Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why do the Liberals have a problem with the U.S., as a CONQUERER?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 17 2004 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Is it because it's US Republicans, instead of the Democrats?(for a change)Or is it because a tiger really DOES change it's stripes? Have the Democrats really gone off the Liberal edge? You tell me? Do the Democrats STILL have what it takes to wage and win a war??

Let me know!




posted on May, 17 2004 @ 11:45 AM
link   
The Libbies don't have a problem w/ it unless THEY ARE THE ONES being the conquerer.
I keep going back to Vietnam but it's an excellent example of hypocrisy in the LDParty.

If they start it it's ok.

They are full of anger and will spit on anybody who tries to conquer anything.


Liberals like to molly coddle the victims and bash the GOP if they are doing the conquerering because then they are the evil bastards oppressing those poor innocent victims.

But if they do it's ok.

And they like to spit shine the truth to whatever agenda they have at the time.

Simple liberal mathematics.



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 11:46 AM
link   
I don't think party politics have anything to do with it.

Americans do not have 1) the stomach, 2) the patience, or 3) the resolve to fight a real war anymore.

It just appears like the libs are anti war (which some are), but it is more of a hate for Bush and all that he does.

Let's say Bush give 100 million to the poor, for nothing but bettering their lives. They will find something to grip about, or put it in a negative light.

That's the reason.



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Toelint
You tell me? Do the Democrats STILL have what it takes to wage and win a war??

Let me know!


I wasn't aware that the Republican National Committee was actually the ones out there fighting this war. Or that there was a seperate Defense Dept. or group of enlisted armed services that only serve Republicans.

Barring that bogus revelation, the answer would be yes. Ralph Nadar could even win a war with our military.

The real question is do the Republicans still have what it takes to avoid war? Do they have ANY diplomatic skills whatsoever? It's not looking like they do.



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 11:51 AM
link   
And don't forget liberals control the mass media.
There was a good article about a journalist speaking out against bias journalism and how it's consuming mass media. It was on drudgereport a few days ago.


I think America has the stomach for it, but because we have an already made notion by media that everyday americans can't stomach it.

I believe we have alot of fight left in us, but alot of us are asleep.

Lot's of people have become numbed by all thats going on, we're getting image after image bashed into our heads, and news thats repetative day after day, which really gets old and mind numbing.

Pre conceived notions don't speak for the masses, although they would like us to believe it is so.
It's just not.

Walk around your local grocery store or mall and talk to people to get the real scoop.

All party politics have agenda's, and they say whatever to fit it.



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Toelint
Is it because it's US Republicans, instead of the Democrats?(for a change)Or is it because a tiger really DOES change it's stripes? Have the Democrats really gone off the Liberal edge? You tell me? Do the Democrats STILL have what it takes to wage and win a war??

Let me know!




democrates win a war? i dont think so. but they can screw up humanitarian missions. remember somlia anyone?



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 11:58 AM
link   
First of all, the right controls the mass media. Who owns all of the tv stations and newspapers? Second, I think anyone with half a mind would be upset if our President lied to get us into a war that was unnessecary. Bin Laden is laughing his ass off watching young Americans die while our deficit soars.



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Don't sweat it Curme.

The entire point of gas bag threads like this to insinuate there's some genetic, moral, strategic or constitutional fortitude superiority to draft dodging slime like Cheney and Bush simply because they wave the Republican banner of billionaire welfare.

There's not.



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by curme
First of all, the right controls the mass media. Who owns all of the tv stations and newspapers? Second, I think anyone with half a mind would be upset if our President lied to get us into a war that was unnessecary. Bin Laden is laughing his ass off watching young Americans die while our deficit soars.


Oh good god, give me a break. Nearly every major newspaper and all three major networks don't just lean left, they crash through the ditch. Kati Couric? Dan Rather, poster boy for liberal speech delivery? Ted Turner and the Clinton News Network? Get a grip...

You say unnecessary war because, as the discussion goes, it's not a Democrat doing it. If Clinton had gotten up from his blow job for a second and done the right thing, we would have HAD bin Ladin, and this would all be a moot point. bin Ladin is laughing at us because the left can't get their shiite together long enough to help us get the job done right and get it over with. He loves dems, because all they do is try to kill the dragon with a fly swatter.



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
Don't sweat it Curme.

The entire point of gas bag threads like this to insinuate there's some genetic, moral, strategic or constitutional fortitude superiority to draft dodging slime like Cheney and Bush simply because they wave the Republican banner of billionaire welfare.

