clayton's picture

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1223
Any more ridiculous then Black Rappers being free to use a term that would be insulting if a White American used it in reference to a Black? -->--> --> It is a very different thing if a citizen of -->-->-->Israel-->--> criticizes -->-->Israel-->-->, vrs a non-citizen; because the former would never question n the existence of -->-->Israel-->-->, while the later quite commonly does. It does not matter if the citizen is Jewish. --> --> One question for you an this topic. You seem to be aware that Arabs live as citizens in -->-->Israel-->-->—but are Jews allowed to be full citizens, (or even live) in any Muslim nations? So how does -->Jim-->my Carter, that bastion of Liberals Anti-Semitism labels -->-->Israel-->--> and not the other Arab nations, a practitioner of apartheid? --> --> Your thinking is no better than the Islamic extremists who want to execute people for naming a teddy bear " Muhammad"...-->--> Who, exactly have I called for the execution of? I am not proposing the execution of anti-semetists, even red diaper druggies like media. I am only pointing out the racist hatred expressed in the criticism of Zionism, which is tantamount to criticism of the existence of -->-->Israel-->-->. Even you can see the difference between  rallies for execution and pointing out the hatred buried in a political argument.
kac
kac's picture

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 76
"It is a very different thing if a citizen of -->-->-->Israel-->--> criticizes -->-->Israel-->-->, vrs a non-citizen; because the former would never question n the existence of -->-->Israel-->-->, while the later quite commonly does. It does not matter if the citizen is Jewish."   Exactly my point...Criticizing the policies is not the same as questioning the right to exist. Would you call someone "un-American" if they criticize our gov't or president?
Clayton
Clayton's picture

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1223
Exactly my point...Criticizing the policies is not the same as questioning the right to exist. It is the same, if the person is not a citizen of Israel, because the policies being criticized are enacted to ensure that Israel survives. So literally, for a non-Israeli to critize the policies of Israel, they are criticizing the effort  to survive.   You have to admit that the goal of the Palestinians is the destruction of Israel; it is a part of the charter of Hamas, and it was repeatedly expressed by their national hero Arafat. Policies that Israel sets in regard to the Palestinians are a matter of self defense and continued survival.     Would you call someone "un-American" if they criticize our gov't or president? That depends on the criticism. Is it un-American to criticize the democracy in American or the Freedoms upon which our government was build? Is it un-Amercan to call for America's defeat in a time of war, or for the overthrough of the US Government. I, and many others believe it is, and believe that the extreme liberals and anti-war protesters are un-american because their criticism goes directly toward the existance and survival of our nation.   I am guessing that is an answer you do not like.     Edited 12/6/2007 2:06 pm ET by Clayton
kac
kac's picture

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 76
"That depends on the criticism. Is it un-American to criticize the democracy in American or the Freedoms upon which our government was build? Is it un-Amercan to call for America's defeat in a time of war, or for the overthrough of the US Government. I, and many others believe it is, and believe that the extreme liberals and anti-war protesters are un-american because their criticism goes directly toward the existance and survival of our nation." C'mon, be serious...You've criticized Bill Clinton and I'm sure you did while he was in office. Was that "un-American"? No, you have the right to criticize anyone you want. That's what America is all about- it's called freedom. Why is it ok for you to be so critical of Clinton, yet I can't be critical of Bush?  No ones talking about overthrowing the Gov't or wishing defeat for our military. I've never heard one person say such a thing. I'm not sure who you hang around, but people I know wouldn't say, or think, something like that. Being against the war is not the same thing as wishing for defeat. I honestly don't understand how/why people think this.  
Clayton
Clayton's picture

