Where is the Outrage?

[Dr Wogga]

No comments from the liberal big-mouths regarding the discovery of a warehouse full of stashed medical supplies that could have kept Iraq's hospitals stocked for 6 to 12 months. This is almost as much an outrage as the mass graves being discovered almost daily for the thousands of Iraqis slaughtered by Sadaam's family and secret police and yet, not a peep!!! Hmmmm - this is part of the double standard the good Dr constantly harps about. The lefty commies talk constantly about the murdering of innocents, but only by the U.S. - and let's be serious, more narrowly, by Bush. I watched Peter scumbag Jennings the other night on a newscast, and golly gee........although 70% of America backs the president and supports the war, the complete slant of Jennings' newscast was in support of his anti-Bush, anti-US slant. Now, if ABC news wanted to be fair (they aren't), why wouldn't the program reflect the views of the f#cki^g MAJORITY???? Oh no. A card-carrying commie canadian scumbag like Jennings couldn't do that. No sir! And ABC bends over for him. Pathetic!!
Anyway the good news for my side is that the left finally has someone that scares them. Yes, Bush scares the be-jesus out of them. Someone without politically-correct gonads actually scares them. Know why?? Because it is becoming completely apparent that the average working-class American doesn't share the liberal view of "What's best for us" - we don't want the elitist intellectuals telling us "What is right. How we should think. Who is wrong" And guess what else? The liberal perspective is becoming more and more the MINORITY. And I enjoy the liberals angst. Love it to pieces. 70-30 - ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!!!Get used to it lefties. For everyone else, by all means, please continue to boycott french, canadian, german, mexican, turkish, russian, and chinese products. I do and am proud to say it. Boycott, boycott, boycott, and won't stop boycotting. God, it must just suck to be a liberal.

[David Steele]

[Parmenides]

[scalf]

/forums/images/icons/blush.gif wogga tells it like it is...jennings is an iciclehead who did not even graduate from high school..., but he is photogenic...and says what the bosses tell him to..jmho.gl /forums/images/icons/crazy.gif /forums/images/icons/cool.gif /forums/images/icons/diamond.gif

[Cyrus]

But that's non all.

JMHO.

[nicky g]

[Dr Wogga]

....liberals are feeling VERY threatened right about now. france is starting to feel uneasy - check out today's CNN.com as Colin Powell goes on the attack against the scumbag french. The Hollywood elitists a-holes are feeling it as well - check out the garbage ratings ms sarandan and co. received the other night. The liberals have had it all their way for far too long. We next have to clean up the colleges and universities, which are nothing more than breeding grounds for far-left extremists, preying on far too many young minds. Maybe if they tried TEACHING instead of preaching, we'd all be better off???? Oh that's right, the inspections WERE WORKING..............liberal dopes

[gilly]

Being new to this board I will first say that I am a young "liberal" who will always support my country. May not agree with everything we do and I may think that W has the intelect of a 7 year old but that is my right. Now onto my post.

What are you talking about? You are talking about liberals being extreme? You make it sound as if liberals support Sadam in Iraq. They do not. Many of them were against the war but that is completely different.

ALSO, let me point out that 70% of the people in this country support the president (according to these polls) so that suggests that many liberals, including myself, are also supporting our troops and president in this time of war.

Another thing you speak of colleges as a "breeding grounds for far-left extremists". First this is over-stated. Second maybe this because an educated and well thought out view tends towards liberalism.

[Dr Wogga]

...."because an educated and well-thought out view tends toward liberalism" - This is the statement of an arrogant A-hole. Period. You are no more educated than me. Your world view isn't BETTER than mine. Don't talk DOWN TO ME from your liberal tower. The average person in the USA is rejecting the left-wing ideology - the signs are all over the place. The liberals were WRONG about the war. The liberals can't bring themselves to admit this, choosing instead to parse words and tell us how THEY have a more "educated and thought out view point." Spare us your arrogant crap. If you want to discuss how some liberals can become more mainstream and moderate, rather than leaning toward the radical left - fine. Let's debate. But, don't tell me that you are more educated, hence your liberal view point is more thought out - its not. You're not. Get over yourself.

[gilly]

That is funny. I said that line somewhat jokingly. I do not believe that liberals are smart and conservatives are dumb. Or that liberals are more educated. As a matter of fact making any kind of stereotype along those lines is assanine. It really was meant as a joke rather than a point of view.

First of all there is no right and wrong. War is bad. I think everyone will agree with that. A lot of people die and that is never a good thing. So the question is, do the benefits outweigh the costs. It will take a smarter man then me to answer this question. All I know is I will support what my country does and never turn my back on people that are fighting for our country. This in no way makes me less of a liberal.

You keep referring to the "radical left". Lets get away from the topic of war for a second because like I said there are plenty of liberals who are not out on the streets protesting. How do you define a "radical left" point of view.