There's not.




yeah or Kerry begging for those wonderful purple hearts so he could go home and throw somebody else's metals over the gates of the wh and claim their his until 20-30 years later when he gets asked the question and does a total 180...
There's a stand up guy.. The one who doesn't want anybody touching Heinz' tax information, but will demand other people's just to show how slimey they are, and to go about preaching how great SUV's are here in Michigan and how he owns a couple then walks down teh street to the next joe blow and says how awful they are and how they aren't his but his families.

if anything he's the slimey one. Bush stands on two feet, Kerry seems to enjoy playing the straw man.
Yes, a great stand up guy indeed who can lead this nation without making it fall on it's ass.


And you gotta be #tin me. Those media outlets are all run by liberals.

Nice try to cover it up though. Trying to put those media outlets as unbias and totally truthful. Maybe for the liberals it is because it's liberal bs.
So there... It's"""your truth.

Truth lies somewhere in the middle. Not to the far left where it can be spun and used to further your agenda's ...



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueLies

Bush stands on two feet...


Right. When not rendered unconcious by a pretzel.

Bash Kerry's service to this country all you want. I don't even have to ask who you'd rather have in a fox hole with you.

If you say Bush (or Cheney
) you're lying.... or about to be alone in that fox hole when they run.

[Edited on 17-5-2004 by RANT]



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Why do the Liberals have a problem with the U.S., as a CONQUERER?


Stop running up debts, use the war profits to lower or taxes and pay off the national debt. Lower gas prices, put in place national health care. Then I might not have a problem with it.



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Who would I rather have in a fox hole?

Why would I be in a fox hole in the first place?
Unless of course your buddy there John Kerry dug one for the whole nation one.

You just answered your own question.
See automatically i'm lying because YOU said I would have Cheney/Bush ...

This shows your automatic reflex and putting words into people's mouths. This is exactly what you guys do.

This is how # gets twisted and stirred to fit the way you liberal think.


Bush does stand on two feet. Kerry on the other hand doesn't know which one he wants to stand on, he hops back and forth.

I'm scared that people like you don't understand what can happen to the country if Kerry gets in.
Do you even know what he would do?
Do you have a solid answer? You can only go off of what he says and his past actions.
Not very reliable.

Bush has a plan and he's been following through.
He hasn't pulled out like the Liberals did in Somolia.

He hasn't slaughtered troops like the Liberals did in Vietnam.

Kerry wouldn't know what to do. And such he's flip flopper I can't see him following through on anything except a huge tax hike which would damage the economy.

he married a gold digger Heinz and he's a gold digger so they make a perfect couple.
He'd be ok because he has more then enough money to last him through the ages.



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Is today opposite day? I'm I living in a bizzaro world? Follow the money. Do a little homework, and find out who owns what, and where they put there money.




Oh good god, give me a break. Nearly every major newspaper and all three major networks don't just lean left, they crash through the ditch. Kati Couric? Dan Rather, poster boy for liberal speech delivery? Ted Turner and the Clinton News Network? Get a grip...


Now this is rich.
Couric? You mean 'The Today Show'? NBC/GENERAL ELECTRIC who donated 1.1 million to GW Bush for his 2000 election campaign? Dan Rather? Who works for WESTINGHOUSE / CBS INC,
whos #1 on the Board of Directors? None other than:
Frank Carlucci (of the Carlyle Group) and the ones who didn't release the Iraqi prison photos because the Bush administration asked them too? CNN, which is owned by Time/Warner AOL which donated 1.6 million to GW's 2000 campaign?



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueLies
This shows your automatic reflex and putting words into people's mouths. This is exactly what you guys do.
This is how # gets twisted and stirred to fit the way you liberal think.
Bush does stand on two feet. Kerry on the other hand doesn't know which one he wants to stand on, he hops back and forth.


Your being manipulated by an advertising firm. Flip-flop? Your programmed to say that again and again. Even if it's wrong, the message gets out. A classic and effective marketing technique.



Bush has a plan and he's been following through.
He hasn't pulled out like the Liberals did in Somolia.


Well, I'll give him that. Even though he's been proven wrong on almost every aspect of the Iraq invasion, he keeps on going.


He hasn't slaughtered troops like the Liberals did in Vietnam.

Wha?


Kerry wouldn't know what to do. And such he's flip flopper I can't see him following through on anything except a huge tax hike which would damage the economy.

You said it again, good doggy. Economy? How about instead of tax cuts, we leave the taxes alone, and pay for this war? Maybe, I don't know, buy some body armor? Armored HUMVEES? How about the top 1% pay the same taxes as everyone else? Or cut more taxes for the lower income, so they can by things?



