Hilary and Fox News, what a beautiful marriage

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Starting wars, is not a liberal position. Today, liberals favor peace over war. The change may have taken place in the 60's.
More...

I disagree. Kennedy started the war in Vietnam and Johnson escalated the hell out of it. Whatever Nixon (and later Ford) did they were trying to get out of it and managed to get it done - very badly - but done. Then, Democrats (who were gradually losing power) worked very hard, for years, to convince Americans that the whole Vietnam war was a Republican "mistake."

Clinton fought as hard as both Bush (father and son) did, in Iraq (containment, continuous bombing of Saddam's capabilities) and, primarily, Kosovo. Few "liberals" complained there.

The way I see it, because of our political system, whatever one party does or is forced to do to protect American interests, the other party speaks up and claims they are doing it all wrong. So, now, of course the left is saying that the war in Iraq was wrong, ill timed, badly carried out, etc etc... Monday morning quarterbacking it to oblivion. They want power, that's all, despite the fact that half of them voted FOR the war anyway. Mark my words, when Democrats win the White House in 2008 (as it is expected within the whole "fairness" scheme that we, Americans, like) our policy in Iraq will not change substantially at all.

Is that bad? Not really, as long as we manage to see the situation now for what it really is, a political ploy and a systematic disinformation campaign, at the expense of the public, to win points in the next elections.

Republicans do the same thing when they feel they must, eg, those fastboat stories wrt Kerry. Oh well.

Btw, history tells us that when my far, far ancestors invented democracy, c 600 BC, they were the most horrible perpetrators of this continuous bickering because that's how the game is played. And we all know that democracy is the worst political system, except for all the others out there :)
 
That was how long ago?

When did the liberal movement as we know it begin which clearly defined liberalism as we know it today?

DURING THE 60's AND THE VIETNAM WAR!

Liberals seek love, not war. Peace, not bombs....

Clinton was a moderate democrat, not a liberal democrat.

John Kennedy would be ranked as a moderate democrat. Ted Kennedy as a liberal democrat.

Johnson as a moderate democrat.

Compare their total positions to Howard Dean, who is a liberal democrat. Compare them to Russ Feingold. They are the liberal leaders of the democratic party. Hillary is to the right of them.

The right wing has framed the debate, that anyone who is a democrat is a liberal, and this is not completely true. Hillary is mostly liberal, but on Iraq she has taken a right wing position, as have many neocons, of which the neocon movement grew out of liberal thinking....


Quote from Yannis:

I disagree. Kennedy started the war in Vietnam and Johnson escalated the hell out of it. Whatever Nixon (and later Ford) did they were trying to get out of it and managed to get it done - very badly - but done. then, Democrats worked very hard, for years, to convince Americans that the whole Vietnam war was a Republican "mistake."

Clinton fought as hard as both Bush (father and son) did, in Iraq (containment, continuous bombing of Saddam's capabilities) and, primarily, Kosovo. Few "liberals" complained there.

The way I see it, because of our political system, whatever one party does or is forced to do to protect American interests, the other party speaks up and claims they are doing it all wrong. So, now, of course the left is saying that the war in Iraq was wrong, ill timed, badly carried out, etc etc... Monday morning quarterbacking it to oblivion. They want power, that's all, despite the fact that half of them voted FOR the war anyway. Mark my words, when Democrats win the White House in 2008 (as it is expected within the whole "fairness" scheme that we, Americans, like) our policy in Iraq will not change substantially at all.

Is that bad? Not really, as long as we manage to see the situation now for what it really is, a political ploy and a systematic disinformation campaign, at the expense of the public, to win points in the next elections.

Republicans do the same thing when they feel they must, eg, those fastboat stories wrt Kerry. Oh well.

Btw, history tells us that when my far, far ancestors invented democracy, c 600 BC, they were the most horrible perpetrators of this continuous bickering because that's how the game is played. And we all know that democracy is the worst political system, except for all the others out there :)
More...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Liberals seek love, not war...
More...

And yet they strongly support abortion which kills millions of babies every year. Hypocrites!!! :mad:
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Clinton was a moderate democrat, not a liberal democrat...
More...
Yes, you are probably right, there are many important gradations in our political system that often go unnoticed. And the demarcation lines shift with time too.

Both parties want peace and prosperity, but they go about it in somewhat different ways.

I believe that war is bad (almost) all the time, but my perspective is mainly religious and humanitarian - not actively political.

