Liberals Have Lost Touch With Reality , NewsMax

[TexasLawyer]

An editorial from the highly intellectual "NewsMax." This is a big crowd-pleaser on Free Republic, where I found it posted Check out the appreciative Freeper comments.

Liberals Have Lost Touch With Reality
NewsMax ^ | 2/10/05 | Steve Darnell

<snip>


To prove how out of touch with reality liberals are these days, look at the uproar that occurred because of comments made by Lieutenant General James Mattis. General Mattis, who has commanded troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, was recently speaking at a forum in San Diego about strategies for the war on terror. Mattis said: "Actually, it's a lot of fun to fight. You know, it's a hell of a hoot. ... It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right up front with you, I like brawling." General Mattis is the kind of general I want leading our troops into battle. Marines are there to kill the enemy, not coddle them. They need a leader like General Mattis.

But of course there was an uproar by liberals. Jeff McCausland, director of the Leadership in Conflict Initiative at Dickinson College in Carlisle, Pa., countered, "Clearly, for an officer from any service to say that publicly is unprofessional and inappropriate and sends a terrible message to subordinates." I disagree. I think the general's troops loved the message sent and probably feel the same way.

<snip>

Liberals, especially young liberals, seem to forget that war is a very nasty thing. It is not a panty raid on a women's dormitory at a local college or a beer-chugging contest at an off-campus bar. In battle, the enemy has one thing in mind: He wants to kill. War is a contest of kill or be killed, and it is not nice. The closest most leftists have come to battle is fighting police at various protests in the United States and around the world. Their idea of warfare is yelling obscenities at local police and hurling the occasional rock or bottle. A liberal's badge of honor is spending a few hours in jail after being arrested at a protest in Seattle or Washington, D.C., and getting his or her mug shots taken.

Yet even with their lack of experience in real warfare, liberals seem to think they have all the answers about how the military should treat captured terrorists and how best to fight the war on terrorism. Some liberals even claim that the U.S. Constitution protects terrorists. I think they have a lot to learn.

First, prisoners captured in Iraq are not leftist protesters staging a sit-in on the steps of a federal building, singing "Give Peace a Chance." Prisoners in Iraq have not studied "Activism 101" and have never heard of Martin Sheen, Janeane Garofalo or Al Franken. They are terrorist thugs who behead captured men and women, showing no remorse over the act. They are murderers trained by al-Qaida or other terrorist organizations. They want to kill American men, women and children. They have no rights.

<snip>

I really do not care how inhumanely we treat the captured terrorists being held at Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib Prison. They are murderers and thugs. I think terrorists should lose all human rights once they take the path of terrorism. A tough approach is the only deterrent these killers will understand.

<snip>

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1339917/posts

[derby378]

1. Lookee! Jeff Gannon works for NewsMax now!!!

[Swede]

2. So when an American soldier eventually gets captured,

no one should be surprised by what will happen to him. Too bad the chickenhawks can't see this.

[peacebird]

5. bingo!

makes me sick (as the daughter of a career military man and the mother of an ex-navy man) that the honorable service people will likely suffer as a result. What is truly nauseating is how no upper level military or civilian personel have been charged in the abuses so far. Obviously the top level has embraced torture as a means to the end, why are only the grunts getting prosecuted? (rhetorical question... obviously)


btw - did you hear about the new pentagon propaganda channel on Dish?

:puke:

[brown6004]

10. They have..

Have you heard of Spc. Keith Maupin?
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/pow.mia/

[Heyo]

22. what is going to happen to him...

.. if captured will NOT be because of what this guy said.

Heyo

[adigal]

3. My family was deeply affected by 9/11

and I still think terrorists have the right to a trial and the right to not be tortured.

I cannot understand how those who weren't really even affected by 9/11 scream the loudest to support torture and support giving away our rights for homeland security. Like it is really dangerous to live in the middle of the country in rural America. Right.

I think they just love the violence and the hatred for its own sake. Terrorism has just given them the cover to be the hate-filled evil people they always were, but used to have to hide.

[brown6004]

7. Why do you think terrorists have a right to a trial?

They are not in the military, they are not part of any government. The are basically spies and saboteurs. They have no rights. They can be executed on the spot.

[mairceridwen]

9. well...

they deserve some kind of due process to establish that they are actually terrorists...don't you think?