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1223
C'mon, be serious...You've criticized Bill Clinton and I'm sure you did while he was in office. Was that "un-American"? No, you have the right to criticize anyone you want. That's what -->-->-->America-->--> is all about- it's called freedom. That is also criticizing a person who ran for office and thus invited attack. That is substantially different then criticizing the nation.-->-->--> Why is it ok for you to be so critical of -->-->Clinton-->-->, yet I can't be critical of Bush? I invite you to be as critical as you wish of the man—but when you criticize the nation you are, by definition un-American.-->-->   No ones talking about overthrowing the Gov't or wishing defeat for our military. You have not been listening very closely to the peace activists have you? Remember Harry Reid, Democrat from that fine honest state of -->-->Nevada-->-->. Several months ago he was demanding the Bush administration admit defeat in a war that we know seem to be winning. Accept defeat and move on has been the peace activists message from day 1. -->--> Being against the war is not the same thing as wishing for defeat. I honestly don't understand how/why people think this. You are the one who can not be serious. Peace activists are calling for a withdrawal from Irag and -->-->Afghanistan-->-->. That is dropping your weapons and walking away from the fight. If American did that we would be admitting defeat to the islamo-facists. There would be no honor, and it would empower the Islamo-facists to attack our nation again. -->--> The net effect of the peace activists message is that it is more noble to fight the war against terrorism and islamo-facism here in the U-->-->nited States-->--> rather then in the -->Middle East-->. (at this time, due to the declaration of war by of the islamo-fascists against America and against Western values, those are the only two alternatives).It is more noble if America Civilians die then if Islamic civilians die. This position demonstrates greater loyalty to the global community  then the national community, and is in my opinion, treasonous. These peace activists are, by definition, un-American. -->--> Does your primary loyalty lie with a community other then the -->-->United States-->-->, making you also un-American?
kac
kac's picture

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 76
"Does your primary loyalty lie with a community other then the -->-->United States-->-->, making you also un-American?"   Why would you possibly ask me a question like that? You just look foolish.   Re: Sen. Reid- did you also question Nixon or Ford when we finally got the hell out of Vietnam? Do you also question Sen. Chuck Hagel? Is he a "peace activist", or does he simply think the policy is wrong?   I'm sure you prefer Sen. Lieberman's approach, but are you prepared to call Sen.Hagel "un-American"?
Clayton
Clayton's picture

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1223
I think we struck a nerve. Lets explore how sensitive that nerve is? -->--> --> Why would you possibly ask me a question like that? You just look foolish.-->--> --> --> I look foolish for asking about your philosophy when you asked about mine and I answered you in an honest and clear manner? This is a discourse to explore each other’s philosophy-why should your loyalty be assumed, or out of bounds when you have suggested that you are a peace activist and we are discussing the loyalty of peace activists?  Why are you afraid of answering the question honestly? --> --> Re: Sen. Reid- did you also question Nixon or Ford when we finally got the hell out of -->-->-->Vietnam-->-->? Do you also question Sen. Chuck Hagel? Is he a "peace activist", or does he simply think the policy is wrong? -->--> Reid did not say the policy was wrong, he specifically said we had lost the war while troops were still fighting, and in fact winning. That clearly places his loyalty with our enemies rather then with -->-->America-->-->.  My evidence regarding Nixon and Ford is strictly second-hand; but my sources do not indicate that either specifically said the war was lost while troops were still fighting. What I have read is that peace activists of the time spit on returning troops. Jane Fonda entertained the enemy rather then our troops. So who was she more loyal to? Did those peace activists want -->-->America-->--> or -->-->Viet Nam-->--> to win?
kac
kac's picture

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 76
Yeah, you struck a nerve all right...Asking if I'm "un-American" because I do not agree with the war is an insult and you have no basis for asking such a ridiculous question. We bailed out of Vietnam prior to the communists taking over Saigon. Probably a good move, wouldn't you agree? You seem to have an approach that we should never leave a military engagement until we achieve victory. Should we have left Vietnam, or stayed? Simple question. Regardless of how Nixon spun it ("peace with honor", remember?)- we left. We lost, and they lost. The entire country is now communist, and has been since 1975. Where do you think Iraq will be in 10-20 yrs? Do you really think there will be TRUE Democracy in a country so divided, and so influenced by religious lunatics? I don't think so.
Clayton
Clayton's picture

