• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Liberal Slant Confronted By Fed Up Conservative

Donkey1499 said:
And I want to see soldiers petting kittens. So where's the group that targets me?

I'm sure there is a cave somewhere out there with all those wishing to see more "censored" news. :lol:
 
Gibberish said:
I'm sure there is a cave somewhere out there with all those wishing to see more "censored" news. :lol:

Censored news? I don't want "censored" news. I just want variety. Is that too much to ask for?
 
Gibberish said:
Now your talking forward thinking. You can what-if all stories to death. The point is that is not the story that is being told. The stories in question are a solider petting a kitten vs a soldier in a battle against his enemy.

And never a word about the tremendous progress being made. ;)

Iraq is the size of California. If the only news we were allowed to see from California was from anytime a cop got shot or when some other act of violence occurred, most Americans would have this incredibly warped, manufactured resentment for "the way things are being handled in California" too.
 
Donkey1499 said:
Apparrently your imagination has gone away. What if a terrorist blows the kitty to smitherines? Then the soldier picks up his rifle and avenges the kitty? Wouldn't that be a both happy and sad ending? The soldier, covered in scaps of feline just wastes an evil terrorist. It brings a tear to my eye just thinking about it.....

But you forgot ... the rest of the story.

The "terrorist," who was really an Iraqi who, for some bizarre reason, just didn't agree with the concept of a foreign power forceably occupying his country, had hit the kitty by accident; he was really shooting at the foreign invader. The "terrorist" had a wife and three sons, aged 9, 11, and 16 -- who before the US invastion had had little opinion on Americans, actually kind of admired them -- became understandably bitter, and vowed to revenge the murder of their father, no matter how long it took. It didn't help that their beloved kitty, a family pet for years, was also dead.

The 16 year old volunteered with a radical Islamic sect who really were terrorists, and was killed when he stapped a bomb to himself and gave up his life trying to blow up a bunch of the foreign invaders at a road stop. The 11 year old was blown up by the US bombing campaign in late 2007, when the Bush Administration, in a desparate attempt to do something about the continuing resistance before the 2008 elections, ordered the large scale bombing of several Iraqi cities. In the year 2022, the 9 year old, now aged 25, gave up his life when he set off a chemical bomb in Atlanta, Geogia, spewing Anthrax in a 5 mile radius around the city, killing thousands.

Now you know the rest of the story. And yes, it is sad.
 
If the Iraqi was fighting America who is there with the permission of the government of Iraq, then the Iraqi is a criminal. End of pipe dream.
 
hipsterdufus said:
How do you think the Freepers, Fox, or even the entire media would be covering the war if Kerry had won? Do you really think they'd be showing little puppies running around in Falujah all day long? Let's say a Dem wins in 08 - happy coverage starting 1-20-09 ?

No, if Kerry would have won, Durbin and Kerry would still have been calling our troops Nazis and terrorists, kerry would have declared to the world that it was a mistake for the United States to go into Iraq, that we can not win this war, and would have called for a full-scale retreat, pulling back all of our troops out of Iraq. The media would have been broadcasting the images of America pulling out back home, and the democrats, led by Kerry, would be trying to convince us how it was Viet Nam, the pull out of Saigon, all over again. Once again, America's self-esteem and national pride would be driven under the heel of the Democrats who would blame this new defeat/Viet nam on Bush!

Despite John F. Kennedy's claim that America would stand by any ally and make any sacrifice in the name/cause of Freedom, John F. KERRY would have abandoned Iraq, leaving the newly freed yet unprepared people of Iraq to fight for their survival against terrorists and Iranian Special ops/influence who would seek to defeat them and drive them back into oppression! Hussein would be liberated once that happened, he would become a bigger threat than ever, and Hussien's slaughter of his own people in the past would seem like a picnic compared to the vengance, for not remaining loyal, he would dish out to his people once back in power! While the increased slaughter and torture escalated, the U.N., as usual, would do nothing!

Meanwhile, the message of Kerry's retreat would resound world-wide: America does not havre the resolve to stay in a war, even for their very own survival! You can outlast them - even their own politicians will assist us in convincing their own country that they can not win and must accept their fate! Their defeat is a foregone conclussion - America is weak and ripe for the taking! The 'new roman Empire' is on the verge of burning and collapse! Terrorist attacks against this country would escalate, and more and more would be perpetrated right here at home!

Kerry would have nominated another butt-kissing 'Yes-man' instead of the stern Bolton to the U.N., giving the corrupt U.N. full authority to make decisions about America's security while continuing to rake in the money from the Oil-for-food Scandal, which would not have beendiscovered/reported!

No, no visions of puppies running around in Iraq....but things would have been completely different!
 
Last edited:
If the liberals would have been in charge back in 1776 until now, we'd still be a colony.
 
easyt65 said:
No, if Kerry would have won,

America does not havre the resolve to stay in a war, even for their very own survival! ...

If we start a war based on misreprestantion and mistake, that is wrong and harming our interest, should we have resolve to continue it indefinitely?
 
Last edited:
Alias said:
If the liberals would have been in charge back in 1776 until now, we'd still be a colony.

I think you have that backwards.
 
Alias said:
If the liberals would have been in charge back in 1776 until now, we'd still be a colony.

16 un-educated opinions and counting.

Liberals were in charge that is why we are an independent nation from England. The conservative traditional way would have been to stay colonies.
 
Alias said:
If the Iraqi was fighting America who is there with the permission of the government of Iraq, then the Iraqi is a criminal. End of pipe dream.

