THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

It may not be about color, but the articles has eight "blacks" in it. Maybe, black isn't a color.

Yes. You want any more analysis or comment from me about that? Presumably not.

You think? Substitute "satirise" for "demonize" and you've got it 100%.

It amuses me how "liberal" is one of the worst things you can be labelled, in some sections of the USA.

Go ahead, McT, give it your best shot.

But there is a subtext about the racism that is behind a lot of the criticism of Obama. Many of the people that criticize Obama's policies are the very people that spam racist emails about Obama amongst themselves and to others. My brother in law is one of them. The lists of emails that they forward these emails to are pretty extensive.

Maybe its because liberals are responsible for some of the most outlandish, silly, and bizarre policies ever tried, McTag, have you thought of that? Things like liberal judges that allow a burglar to sue a business when he falls through an unsafe roof in process of him burglarizing that business, or remember the case of the woman suing McDonalds for hot coffee spilling on her and burning her? Surely a liberal thought process was at the basis of that case, we all know that here. Or how about liberals claiming illegal immigrants can reap many of the benefits of the welfare and educational system that American citizens are entitled to, thus helping break the bank here. California is a prime example of liberalism run amok in many different ways, and the state is virtually bankrupt because of it.

I could go on with many many more examples, but suffice it to say that any reaonable person with any common sense can see that liberalism is just stupid much of the time, when applied to common sense issues. How Democrats can cloak liberalism into something that can win elections is a mystery to me, but no small reason is a mainstream media that mis-reports, under-reports, and twists the news on a daily basis. If that was not happening, liberalism would never have gained any degree of respectability to speak of, but even with a compliant main stream media, a large portion of the people see liberalism for the stupidity and unrealism that it is.

Is "here" the same place where everyone knows that Hitler was a leftist and that the Taliban are socialists?

I can see how this works. You just think of any idea or event which is stupid, and label it "liberal".

And yet in the political history of this country, were is not for the Liberal Party we would have no national pensions, health service, holidays with pay or unemployment benefits. Poor relief is not left to the cold hand of charity, nowadays. The Workhouse is closed.
Left to the conservatives, we would still be sending children to sweep chimneys and down coal mines.

That's ridiculous Mac. The national pensions, health service, holidays with pay, unemployment benefits and poor relief have come about because of improvements in industrial efficiency, the necessity of the elite to have a fit and contented population to defend it and to consume the products and services of that industrial complex. The Liberals simply rode the coat tails and tried, successfully in your case, to claim the credit.

There's nothing the Liberals can do without the increased industrial efficiency or with it if the population is in the workhouse or sweeping the chimneys of the rich. If they get too big for their boots as a result of the praise you are handing them they can do a lot of damage.

More nonsense as usual. And of course probably according to you, without liberals, blacks would have no rights now as well, never mind the fact that Lincoln, Eisenhower, and probably Martin Luther King were Republicans, which are some of the historical stalwarts in that issue, and it has been Republicans that have stood up for individual rights and responsibilities. As Spendi points out, when liberals see a political avenue to power, they use it, and now one of the avenues is race hustling and buying votes in whatever group they can identify.

Its group think, big government for all, and that was Hitler to a tee. And the Taliban clearly have socialist and fascist aspects to their philosophy, that should be obvious. Fascism and radical Islam do have some similarities, oe. Perhaps that is why Heinrich Himmler admired Islam, is that possible oe?

I understand why you cannot abide anyone making the obvious comparisons because it gores your ox, oe, but the truth is liberating, try it, it is liberating.

http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/3964

okie, How can you be "liberated," when you complain about everything Obama does? You are a slave by every definition of the word.

No, the "historical stalwart" in the abolition of the slave trade is William Wilberforce, a "liberal".
And of couse, one man's "individual rights" are usually another man's problem . Society functions best with universal rights and responsibilities recognised and respected by all.

Funny thing. It seems to me that it's always the most kooky people who claim to know "the truth", and that, if we only came around to share their point of view, it would be "liberating". You know, people like Mormons, 9/11 truthers or radical Islamists.

oe, Well stated, but okie will miss the irony of his own statement.

And liberals? Face it, oe, almost everyone thinks they have the inside track on what is true and accurate, but some have it and some don't. Obviously everyone on this forum, including you, thinks they are correct. But liberals have this elitist attitude that only they are impartial, somehow they are correct by riding the fence, making the world gray, you see everything in gray, thus you are the arbitor of truth, and Obama is a perfect illustration of that elitist mindset, he claims to be superior and above the fray by looking down on everyone elses opinion as being too dogmatic, too judgemental, too right.