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1223
Yeah, you struck a nerve all right...Asking if I'm "un-American" because I do not agree with the war is an insult and you have no basis for asking such a ridiculous question. It is not a ridiculous question, because your position suggests that you may be more loyal to forces outside of -->-->-->America-->--> then forces within. No one’s loyalty should be assumed if, philosophically, they want the -->-->US-->--> to lose a war. As a peace activist, assuming that is what you are admitting you are, you are proposing the US give up and walk away, giving Islamo-terrorism a victory and us a loss. -->-->--> We bailed out of -->-->Vietnam-->--> prior to the communists taking over -->Saigon-->. Probably a good move, wouldn't you agree? You seem to have an approach that we should never leave a military engagement until we achieve victory. Should we have left -->-->Vietnam-->-->, or stayed? Simple question. I was not of voting age during that war, but given the harm that  our decision to cut and run rather then fight has caused, staying in the fight would have been, clearly more profitable. The issues we face today with -->-->North Korea-->--> and -->-->Russia-->--> are a direct result of the our actions then. We gave them a reason to think we were weak and could be threatened successfully.-->--> Regardless of how Nixon spun it ("peace with honor", remember?)- we left. We lost, and they lost. The entire country is now communist, and has been since 1975. Had we stayed and fought, would they be communist today? Where would -->-->China-->--> be today if they had to spend another decade fighting a war they could not afford?  The only people who won that war were the cowards in our nation then; and as a result of their victory millions have suffered since. You perhaps want to forget the decade of starvation -->-->Vietnam-->--> faced after that war because they were shunned by the world.-->--> Where do you think -->-->Iraq-->--> will be in 10-20 yrs? Do you really think there will be TRUE Democracy in a country so divided, and so influenced by religious lunatics? I don't think so. You may want to read just a bit more history. Dictatorships have been reformed into democracies, even dictatorships based on fanatical religious belief, like -->-->Japan-->--> after WW2. You really have no idea what the people in -->-->Iraq-->--> want, you would let them suffer under a dictator like Saddam rather then dirty your clean soft hands helping them out.-->--> IF you do not like your loyalty to -->-->America-->--> questioned because of your defeatist philosophies regarding the war, then any public forum is going to be uncomfortable for you. As it should be.-->--> --> -->
kac
kac's picture

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 76
"You really have no idea what the people in -->-->Iraq-->--> want, you would let them suffer under a dictator like Saddam rather then dirty your clean soft hands helping them out." And when did you start caring SO much about the Iraqi people? Was it 20 years ago when Saddam used chemical weapons (supplied by us) on the Kurds? Or was it about 5 years ago? One thing that confuses though- do you want to help these people, or kill them? Based on what you say, it's difficult to really know. Why do you assume everyone in this world wants Democracy? I want it, you may want it (maybe), but that doesn't mean everyone wants it. If people rise up against a dictator and show a willingness to fight for Democracy, then probably we should help them. I still have doubts this is the case in Iraq.-->-->
Clayton
Clayton's picture

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1223
I never said I cared or did not care about the Iraqi’s—I am merely extending your statements to their logical conclusions. The extension of your atni-war position is that we should not be helping the Iraqi's get rid of Saddam. That is extrapolation. -->--> --> What I wish to do is ....  Eliminate the threat of islamo facists from everywhere, including the -->-->Middle East,--> as part of a larger effort to eliminate all forms of religious intolerance including proselytizing.  My preference is to fight them in the Middle East rather then here. No religion and no people should be allowed to legislate religious bias. Every person is allowed to belief what they wish, but not allowed to pressure, persuade of force religious beliefs on others. Are you really opposed to stopping religious intolerance? Extremist Islam is only the beginning of this war, but the bigger picture is all religious intolerance. --> --> Why do you assume everyone in this world wants Democracy? Because everyone wants to have a voice in any government that they are part of. I have never met a person here, in -->Europe-->, or in the -->Middle East-->  that is happy with a government  fails to respect their individual rights. Are you aware of any other form of government that respects individual rights without letting them vote?-->--> --> --> Do you seriously think that the majority of Iraqi’s liked Saddam or want another dictator? What alternatives do you think exist, and which should we tolerate? --> -->
kac
kac's picture