[brown6004]

11. NOPE.

There already are rules that apply to terrorists. The Law of War has existed for about 500 years. During the American Revolution, the British followed this law when they hanged Nathan Hale in New York. The Americans followed this law when they hanged Major John Andre (the contact for General Benedict Arnold's planned betrayal).
That body of law was recognized by Congress when it passed the first laws governing the American military, in 1789. It was also recognized by a unanimous US Supreme Court in 1942, when it decided the case, In Re Quirin which concerned eight German saboteurs who entered the US from two submarines off the coast.

[TygrBright]

26. Uh.... without due process...

How do you KNOW they are terrorists?

BTW, George Washington considered the execution of Maj. Andre a terrible mistake. He went to great lengths to find ways to avoid it, including offering to exchange Andre for Arnold. He also wrote eloquently on the subject of treating prisoners --even suspected spies and Loyalist collaborators-- decently and humanely. He was appalled by the British treatment of American prisoners, because under British law, Americans were treasonous subjects in rebellion, rather than proper military prisoners, and not entitled to due process or decent treatment. Sound familiar?

While I oppose the death penalty under any circumstances, I concede that once due process has been effectively rendered, it is legally defensible to execute someone found guilty of certain types of crimes, including terrorist acts that cause loss of life. It is not, however, legally OR morally defensible to abuse prisoners, to detain them indefinitely without due process, or to visit punishments upon them without fair and effective adjudication proving them guilty of the crimes of which they are accused.

The Constitution of the United States, by the way, does not limit its protections or provisions to citizens of the United States, excepting only those related to voting and running for public office. All other rights guaranteed under the Constitution apply to ANY individual in US jurisdiction, regardless of status.

I am not arguing that it is inappropriate to detain or take prisoner someone suspected of criminal acts (and terrorism is a criminal act,) even in war zones and battlefield situations. By all means, detain them, take them prisoner. But then ensure them speedy and effective due process.

Or we will be no better than they are. And if we are no better than they are, what virtue is there in defending "our way of life?"

firmly,
Bright

[brown6004]

28. Well...

It is a violation of the laws of war to engage in combat without meeting certain requirements, among them the wearing of a distinctive uniform or other easily identifiable badge and the carrying of weapons openly. Impersonating soldiers of the other side by wearing the enemy's uniform and fighting in that uniform, is forbidden, as is the taking of hostages.

[TygrBright]

36. If something is illegal...

...and there is good reason to believe that an individual has been engaging in that illegal behavior, I have no problem with that person being arrested or detained...

PENDING an effective investigation, and speedy and effective DUE PROCESS to ensure that they were, indeed, guilty of the precise crime suspected.

During that period, they should be treated decently and humanely, not subject to torture, abuse, degradation, ridicule, denial of basic necessities, etc.

If, and only if, their guilt is clearly established through a fair and transparent process, then I have no problem with them being penalized under appropriate legal standards.

But everyone, regardless of the heniousness of the act they are suspected of, is entitled to speedy and effective due process and appropriately humane treatment under detention and in the execution of whatever appropriate sentence is meted out once guilt is established.

Otherwise, how are we better than the tyrants and the mullahs? What is the virtue in our system that demands its defense and promotion?

persistently,
Bright

[brown6004]

37. I agree with you.

I know that there are a lot of good people in the Military. I know that they don't teach you to torture or abuse people. If you do you will be punished...like the criminal that you are.

Terrorist in open combat against our troops out of uniform could be summarily executed. The rule of law is on my side on this point. WE DON'T DO THIS. My whole point with all of this is that it is Bush that is changing the rules. I think he's a pussy and tying our soldiers and marines hands behind their backs. We know who the terrorist are...their fighting them! If they are not in uniform SHOOT'EM!

If their is any doubt don't shoot'em. It's a tough job, and so far we are not shooting nor have we executed one unlawful combatant or one terrorist. It makes me sick. This whole "War on Terror" is bullshit!

[TygrBright]

40. Now you've got me confused...

...so you DO think people suspected of terrorism are entitled to due process? You DO think they have a right to a trial, and to humane treatment during detention, etc.?