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by curme
Is today opposite day? I'm I living in a bizzaro world? Follow the money. Do a little homework, and find out who owns what, and where they put there money.




Now this is rich.
Couric? You mean 'The Today Show'? NBC/GENERAL ELECTRIC who donated 1.1 million to GW Bush for his 2000 election campaign? Dan Rather? Who works for WESTINGHOUSE / CBS INC,
whos #1 on the Board of Directors? None other than:
Frank Carlucci (of the Carlyle Group) and the ones who didn't release the Iraqi prison photos because the Bush administration asked them too? CNN, which is owned by Time/Warner AOL which donated 1.6 million to GW's 2000 campaign?


I'm not talking about the parent companies, I'm talking about the media outlets themselves. Couric's interviews are so far to the left, she makes Barbara Streisand look like a conservative. She asks misleading questions, and will not let people answer when it doesn't go her way. If they DO happen to get out what they want, she qualifies their statement herself to put the liberal slant, then cuts them off with another question before they can tell her, "No, that's not what I said!"

Dan Rather gives speeches to and for the DNC, and he is the NEWS DIRECTOR FOR CBS!!! How the HELL can you say he is unbiased????

Get real, your argument holds no water.



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 01:31 PM
link   


Dan Rather gives speeches to and for the DNC, and he is the NEWS DIRECTOR FOR CBS!!! How the HELL can you say he is unbiased????
Get real, your argument holds no water.


Like when 60 Minutes was forced not the air that report about big tobacco? (Russell Crowe was in a movie about it, called the "The Insider") Wow, Rather sucks as a news director.



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Actually the flip flop term has been around way before media started using it.

How can you describe somebody that flips back and forth? well, it's called flip flop... So sorry to burst your bubble, but it's the only word to desrcibe Kerry's actions.

Oh wait, i could use hip hopper because he switches legs everytime someone catches him in a lie.

Maybe if he stopped denying what he said or trying to turn it around or blame someone else i'd have more respect for the flip flopper hip hopper but I don't because he's too wishy washy..


Dan Rather? he can blow me. go to smoking gun . com
there's an interesting read on how he mislead the public back when JFK got shot.
He claimed he only got shot once in the head and it was from the back.
The video clearly shows two gun men . First he got hit from the back then the front. www.smokingun.com
He's such a reliable source, kind of makes flat tires seem more reliable huh.
Katie Couric? don't know much, but I heard she's a bitch.

Just because a company throws money at political parties doesn't change the fact that the media is run by fanatical libreal.
The only shows I watch are scarborough county, national explorer, dennis miller, and the odd time hannity and colmes. Used to watch crossfire on cnn but that one libreal guy is just too creepy looking.
plus cnn is massively liberal I feel nauseated after watching it so now I read the bottom of the tv and put it on mute because I don't need anybody spinning # so I can think the same way as them.



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toelint
Is it because it's US Republicans, instead of the Democrats?(for a change)Or is it because a tiger really DOES change it's stripes? Have the Democrats really gone off the Liberal edge? You tell me? Do the Democrats STILL have what it takes to wage and win a war??
Believe it or not, there are many people who are anti-war. Its just that anti-war people seem to be fairly liberal in thought. That doesn't mean that all liberals are anti-war. Also, all liberals are NOT democrats. Just as all conservatives are NOT republicans.

The U.S., until recently, was seen fairly ubiquitously around the world as a force of freedom and goodwill. You cannot create false reasons for invasions and commit to imperialist actions and retain that notion in the minds of people. Most of the U.S. constituency, regardless of party lines, wants the U.S. to do only good even when history has shown that it has not during a large percentage of its existence.

Committing to an invasion that was spawned under now obviously false reasons is not something that liberals, especially anti-war liberals, want to be party to. By doing so you validate the U.S. as an aggressive force that can and will do what it wants to force whom it wants into submission for its own purposes. Which is not how many in the U.S. want their country to behave.

As for the liberal media, where was that liberal media when all the pre Iraq invasion information started? They were towing the pro-war line as much as possible to suit their own purposes. The media is whatever party it wants to be at any given moment.

[Edited on 17-5-2004 by heelstone]



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by curme

Like when 60 Minutes was forced not the air that report about big tobacco? (Russell Crowe was in a movie about it, called the "The Insider") Wow, Rather sucks as a news director.


Dan Rather is the NEWS DIREcTOR, he is not in charge of Sixty Minutes, dufus. He's in charge of the NEWS. Sixty Minutes is entertainment.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join