If we look at the data in front of us, collected over the past several decades, can we really say that Democrats are more for peace than Republicans? Hardly. That they support the poor more and try to alleviate poverty? I don't think so. I think it's their methods and rhetoric that differs for the most part.

Imo, the two parties are two sides of the same coin, continuously rolling down the hill in search of power, no matter what. That's why I call myself an Independent and look at the whole menu every time I want to buy...
 
I am not really taking about parties, but issues.

The liberal view of war and the military is dovish.

The conservative view of war and the military is hawkish.

The point that I made in this thread is that Hillary, a democrat, is liberal on most issues, but on war she is conservative and hawkish....

What makes a moderate democrat, or a moderate republican is that they have positions on issues that produced a mixed situation.

Rudy Giuliani is a hawk, but socially progressive, which places him as a moderate republican. Same with Arnold, who is considered a moderate republican.

Hillary is a moderate democrat, but not as moderate as Bill.

Gore is most definitely more liberal than Hillary, but not as liberal as Howard Dean...but they are all democrats.

It is the all or nothing thinkers who want to frame all dems as liberals, and all repubs as conservatives....

Quote from Yannis:

Yes, you are probably right, there are many important gradations in our political system that often go unnoticed. And the demarcation lines shift with time too.

Both parties want peace and prosperity, but they go about it in somewhat different ways.

I believe that war is bad (almost) all the time, but my perspective is mainly religious and humanitarian - not actively political.

If we look at the data in front of us, collected over the past several decades, can we really say that Democrats are more for peace than Republicans? Hardly. That they support the poor more and try to alleviate poverty? I don't think so. I think it's their methods and rhetoric that differs for the most part.

Imo, the two parties are two sides of the same coin, continuously rolling down the hill in search of power, no matter what. That's why I call myself an Independent and look at the whole menu every time I want to buy...
More...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Please, turn you TV back to the 700 Club...
More...
And by that you imply that I am a religious fanatic? The vast majority of organized religious groups are against abortion, check it out if you want.

Does the fact that you are a liberal make you an atheist, or a communist as some may argue? Watch your overgeneralizations, friend, they don't do you justice.

All I'm saying is that the liberal agenda is not as human friendly as they want us to believe, they are just out to tax and spend on their petty pet projects, that's all.
 
The majority of western religions groups are anti war as well.

The Pope was against the war in Iraq, as were many many traditional religious leaders.....not the TV evangelist kind.

So who are the sanctimonious party that is the party of war?

Of course, the right wing Christians....

Quote from JWS11:

And by that you imply that I am a religious fanatic? The vast majority of organized religious groups are against abortion, check it out if you want.

Does the fact that you are a liberal make you an atheist, or a communist as some may argue? Watch your overgeneralizations, friend, they don't do you justice.

All I'm saying is that the liberal agenda is not as human friendly as they want us to believe, they are just out to tax and spend on their petty pet projects, that's all.
More...
 
Quote from dddooo:

I am sure you have a good explanation why then liberals overwhelmingly supported our invasion of Afghanistan and many (but not all) of them supported the US/NATO bombing campaign in Bosnia.
More...
I am sure you have a good explanation why you don't understand the word "today."

Cut-and-running from Iraq is a "peaceful solution" and would not be appeasement to the highest degree? A white flag? Victory for Al Zarqawi? Please....

Liberals today sometimes realize that force is necessary, but quickly change their mind when - surprise! - Americans get killed. Then they revert to, as Zzz has pointed out, the "love not war" mindset, which is their virtual security blanket.
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

So who are the sanctimonious party that is the party of war? Of course, the right wing Christians....
More...
Yes, maybe there are many Americans in the far right that support war as a tool to be used as needed, but so are some factions within the Democratic party, eg, many Jewish Americans, supporting, and supported by, the Israeli lobby.

Remember, the information that Bush used was no different than what Clinton and the UN had and acted on. We now know that a lot of it was just lies, mostly spread by the Iraqi government et al. Based on that, the American public overwhelmingly supported the need for decisive action and half the Democrats on the Hill voted for it.

At the end, we now have a better Middle East political climate, even with the Iran problem that was created under Clinton, a free Iraq, finally, and most of the criminals there behind bars. Yes, there are many issues and dangerous circumstances, but we are big boys, we'll take care of them. If you ask me, that's fantastic success, bravo!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top