Believe me, I understand what you are getting at in re: battlefield conditions. If someone is shooting at you, there's not a damn' thing wrong with shooting back, whether they're wearing a uniform or not. Even if they're a little old lady or a sweet-faced kid. If they're shooting at you, or tossing grenades, in a battlefield situation, don't ask questions, just shoot them. War sucks, it's not nice (one reason NOT TO GET INTO WARS,) but if you're there, you do what you have to.

However, if battle ISN'T going on, and the individual in question is NOT shooting, throwing grenades, etc., no matter how good your reasons are for suspecting them of being terrorists, saboteurs, etc., you are not entitled to do anything more than take them prisoner, pending due process. Unless you catch them in the act of perpetrating hostile operations that will lead to imminent loss of life and shooting them is the only option for stopping them. Even then, your actions should be subject to review, and potential disciplinary action if it is demonstrated that you showed poor judgment or acted like an impulsive trigger-happy twit.

In war zone conditions, "due process" might indeed be a military tribunal empowered to execute summary capital punishment. Even so, while awaiting examination by that tribunal, the prisoner is entitled to humane treatment. And the tribunal must operated under established rules for examining evidence, evaluating the testimony of witnesses, permitting the accused an appropriate defense, etc. It is still due process, they are still entitled to it.

Again, if we are not prepared to demonstrate how we expect others to treat Americans suspected of criminal acts, how are we entitled to enforce our standards on them?

quizzically,
Bright

[brown6004]

41. Here's an example.

Sami Al-Arian. He is in a Federal jail pending trial. We have him on tape and on video calling for the death of Jews and Christians. We have proof he funded the Islamic Jihad. What the hell? Shoot'em!

How much due process does this guy need? Why are we letting lawyers and retarded monkeys run this war? Where is the bright-line for these folks?

It seems pretty simple to me.

[muriel_volestrangler]

47. He should be tried

You have no evidence he fought against anyone. He is accused of calling for the death of people, and funding killers. Those are crimes, and should be dealt with under criminal law. Remember, you are calling for his death. Does that mean one of his allies should have the right to kill you summarily? Of course not. But we don't have the right to kill him like that either.

[TygrBright]

50. I'm plenty willing to stipulate...

...that the asshole in question is guilty of exactly what you're accusing him of. In such a case (because of my opposition to the death penalty,) I'd happily see him locked up for the rest of his life with a voluntary suicide option at his discretion.

However, putting on my defense lawyer hat, I would have to ask: "How, *exactly,* did he "call for the death of Jews and Christians?" The same way Ann Coulter and a number of RW freaks in America have called for the death of Muslims? Was he using hyperbole to express his strong feelings?

I have, on occasion (even being the nonviolent pacifist that I am,) spouted off that so-and-so, or such-and-such kinds of assholes, should be treated in various unpleasant and fatal ways. I'd hate to be summarily shot for that.

And with regards to his funding of the Islamic Jihad, can it be conclusively proved that a) he KNEW he was funding the Islamic Jihad, and not some cover organization with a putatively innocent purpose which he might have thought he was supporting; b) he KNEW that his contribution would be used to enable murder; and c) that his contribution could, in fact, be directly tied to one or more criminal acts?

The answers to all of those questions would have to be established as part of a due process of law, with him having an opportunity to defend himself.

In the mean time, I have no problems with detaining him in a manner that renders him unable to do further harm, so long as basic standards of humane treatment are adhered to. If he's unable to do further harm, we have at least temporarily solved the problem until due process takes its course, which fulfills the practical purpose at hand.

There are a very great many Muslims who hate America, and express it freely. A great many who will happily contribute time and money and effort to prevent America from invading their countries, from supporting their own tyrannical governments, from engaging in what they see as damaging cultural imperialism, proselytizing for non-Muslim religions, etc. I'm not sure that such actions are automatically criminal or terrorist, unless a clear chain of cause and effect can be drawn between their actions and illegal/criminal deaths.

As I said, I'm perfectly willing to stipulate that this specific asshole is a criminal deserving of the maximum penalty allowed by the law. But I'm entitled to do so, because I'm not responsible for ensuring that proper standards of law and equity are maintained. The point is that those standards exist, and unless we abide by them, we are no more morally justified in calling others to account than they are in attempting to do the same to us.