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 76
We should have taken out Saddam in 1991, when we had the chance, as opposed to having fight a brand new war, with less world support than we had the first time. As I said in a different post, this would have saved many lives, and much suffering. You call me an "anti-war activist"? How do you explain the fact that I supported Desert Storm, and our military operations in Afghanistan?
snorkler
snorkler's picture

Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 34
By the term "we", do you mean the US unilaterally, or the "UN", collectively? Snorkler
kac
kac's picture

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 76
I think I would have preferred "we" as in the UN forces. I'm not sure it was practical to take him out, but I'm just saying I wish it would have happened. If he had been taken out in 1991, it would have lessened the chances we and others would have to go back. I've always thought we should have done more by using intelligence and political influence to help remove him, by whatever means, including a coup.  But I also understand that per order by Pres. Ford, we can no longer take out, or kill a foreign leader.
Clayton
Clayton's picture

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1223
We should have taken out Saddam in 1991, when we had the chance, as opposed to having fight a brand new war, with less world support than we had the first time. As I said in a different post, this would have saved many lives, and much suffering.  You are correct. Leaving Saddam in -->-->-->Iraq-->--> was an example of leaving without accomplishing a victory, and yes it is an example of Republicans doing this. Demonstrates why it is a waste of effort and expense to leave -->-->Iraq-->--> now without accomplishing a Democratic government and a safe nation. The result of leaving too early before is a good reason not to make the same mistake twice.-->-->--> You call me an "anti-war activist"? How do you explain the fact that I supported Desert Storm, and our military operations in -->-->Afghanistan-->-->? Only you can explain your change of heart between the two military endeavors. I am mistaken that you oppose the current military efforts, and does not that opposition make you an anti-war activist? Enlighten me how you can be opposed to this war and not be an anti-war activist now?-->-->  Also the term is not meant as an insult, only a definer of the parties in the discussion. There are just two options here, you either oppose the war or you do not, and the former are commonly known as anti-war activists.-->-->
kac
kac's picture

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 76
I have no "change of heart"...You label me an "activist. This is incorrect, look it up in the dictionary if you wish. I've never been on a march, never been to a protest rally. I'm simply against this war. I agree with Dick Cheney in 1994-it wasn't worth it then, and it's still not worth it. What changed things? 9/11? Sorry Dick, Saddam and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4rSxA6pzMg I would have preferred we help/assist taking out Saddam's gov't without full-scale invasion. We've all seen the aftermath of invasion and it's not pretty, even 4 1/2 yrs later.
Clayton
Clayton's picture

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1223
a doctrine or practice that emphasizes direct vigorous action especially in support of or opposition to one side of a controversial issue -->-->--> — ac·tiv·ist -->-->-->-->-->-->-->-->-->-->-->-->-->-->-->-->-->-->-->-->-->-->-->-->-->-->-->-->-->-->-->-->-->-->-->-->-->-->-->-vist noun or adjective -->--> — ac·tiv·is·tic -->-->-->-->ˌak-ti-ˈvis-tik adjective -->--> http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/activist --> --> You do not have to participate in a march or protest rally to be an activist- just “direct, vigorous action”. Action includes expressing an opinion; and you have expressed your opinion vigorously. It is not a bad thing to be an activist. --> --> I would have preferred we help/assist taking out Saddam's gov't without full-scale invasion. We've all seen the aftermath of invasion and it's not pretty, even 4 1/2 yrs later.-->--> He -->-->-->United States-->--> apparently do not do that anymore. Our only options are war or ignore.  Saddam choose not to be ignored.
kac
kac's picture

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 76
Ok, then would it be fair to say you are a "war activist" since you have an opinion which supports the war?
Clayton
Clayton's picture