Face it, if you stand for nothing, you fall for anything. It was the giants of history, like Winston Churchill, that condemned evil and made a stand for what was true and right, they are the people that preserved some semblance of liberty and decency from the liberal leftists, socialists, fascists, and communists of the world.

P.S. Funny you mention Mormons, I am no Mormon, but I do business with Mormons and they have a right to their religious beliefs, and I know of none that are forcing their beliefs on the rest of us, in fact most are law abiding, tax paying, good citizens of this country, the ones that live here.

Hmmm, Wilberforce it turns out was a very wealthy man (evil greedy guy according to liberals) and a very religious man (religious right whacko according to liberals), and there is no doubt that one foundational principle of conservatism is individual rights, liberty, and individual responsibility, so freeing the slaves was a conservative belief, as defined by what we consider modern conservatism. That is why Abe Lincoln was not only a champion of freeing slaves but a Republican. So I think Wilberforce had to be a conservative as defined by how we would define it in modern day terms. A quick scan of the internet reveals alot of disagreement over Wilberforce's political bent, but I see that both sides claim him, but liberals claiming something like that is typical, they have done the same thing with civil rights here in the U.S., but it is clear that the Democrats are the party of classifying and grouping, and race hustling for their own benefit, after the fact.

http://www.brycchancarey.com/abolition/wilberforce.htm

Only people who can support their claims with credible evidence are the ones who are accurate and believable. Your opinion lacks not only credible sources, but it lacks common sense and logic. You arrive at conclusions nobody else will touch; a clue you never seem to appreciate or understand.

Well, considering that a good number of 9/11 conspiracy nuts probably considered themselves "liberals" - yes, quite a few liberals, too. I just don't agree with the notion that everyone on one particular side of the political spectrum (and that's subscribing to the silly idea that there are just two sides) can be lumped together. I really, really try to avoid blanket statements like "all conservatives are [fill in insult of the day]", and likewise I think that accusing all "liberals" of something or even suggesting that all liberals necessarily subscribe to the same set of ideas is just silly.



I know that I have my opinion on issues, but that doesn't mean that this opinion cannot be changed. I appreciate discussions based on facts - preferably verifiable facts -, even if those facts contradict some of the beliefs or opinions I hold.

Then again, if somebody shows up and claims "Hey, that woman that sued McDonald's must have been a liberal" without any evidence whatsoever, I'm very unlikely to be persuaded.



I will readily admit that I'm often unable to say whether a certain course of action in a certain situation is right or wrong. I don't think that that makes me more impartial or anything. Sometimes it just takes a while to form an opinion, and in a situation where I don't have a good grip on at least the basic facts, I'm definitely more reluctant to take sides merely because someone I would otherwise support is propagating a certain course of action.



Maybe. I just think that it's really idiotic to claim that all the truth is to be found on one side, and all the lies are to be found on the other side. I'll give you an example: I generally approve of a policy or a course of action that would bring down the number of abortions. I also approve of abolishing the death penalty. I believe that by doing so, I absolutely stand for something. I also believe that those two things are completely in line with each other and should be represented in the same political platform - yet, in the American political system, you will usually find one party supporting one thing and opposing the other and vice versa.
Another example: I believe in the "you broke it, you own it" approach to the current military conflicts America is involved in. Even though I thought of the plans to invade Iraq as a misguided, foolish and ill-planned neoconservative idiocy, I also think that once you've wreaked havoc upon a country, you have at least some kind of obligation to try and fix things up. In that regard, I have to admit that the 2007 surge in Iraq was precisely part of such an effort, and I'm hoping that Obama's current, similar strategy for Afghanistan might have positive results there. Again, I find that those two things are completely in line with each other, but you'll find people who glorified the surge in Iraq denigrating Obama when he makes a similar effort in Afghanistan, and you'll find that people who fiercely opposed any kind of additional effort in Iraq and insisted on bringing the troops back immediately will support Obama when he's effectively prolonging the Afghanistan mission.

Pish-tosh and piffle. You seem to use the word "liberal" to mean anything you don't agree with, which is pretty arbitrary and meaningless you must admit. I'll leave you to your anti-liberal leanings.