What possible justification can we have for defending our Constitution and the Republic constituted thereunder, if we do not act in accordance with that Constitution? What possible justification can we have for attempting to promote our standards to others, or foist our notions of law and equity upon them, if we show by our own behavior that those standards only apply so long as it's convenient and low-cost?

wearily,
Bright

[brown6004]

54. I don't think you understand.

Al-Arian is on tape taking credit for BOMBINGS in Israel. Paid for with money raised here in Florida...specifically Tampa. It's sick.

[brown6004]

13. BTW...

The reason you do this is to protect civilians. Anyone that is fighting should wear a uniform. During the resistance in Europe in WWII Germans would kill scores of civilians just to find one spy. Terrorist are a danger to the civilian population at large...they are cowards.

Oh yeah...btw...I'm a former soldier.

[bpilgrim]

19. our special forces don't wear uniforms

when conducting certain 'missions' should they be treated as terrorist?

the japanese in nanking during WWII used to try to pick out the chinese 'terrorist' (resistance) by their haircuts, suntans, posture, etc... history doesn't look to kindly on them these days.

Oh yeah...btw...I'm a vet, too.

:hi:

peace

[brown6004]

29. I'll keep posting this:

It is a violation of the laws of war to engage in combat without meeting certain requirements, among them the wearing of a distinctive uniform or other easily identifiable badge and the carrying of weapons openly. Impersonating soldiers of the other side by wearing the enemy's uniform and fighting in that uniform, is forbidden, as is the taking of hostages.

So, yes...they could be executed as terrorists.

[rooboy]

14. Yeah? Well about 2 weeks ago the United States returned a "terrorist"

back to my country after THREE FUCKING YEARS OF TORTURE AND BEATINGS without charging him for ANYTHING. And you claim he deserves to be shot on the spot????

What did he do between now and three years ago that made him STOP being a terrorist?

[brown6004]

16. Hey! I didn't make the rules.

I'm just passing on the information. You can't expect soldiers to be lawyers...sorry. BTW, our soldiers are not executing them on the spot like they should IMHO.

Have you ever heard the saying..."If you lie down with dogs, you'll get up with fleas."

What was this guy doing there anyway? How much do you want to bet he works for us now?

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[brown6004]

30. Posting this again:

It is a violation of the laws of war to engage in combat without meeting certain requirements, among them the wearing of a distinctive uniform or other easily identifiable badge and the carrying of weapons openly. Impersonating soldiers of the other side by wearing the enemy's uniform and fighting in that uniform, is forbidden, as is the taking of hostages.

[brown6004]

39. LOL.

It's funny you mention freepers because I was there for about two seconds before I was booted for calling Bush Jr. a pussy. I posted all the civil liberties that have been attacked and I guess they couldn't take it.

I'm sorry you think the rules are callous, but they are the rules. I'm not for changing them in the middle of a war.

I used to be one of those men. If they are going to be sent to do a job then they should go ALL THE WAY. Telling them not to shoot unless your shot at is horse crap!

Bush is no leader. He is stroking his own ego with this damn war.

[bpilgrim]

20. you can say that again...

you obviously don't even understand the rules, since all combatants are covered by the Geneva conventions.

peace

[brown6004]

33. The why don't you post the rules:

You have obviously never read them...I have. It is required of all Military personel.

Once again for you:

It is a violation of the laws of war to engage in combat without meeting certain requirements, among them the wearing of a distinctive uniform or other easily identifiable badge and the carrying of weapons openly. Impersonating soldiers of the other side by wearing the enemy's uniform and fighting in that uniform, is forbidden, as is the taking of hostages.

[bpilgrim]

46. here ya go...

SECTION II -- COMBATANT AND PRISONER-OF-WAR STATUS

Article 43 -- Armed forces

3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:

(a) during each military engagement, and

(b) during such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1(c).

4. A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war, but he shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this Protocol. This protection includes protections equivalent to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention in the case where such a person is tried and punished for any offences he has committed.

source...
http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/g-3/part63442.html

see also...

The protection and treatment of captured combatants during an international armed conflict is detailed in the Third Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, which defines prisoners of war (POWs) and enumerates the protections of POW status. Persons not entitled to POW status, including so-called "unlawful combatants," are entitled to the protections provided under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. All detainees fall somewhere within the protections of these two Conventions; according to the authoritative Commentary to the Geneva Conventions of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC): "nobody in enemy hands can fall outside the law."

more...
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/pow-bck.htm

peace

[w13rd0]

23. If he "worked for us now"...

...he wouldn't be talking to the media.