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1223
Potentially yes, but war activist is not a commonly used term, peace activist is. How about this you accept that you and Cindy Sheehan are a peace activists, I will accept that I am a war activist?  The point is that I used it as a convenient handle, since it describes your position, it was not intended to insult, ( in fact I thought you would be proud of the label). Edited 12/10/2007 11:46 am ET by Clayton
kac
kac's picture

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 76
You're missing the point entirely...Doesn't matter if I'm insulted or not. "Activist" is not an accurate description for someone like me who simply has an opinion.  You bringing up Sheehan proves my point, i.e. she is an "activist", I'm not. She "actively" protests against the war- I don't, other than expressing my opinion.
Clayton
Clayton's picture

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1223
Isn't expressing an opinion an activity? I think we both are activists because we express our opinions. Cindy Sheehan is simply a different type of activist; but both of you, and I, and everyone expressing an opinion on a Blog is an activist because they are promoting a political philosophy. Activism can take many forms but what is common to all of them is the promotion of political philosophy with the goal or hope of changing policy or public opinion. The point really is that expressing an opinion is the core of activism; not the attention getting antics.
kac
kac's picture

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 76
I still disagree with your definition of "activist", but feel free to believe whatever you want...
Clayton
Clayton's picture

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1223
The dictionary seems to support my definition, as does common useage so I will stick with my definition. You are free to define yourself, but you should be aware how the rest of the world sees you.
kac
kac's picture

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 76
Do the following describe a person who simply has an opinion, or posts on a message board? Seems that there has to be an "action" involved with being an "activist", i.e. picketing or going to protests. An opinion isn't an "action". ac•tiv•istPronunciation: (ak'tu-vist), [key] —n. an especially active, vigorous advocate of a cause, esp. a political cause. —adj. 1. of or pertaining to activism or activists: an activist organization for environmental concern. 2. advocating or opposing a cause or issue vigorously, esp. a political cause: Activist opponents of the President picketed the White House. Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Copyright © 1997, by Random House, Inc., on Infoplease.   ac·tiv·ism    (kt-vzm) KEY  NOUN:
The use of direct, often confrontational action, such as a demonstration or strike, in opposition to or support of a cause.
  ac·tiv·ism [ áktə vìzzəm ] noun  Definition:   vigorous action: vigorous and sometimes aggressive action in pursuing a political or social end
Clayton
Clayton's picture

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1223
Posting is an action--speaking is an action especially if it is public speech. Look at part 2 of your definition advocating or opposing a cause or issue vigorously, esp. a political cause The example given is picketing, but the term advocating would seem to cover expressing a political opinion. Look, if you do not want to define your advocacy as activism, I do not think any one will object, nor do I think it matters that much. I think you are an activist ,but if you object to the label, I will drop it.  I do  wonder why, since most liberals usually enjoy the activist label since it implies passion.
UnnamedSourc
UnnamedSourc's picture

Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 17
You haven't just been sipping at the kool-aid, you've got a frakkin' fire-hose tap. We "lost" in Viet Nam because of the peace activists...and dhimmocrats in congress that refused to live up to our commitment. (The real losers in this war were the people of the Viet Nam and the surrounding countries...Millions more died because of the communist regimes.) Plame was not covert at the time of her "outing" and did not meet the requirements of the law..as stated by one of the authors of the law. Her husband was sent, at her recommendation, on a tax-payer funded junket. He was mis-reporting (i.e. lie-ing) what he had found. Her outing was part of an attempt to counter her husband's lies. Clinton lied under oath...the subject is not important. he was disbarred for this. You try that, and see what happens to you. Much as we would have liked to have taken out saddam in the gulf war, we had no support from the UN or the "allies" to go in to Iraq at that time. Should we have gone in anyway? History shows that yes, we should have. Hundreds of thousands of lives would have been saved. Again, we took the liberal's preferred path and again, lives were needlessly lost. You have to know all of this already. You just refuse to believe reality. "To make a conservative angry, lie to him. To make a liberal angry, tell him the truth."
kac
kac's picture

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 76