[Dr Wogga]

....for starters, those groups or individuals who are so determined to make their point or push their agenda in my face, that they end up taking away MY rights. Inconveniences ME. e.g. a greenpeace demonstration where the activist loonies hang from bridges during rush hour. I'm on my way home from work and need to pick up my kid. This costs me money (gas, extended childcare) as well as time; adds pollution he air THEY claim to be so worried about [of course pollution is irrelevent here - understand, that's not this week's protest]; causes tax payers money to be spent on police and emergency service O.T. To be fair, this is no different than the right-wing loonies who hole up on some isolated farm in Idaho and shoot it out with the "government" - causing some of the same problems I have with the greenpeace nut-nicks. I also beleive protesting against the war, while it is going on, is radical left. I believe these demonstrations, most led by the hollywood elitists, give aid and comfort to the enemy and attempt (if not succeed in some instances) to demoralize our troops. I would also include in this bunch, those idiots who publicly wish for their own troops to be killed and maimed, which would give credence to their anti-war stance. OTOH, I do find some liberals (even a few in the media no less) that fully support our troops once a decision has been made to go to war. They argue their beliefs up until that time, and then re-commence once our troops are safely home. This is more than spirit of dissent that I believe that helps keeps the USA the greatest country in the world.

[andyfox]

I'm a lefty and I'm not scared at all by Bush. He's an incompetent lightweight. No, the real scary people are the hardliners who are pushing more wars. Both Newt Gingrich and Tom Delay recently gave speeches excoriated the State Dept. The president's spokesman had to denounce those speeches.

The situation is very reminiscent of the McCarthyism of the 1950s. (Note that the good doctor calls those who disagree with him communists.) The state department then too was blamed for being too soft, for "losing" China. It was purged of many people who were knowledgable about Southeast Asia and the result was the disaster of Vietnam.

The biggest problem may be that the opposition is also incompetent. With the exception of the politically defrocked Gary Hart, there's little intelligent or cogent analysis or prescription by any Democract of any stature.

By the way, do you have any evidence that Mr. Jennings is a member of the Communist Party? Or that I am?

[Clarkmeister]

Well, you do bear a passing resemblence to Teddy KGB. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[MMMMMM]

"First of all there is no right and wrong."

There is right and wrong: mathematically and scientifically speaking it exists beyond a doubt, and yes, even morally speaking it exists in some instances. For instance I don't think it could be argued that needless and deliberate acts of great cruelty are not "wrong" or "bad."

"War is bad. I think everyone will agree with that."

War includes bad things, but if in certain cases it saves lives on balance and prevents continuing cruelties, then it may be good overall in these cases. For instance resisting Nazi aggression in WWII was a good thing overall even though it involved many bad things.

"A lot of people die and that is never a good thing."

What if it sometimes saves more people from dying than it kills, and reduces the overall cruelty index? (A good example of this is the recent war in Iraq--if we extrapolate Saddam's murder of his own citizens over the next two decades--or even a much lesser period of time-- this should be obvious, and it should be obvious that getting rid of mass torture facilities and child jails is a good thing too).

[gilly]

Please re-read my post. I do not mind people not agreeing with me but atleast try and understand what I am saying.

I did not make a blanket statement that there is no right and wrong in any situation. There are plenty of things that are right and wrong. I was just pointing to this example as one where there is no clear cut answer.

Also, you really did not read what I said about war and killing. These things are always bad. No one wants war. IN WWII stoping Nazi aggression was a "good" thing. However, it would have been much better if that war was never fought (ie no Hitler). Read where I said you must weigh the costs Vs. the benefits. My point was that sometimes you must do something that is bad (ie war) to achieve a greater good.

[MMMMMM]

OK, I went back and reread your post.

The way you began a paragraph with the sentence "First of all there is no right and wrong.", led me to believe you were making a blanket statement, especially since there was no clear modification of this statement.

I also do see where you mentioned weighing costs vs. benefits when it comes to war.

I guess what threw me for a loop was that the paragraph referenced above had several very definite-sounding, unmodified statements in it--which I took to be your positions. Apparently I took these words more literally than you may have meant them, and as stand-alone statements: I also may not have sufficiently considered any modifying implications of other sentences or paragraphs you wrote.

I suspect that many others might also have thought you were making a general statement with the quote above--if you go back and look it over from the perspective of someone who does not already know how you meant it, you might see where others could possibly become a bit confused or misled as to your meaning. I think that somehow at least that first sentence of the paragraph does have a bit of a "stand-out" or "stand-alone" quality to it, even if you meant it entirely within a context. However I take some blame for my response to your "war is bad" statement as you rather clearly meant that in a larger context.

[andyfox]

Yeah, well I don't think that Ace kkkkkhhhelped you. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

[ACPlayer]

Forget it bud. Nobody is at home and they certainly are not listening. You will not get thru.