But that's ok, you keep justifying killing. Maybe you and the terrorists can have a competition to see who comes up with the most inclusive set of rules for killing everyone else...

[brown6004]

32. Have any of you read the Geneva Convention

It's pretty simple. They are not lawful combatants.

[rooboy]

45. What was he doing "there" ?????

He was kidnapped in PAKISTAN. And if he has fleas as you so eloquently put it, why wasn't he charged?

[adigal]

17. I think, in America

everyone has a right to a trial. I think that there are probably mistakes when people are rounded up, and that we need to be 100% certain that someone is guilty before we lock them away for the rest of their lives. And what makes you think spies are executed on the spot? Are they?? I don't recall that this is true.

If they can do this to terrorists, what makes you think they cannot do this to dissidents??? Once due process, or habeas corpus, in place since 1215 in England, becomes applied unevenly, we are all in trouble.

[brown6004]

34. We haven't executed spies in a long time

I think the Rosenbergs were the last ones. I think.

Nowadays spies usually plea bargain and give up information so that don't get the death penalty. Doesn't mean it won't happen.

[w13rd0]

21. Please define "terrorist" for us...

...and then tell us what one can consider as "terrorist-enough" to execute them on the spot. I've a neighbor that's been quite annoying, and I'm pretty sure he qualifies in someones book, and it would be really convienient.

[brown6004]

35. Again...use this a a terrorist definition.

It is a violation of the laws of war to engage in combat without meeting certain requirements, among them the wearing of a distinctive uniform or other easily identifiable badge and the carrying of weapons openly. Impersonating soldiers of the other side by wearing the enemy's uniform and fighting in that uniform, is forbidden, as is the taking of hostages.

During wartime this could apply to American civilians as well. Look at the history of the Civil War. Hundreds were executed.

[muriel_volestrangler]

48. Violating the laws of war does not mean someone can be executed

with trial; it means they lose the protections the PoWs get - ie PoWs cannot be tried for fighting against your army. Even if you know they've killed someone in your army, PoWs cannot be executed for it, if they were obeying the conventions of war. Those who don't follow them are subject to normal law. If you haven't declared martial law, then that is civil law.

The number of people in Guantanamo who were actually captured fighting against Americans is tiny. Most were captured fighting against the Afghan warlords (or just turned in by the warlords for bounty), or arrested in Pakistan and other countries. If they were fighting, it was in an Afghan civil war. Why should that allow the USA to imprison them, let alone kill them without trial?

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[porkrind]

55. WTF are you going on about?

You better think twice about agreeing with that kind of lawlessness, it will come back to bite a civilized population. If you give a government complete power to define who a terrorist is and punish or slay them in secrecy, you end up with an authoritarian regime that allows no dissent. This is where we are headed with the * administration. Can't you see the madness of your statement "They have no rights. They can be executed on the spot."? We, as a society, have the right to know that they were judged and condemned in an orderly open manner, so that all of us bear the responsibility of their punishment.

When the government does things in secret, democracy suffers. This is how things like gitmo and the Iraqi torture abuse get started and gain momentum. You better wake up! The * administration are not your friends.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

15. Terrorism has just given them the cover

to be the hate-filled evil people they always were, but used to have to hide.

You hit the nail on the head with that one!

[xxqqqzme]

4. "...They want to kill American

men, women and children..."

If they didn't B4 monkey turd invaded their country, they certainly do now!

But this is newsmax afterall - conveniently ignoring the fact that Iraq was NOT a terrorist training ground B4 March, 2003; that the US has NO business murdering Iraqi civilians who never threatened anyone in this country. It must B so keen 2 live in the land of no responsibility!

[aquart]

6. They always accuse us of their crimes.

Which means they have totally lost touch with reality, and it's deliberate.

[ixion]

8. I'll tell ya who has lost touch with reality...

it's block-headed reptiles like the sub-human creatures at news max.

It's ironic, isn't it? They label us the 'reality-based' community and then try and say we're out of touch with reality.

Gotta love that circular anti-logic that is rethug groupthink.