Really wow, I didn't know the Iraqi government gave us permission to fight in Iraq. I thought the government was allowed to form because we were already in Iraqi and the government would fall if we left so they really don't have a choice for us to be there or not.

You learn something new everyday. :rolleyes:
 
easyt65 said:
You mean 17! :lol:

I would have to assume you cleverly inputted my post into your total count.

If you disagree that the founding fathers of this nation were not-traditionalist, which is the definition of a conservative, please elabroate your thoughts we can deliberate.
 
Gibberish said:
I would have to assume you cleverly inputted my post into your total count.

If you disagree that the founding fathers of this nation were not-traditionalist, which is the definition of a conservative, please elabroate your thoughts we can deliberate.

If it is not an undeniable FACT and can be debated, then it must fall under the category of 'opinion', doesn't it? I just think that the Founding Fathers thought of themselves as Americans, not being wrapped up as much as we are today with labeling themselves as conservative, liberal, Republican, or Democrat! They did what they did for God and country, not party-1st, which is what seems to be the trend/norm today.

As far as being un-educated, I guess that could be open to debate as well but not an issue I am questioning.
 
easyt65 said:
If it is not an undeniable FACT and can be debated, then it must fall under the category of 'opinion', doesn't it? I just think that the Founding Fathers thought of themselves as Americans, not being wrapped up as much as we are today with labeling themselves as conservative, liberal, Republican, or Democrat! They did what they did for God and country, not party-1st, which is what seems to be the trend/norm today.

I definitely agree that we can not know for sure on their political agenda. This is because, as you stated, their political motivation was for love of the country and not a party based agenda.

Alias stated that if the founding fathers were Liberal, America today would be a colony of England. This is in fact by definition and action, untrue. Revolting against the mainstream tradition, which is what they did to found America, would be seen today as a liberal act. So therefore in this instance they would be liberals and not conservatives.

yes of course this is only my logical-opinion with the facts that are provided. No one can know for sure short of going back in time and personally asking one of the founding fathers.
 
Iriemon said:
If we start a war based on misreprestantion and mistake, that is wrong and harming our interest, should we have resolve to continue it indefinitely?
Perhaps. But you're making emotional allegations. Who decides if misrepresentations and mistakes were made? You? Me? Who decides what was wrong or harmful? It's emotional opinion, sour grapes. It doesn't mean anything.
 
KCConservative said:
Perhaps. But you're making emotional allegations. Who decides if misrepresentations and mistakes were made? You? Me? Who decides what was wrong or harmful? It's emotional opinion, sour grapes. It doesn't mean anything.

Fair enough, though I wasn't making any emotional allegations or making any opinion, but asking a hypothetical question. I was trying to gauge based on the statement about withdrawal from an action showing lack of resolve mean that we should never withdraw from any action because of that concern; even if the war was based on misrepresentation and a mistake and was harming our interest.
 
Iriemon said:
But you forgot ... the rest of the story.

The "terrorist," who was really an Iraqi who, for some bizarre reason, just didn't agree with the concept of a foreign power forceably occupying his country, had hit the kitty by accident; he was really shooting at the foreign invader. The "terrorist" had a wife and three sons, aged 9, 11, and 16 -- who before the US invastion had had little opinion on Americans, actually kind of admired them -- became understandably bitter, and vowed to revenge the murder of their father, no matter how long it took. It didn't help that their beloved kitty, a family pet for years, was also dead.

The 16 year old volunteered with a radical Islamic sect who really were terrorists, and was killed when he stapped a bomb to himself and gave up his life trying to blow up a bunch of the foreign invaders at a road stop. The 11 year old was blown up by the US bombing campaign in late 2007, when the Bush Administration, in a desparate attempt to do something about the continuing resistance before the 2008 elections, ordered the large scale bombing of several Iraqi cities. In the year 2022, the 9 year old, now aged 25, gave up his life when he set off a chemical bomb in Atlanta, Geogia, spewing Anthrax in a 5 mile radius around the city, killing thousands.

Now you know the rest of the story. And yes, it is sad.

Don't you libs have anything better to do than to sympathize with the enemy?
 
Gibberish said:
Really wow, I didn't know the Iraqi government gave us permission to fight in Iraq. I thought the government was allowed to form because we were already in Iraqi and the government would fall if we left so they really don't have a choice for us to be there or not.

You learn something new everyday. :rolleyes:

Would you rather that Sodamn Insane was still in power instead of a freer Iraqi gov't?
 
Donkey1499 said:
Don't you libs have anything better to do than to sympathize with the enemy?

I'm sorry. I know it is so much easier to think of war as really cool when you imagine that the only people getting blown away are "evil terrorists," as opposed to some guy who is fighting for his country or his people and who has a family and kids.

I'll try to be more considerate of your fantasy in the future.
 
Donkey1499 said:
Would you rather that Sodamn Insane was still in power instead of a freer Iraqi gov't?

Put it this way: Whould I rather have Hussein in power than this mistaken invasion and the consequences it has and will cause? Hell yes.
 
Iriemon said:
I'm sorry. I know it is so much easier to think of war as really cool when you imagine that the only people getting blown away are "evil terrorists," as opposed to some guy who is fighting for his country or his people and who has a family and kids.

I'll try to be more considerate of your fantasy in the future.

What country IS he fighting for, by the way?
 
Iriemon said:
Put it this way: Whould I rather have Hussein in power than this mistaken invasion and the consequences it has and will cause? Hell yes.

I pity you. You'd rather have a brutal dictator in power than a free gov't? Maybe you'll get your wish IF Hillary is elected in 08'.
 
Back
Top Bottom