The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
Originally posted by Matrix Rising
During the Bush years, you saw liberal protesters about the war everywhere. They were disrupting congressional hearings and marching in the
streets.
Unfortunately your entire premise is wrong. For one to be against the war during the Bush administration, one did have to endure the "you're a
liberal commie anti-American socialist pinko!" routine from any pro-war, pro-Bush, pro-torture talking head. Didn't even matter if you actually
didn't have "liberal" views, you were just wrong because you disagreed with the leader who happened to be "conservative." Great job there,
perpetuating that silly stereotype.
We are about to send more troops to Afghanistan and there's wars still going on.
The main consensus among the more "liberalized" parties in response to 9/11 was an agreement to pass 1. the Patriot Act and 2. invade Afghanistan.
While there were protests against the Afghan war, most were aimed primarily at Iraq.
Was that selective outrage?
See above, and try not to dishonor the fallen too much by mocking the people using the very rights those soldiers were dying to protect.
Did that have to do with the letters R & D?
Yet again perpetuating the myth of two sides in an alphabet soup, when it's all the same. The only difference between R&D are the words themselves
that those two letters stand for.
Did the protesters really care about the war? Did the protesters really care abouty the soldiers? Or:
Did the protesters really care about politics and feeding their ideology at the expense of the troops?
*emphasis mine*
Are you sure you meant to say that? Because what you appear to mean is that you're taking the
exact point you accuse others of and turning it
around to use yourself
Sad.
I wholeheartedly agree.
As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.