Oh, and by the way, I will never support war crimes. :grr:

[Spiffarino]

12. Typical NewsMax material

Yet another faux-journalistic deflection tactic straight out of Propaganda 101: Accuse the other side of doing exactly what you are doing. The neocon philosophy is not based in reality; they believe they can create their own. However, they are being blasted for it so they deflect.

Furthermore, the author leaves out annoying little details like the Constitution of the United States, international treaties against torture that the U.S. has signed in its own self-interest, and the fact that liberals like George McGovern saved his sorry ass from being ruled by the Nazis and Japanese. So who exactly has lost touch with reality?

[housewolf]

24. And HOW MANY times have we heard this over the past 3 years???

Every time we hit it nerve, it's something like this - "liberals are out of touch with reality." "Al Gore is mentally deranged." "Liberals are crazed with hate." "Self-hating liberals hate America." And so on and so on...

It's their tactic. Whenever we criticize something they are vulnerable on, they turn it back on us questioning our sanity.

They need a new tactic. This one has grown stale.

I mean, the soldier's words indicate a psychopathology that needs to be treated before he is released from the service and set free on American streets. Does a civilized society want people loose on their streets who think that it is fun to kill others? Let's get real about this.

[TexasLawyer]

31. Stale tactic

I agree. For fun, I went to Google and did a search on "liberals hate". As a liberal myself, I was surprised at all the nice things that I "hate."


Liberals Hate Christians
Why do liberals hate religion? ... religion, christianity, articles. Liberals Hate
Christians. By Mark K. Lewis. religion, articles, christianity, ...
www.bible-infonet.org/ff/ articles/apologetics/112_03_19.htm - 8k - Cached - Similar pages

Why Do Liberals Hate Guns?
Why Do Liberals Hate Guns? By Lou W. Have you ever wondered why it is
that liberal Democrats hate guns so much? I have. I think ...
www.chuckhawks.com/liberals_hate_guns.htm - 6k - Cached - Similar pages

Mona Charen: Liberals hate fellow Americans more than Islamists
2004 | printer friendly version Print | email to a friend Send. ...
www.townhall.com/columnists/monacharen/mc20040630.shtml - 59k - Cached - Similar pages

Why Liberals Hate Guns
Why Liberals Hate Guns Neal Boortz Tuesday, July 24, 2001. Neal Boortz is on
vacation. This ... freedom. So, now you know why liberals hate guns. ...
www.newsmax.com/archives/ articles/2001/7/24/150925.shtml - 27k - Cached - Similar pages

Laugh At Liberals Web Blog » LIBERALS HATE TRUTH
A web site for people in their right mind! Laugh At Liberals Web Blog. 8/23/2004.

LIBERALS HATE TRUTH.
3:53 pm. ...
www.laughatliberals.com/blog/ archives/2004/liberals-hate-truth/ - 82k - Feb 9, 2005 - Cached - Similar pages

Liberals HATE Blacks
... Home > Government > Liberalism > Liberals HATE B... ... Liberals HATE Blacks. by

"Liberals_HATE,America!_"
Nov 22, 2004 at 03:40 PM. ...
www.talkaboutgovernment.com/group/ alt.politics.liberalism/messages/928438.html - 21k - Cached - Similar pages

Up For Anything: Liberals Hate Conservative Minorities
November 08, 2003. Liberals Hate Conservative Minorities. First, let me clarify.
Not all liberals hate conservative minorities. Just the liberals with any power ...
www.upforanything.net/archives/000380.html - 10k - Cached - Similar pages

How The Anti-War Left Evades Reality
... way. In other words, the liberals hate Bush because he appears to stand
for something they find threatening. What would that be? ...
www.newsfilter.org/articles/anti_war_left.htm - 25k - Cached - Similar pages

Why Do Liberals Hate Fox News?
Skip to comments. Why Do Liberals Hate Fox News? 1/1/04 | Eric. Posted
on 01/01/2005 7:21:22 PM PST by E-squirrel. I just visited ...
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1312289/posts - 43k - Cached - Similar pages

Why Liberals Hate the Ownership Society Agenda
... Why Liberals Hate the Ownership Society Agenda Election 2004 will center on the
debate over large personal retirement accounts for Social Security, an end to ...
www.freedomworks.org/informed/ issues_template.php?issue_id=2039 - 33k - Cached - Similar pages

- Meet the Press: Liberals Hate Jesus
Conspiracy related discusion about Meet the Press: Liberals Hate Jesus in
the Above Top Secret website discussion forum Slug-Fest. ...
politics.abovetopsecret.com/thread97313/pg1 - 59k - Cached - Similar pages


Heroic Selfishness--Why Liberals Hate Bush
> >. Heroic Selfishness--Why Liberals Hate Bush. This article was published
in 1998 by the Family Research Council. In it, I attempted ...
www.inklingbooks.com/inklingblog/ C1539669634/E1802533978/ - 51k - Cached - Similar pages


Why Does the Left Hate Israel?
... The reason liberals hate Israel: Because it is essentially an American protectorate;
Israel also affords us an important base of intelligence in the Mid East. ...
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/849114/posts - 50k - Cached - Similar pages
< More results from www.freerepublic.com >

Why liberals hate the traditional family
Why liberals hate the traditional family. J. Max Wilson. J. Max Wilson December
4, 2003 What is it about the traditional family that irks liberals so much? ...
renewamerica.us/columns/wilson/031204 - 43k - Cached - Similar pages

Do all Liberals Hate America? - UNITEDSTATES.com DOMESTIC ...
... Do all Liberals Hate America? ... It seems to me that a lot of liberals hate america
and our troops. rcr22b Member Joined: Thu Nov 4th, 2004. Location: Posts: 126. ...
www.perspectives.com/forums/forum4/20097.html - 38k - Cached - Similar pages

COMMENTS
Liberals Hate Canada. I’m not just saying this to incite debate, push people’s buttons,
or what-have you. I honestly believe that liberals hate Canada. ...
www.spinkiller.com/comments.php?id=1497_0_1_0_C - 10k - Cached - Similar pages

darrelplant.com
« The Cost of Doing War | Main | How Wrong Can This Go On? » » May 23,
2004. Politics. Liberals Hate Baseball. ...
www.darrelplant.com/blog_item.php?ItemRef=64 - 9k - Cached - Similar pages

Liberals Hate Preemption, But Not As Much ...
... Liberals Hate Preemption, But Not As Much As They Hate "Star Wars". ... Liberals love
to hate the "preemption" policy, they rail about it constantly. ...
www.poorschmuck.net/archives/008640.html - 10k - Cached - Similar pages

Why Liberals Hate The First Amendment.
... October 12, 2003. Why Liberals Hate The First Amendment. Tune out radio racism.
10/12/2003. FINALLY WE have shock and awe over radio racism. ...
www.poorschmuck.net/archives/007439.html - 6k - Cached - Similar pages
< More results from www.poorschmuck.net >

[TygrBright]

38. Liberals hate CANADA.....?

Wow! Who knew?

So, izzit LIBERALS who are sending all those postcards and letters telling Canadian Parliamentary representatives that they're gonna burn in hell if they let gays marry?

Like I said, who knew?

I guess this means that all the liberals I've heard talking about moving to Canada now that Little Boots and his cronies control everything are really part of some sinister anti-Canada agenda, wanting to move there just to destroy the Canadian Way of Life?

Damn, who knew?

confuzzledly,
Bright

[enki23]

51. jesus, yes. liberals *all* hate baseball. that's in the manual.

right there on page 14. it's in a small area right after the chapters on hating hard work and self reliance, but just before it gets into hating jesus, canada, and entire bill of rights, and guns, and christmas.

don't forget to hate christmas, fellow liberal. remember last december's passcode.

[TexasLawyer]

53. Liberals DO love some things

All this talk about what liberals HATE. At least some conservatives realize that liberals harbor love for many things:


Liberals "Love" America?
by "Droppings" <Dog@ > Jun 1, 2003 at 03:50 PM


Liberals are really pro American. They have our best interests at heart. Don't believe it? Liberals love the United States. Just look at the many ways they cut our government to pieces every chance they get. They castigate our President Bush and accuse him of all manner of crimes. They do this because they love Freedom of Speech and have our best interests at heart.

Liberals love tax increases. They say we must support the unemployed and provide nurture to the Illegal Immigrants. Liberals hate tax decreases. They say only the 'rich' will benefit. To a Liberal, anybody making over $40,000 a year is "rich". Funny they don't mention the millions that the likes of Kennedy makes....

Liberals want tax rebates for all...even for those who don't work a day and earn no income. They say tax rebates are "unfair". Liberals dislike religion. They want the Pledge Of Allegiance barred from schools but they say it is OK for Muslim students to bow to Mecca five times a day to pray.

Liberals bitch that the Boy Scouts are not allowing gays to join their
ranks yet they say nothing when the Queer Nation idiots disrupt church
proceedings. Liberals cry that when one of the churchgoers beats the crap out of a member of the Queer Nation it is a hate crime. Liberals say nothing about two gay men torturing a 12 year old child to death. No hate crime there, eh? But let a redneck beat up a queer and see what happens!

Liberals say live and let live, but they are the first to whine about those who do not tolerate their philosophy. Liberals believe in freedom of speech...theirs, not yours. Disagree with a Liberal and they resort to name-calling. Most favorite name-calling? They call names such as "racist", "homophobe", "gay basher", and many more cheap shots.

Bottom line? You cannot talk sense or present facts to a Liberal. When the "facts" overload their time-worn mantra they resort once again to name-calling. It is all they have left in their cheap and tawdry bag of tricks. No wonder the Phil Donahue show was a bust. Nobody is listening. Want to make a Liberal cry? Ignore him.

http://www.talkaboutgovernment.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.governors/messages/2598.html

****************************

Even Ann Coulter recognizes that liberals have certain loves:

Liberals Love America Like OJ Loved Nicole
By Ann Coulter
FrontPageMagazine.com | January 6, 2005

Even the United Nations sponge who called the United States "stingy" immediately retracted the insult, saying he had been misinterpreted and that the U.S. was "most generous." But the New York Times was sticking with "stingy." In an editorial subtly titled "Are We Stingy? Yes," the Times said the U.N. sponge "was right on target." This followed up a patriotic editorial a few days earlier titled "America, the Indifferent."

America's stinginess is a long-standing leitmotif for liberals – which is getting hard to square with their love for America. When it comes to heaping insults on America, U.S. liberals are the nation's leading donors.

<snip>

Stipulating that liberals love America – which apparently depends on what the meaning of "love" is – do they love America as much as they love bin Laden and Castro?



http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16553

[theresistance]

25. Its amazing how they use the term "liberals" like

a dirty word or something. The problem with the comments is that probably most of the people caught are not "terrorists". I wonder if these people would like to be tortured if a foreign force invaded America and caught them, declaring them to be "terrorists"?

[Skittles]

27. ON THE CONTRARY FUCKWADS

WE LIBERALS KNOW THAT WAR IS *SUCH* A SERIOUS THING WE DEMAND GOOD G.D. REASONS TO ENGAGE IN IT. ASSHOLES.

[enki23]

42. why does anyone think any of us wants to read this shit?

this isn't even up to tucker carlson's standards. this is little jimmy's first college composition, an essay for english 101. he got a C- in the class, but at least he pledged TKE like his daddy.

[UCSBLiberalCat53]

43. He seems to be describing the FMR instead of liberals

Excuse me, it's the young republicans that seem to think that war is something like a panty raid or Halo 2. Basically they believe that if you die, you can always reload from the spot you saved last. It's the College Republicans who adopt snipers but would never ever sign up to be one.

It's the liberals who have more experience in going to war. Most Republicans in power fought wars against hangovers and pretzels at home.

Stupid wingnuts, don't they ever know that torture never works? People will say ANYTHING just to get it over with.

[applegrove]

44. Total projection - as propaganda is often.

Total projection - as propaganda is often.

They are the nutty ones drinking to kool-aid. The are the ones who hate. They keep following all the 'new' & 'improved' realities and forget what happened yesterday. ADD=USA

[Autobot77]

52. Is Mr. Darnell a veteran?

This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Most neocons and thier supporters have never seen a military uniform and would not know what to do with one if they did.

"Prisoners in Iraq have not studied "Activism 101" and have never heard of Martin Sheen, Janeane Garofalo or Al Franken. They are terrorist thugs who behead captured men and women, showing no remorse over the act."

This really gets me.This is another example of the RW's hypocrisy. Remember when we were going to war to free the Iraqi people ? Now its okay to torture the people we were supposed to be freeing, because thier rebelling against the US occupation.